Sitting of 29 July 1943

Preamble
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL WAR EFFORT

    Women (Husbands' Businesses)
    Mr. Summersasked the Minister of Labour whether he will refrain from calling up or directing to other work married women who are maintaining their husbands' businesses during their absence in the Forces in cases where the businesses would have to close down if the wives were not allowed to carry on?
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): Before action is taken to withdraw a woman in these circumstances, she is given an opportunity of applying for her case to be considered on grounds of exceptional business hardship.
    Mr. Summers: Will the Minister give more guidance to the tribunals dealing with this question, as great hardship is caused, not only to the individuals who are called up, but to those who are dependent upon them?
    Mr. Bevin: I think the instructions are fairly explicit.

    Coalmines (Boys)
    Mr. Ness Edwardsasked the Minister of Labour (1) whether any consultation took place with the Mineworkers' Federation before the policy of 'conscripting boys of 16 years for the mines was announced;
    (2) whether his proposals to conscript boys for the mines is confined to those residing in the mining areas or to any particular section of the community in any area;
    (3) whether he proposes to obtain the sanction of Parliament for the purpose of giving effect to his policy of conscripting boys of 16 years of age for the mines?
    Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Minister of Labour (1) under what authority he has decided to direct young persons at 16 years of age to work underground; whether, in doing so, he proposes to take into account young persons who are in apprenticeship; whether it is intended to direct them from all classes of society and occupations; and whether directions will be issued to persons who will be compelled to live away from home;
    (2) whether it is intended to direct youths of r6 years of age to work underground who are students under instruction in educational institutions?
    Mr. Fosterasked the Minister of Labour the penalties he proposes to apply to boys of 16 years of age who refuse to obey directions to work in the mines; and under what statutory or other authority he imposes those penalties?
    Mr. Thorneycroftasked the Minister of Labour whether it is his intention in directing boys of 16 years of age to work in coalmines to include those in attendance at public schools and other educational institutions?
    Mr. Bevin: I would ask hon. Members to await a statement I propose to make at the end of Questions.

    Workers (Transference)
    Sir Robert Youngasked the Minister of Labour whether he will instruct his officials to make known to the workers in a certain aircraft factory in the North-West area the steps to be taken in transferring them to other work, as certain workers, applying for their release to go to other positions, have been told nothing can be done as nothing has been definitely settled, and that this uncertainty is causing much complaint among the workers there; and to what extent unemployment is increasing in the adjacent districts?
    Mr. Bevin: At a meeting with representatives of the workers, held on 23rd July, my officers explained the steps which were to be taken to transfer redundant workers to other work. In reply to the last part of the Question, there has been no appreciable change in the numbers registered as unemployed in the adjacent districts.
    Mr. Goldie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that skilled girls who have been working on aircraft in this factory are now being put into positions as cleaners, bus

    1755
    conductors, and private servants? Cannot he do something to ensure that skilled workers are offered skilled work?
    Mr. Bevin: I will look into that matter.
    Sir R. Young: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to dissipate these tendentious reports about the increasing amount of unemployment in the district? They must be circulated with some specific purpose.
    Mr. Bevin: I will look into it.
    Sir Irving Alberyasked the Minister of Labour to what extent has the machinery for transferring workers from one district to another been improved, resulting from the special investigation recently undertaken with this object in view?
    Mr. Bevin: The special investigation to which my hon. Friend refers resulted in a large number of adjustments being recommended on points of detail. These have been carried out so far as it was practicable to do so.

    Domestic Service
    Mrs. Cazalet-Keirasked the Minister of Labour whether he is yet in a position to make a statement with regard to organising a service of domestic workers?
    Mr. Bevin: I would ask my hon. Friend to await the statement I propose to make later, which will include a reference to this problem.

    Labour Officers (Factories)
    Sir I. Alberyasked the Minister of Labour whether greater use is now being made of older men and women as labour officers in factories?
    Mr. Bevin: While I have no definite information on the point raised by my hon. Friend, I am sure that the shortage of competent persons in this field will ensure proper consideration being given to the claims of older candidates.
    Sir I. Albery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this was one of the recommendations of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, and that the reply from his Department seemed to convey that it would receive attention?

  MERCHANT NAVY (PENSION)
  Mr. Bernard Taylorasked the Minister of Pensions the reason for refusing a pension to Mr. K. T. Brewster, of Rainworth, Nottinghamshire, having regard to the fact that prior to entering the Merchant Service he enjoyed good health and on several occasions was declared fit for service and graded A.1; and will he review the case with a view to the granting of a pension?
  The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): I regret that I am unable to reverse the decision in this case, the reasons for which have already been fully explained to the hon. Member in writing.

  AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT, DOWNSIDE (COMPENSATION)
  Mr.' Stokesasked the Minister of Pensions the compensation to be awarded to the Downside boy under the age of 15 years who lost both his legs as the result of the direct disobedience of orders of officers of the Fleet Air-arm, which resulted in the death of nine boys and injury to 17, II of them seriously?
  Sir W. Womersley: A boy with this degree of disablement is eligible for pension at the rate of 20s. a week on attaining the age of 15, increasing to 40s. a week at the age of 18. He is, of course, eligible for free medical treatment for the effects of his injury, including the provision of artificial limbs.
  Mr. Stokes: Does my right hon. Friend really think that rate of compensation adequate? This injury was caused by gross negligence and disobedience to orders, and was not really an act of war as such. Therefore; the rate of compensation should be altogether different.
  Sir W. Womersley: This is the same compensation as is paid to all. I have nothing whatever to do with the latter part of the Supplementary; it is not my affair at all.
  Sir Herbert Williams: Is it not the case that if any hon. Member of this House, in his personal capacity, had caused the accident, he could have been sued and compelled to pay more than the sum payable under the Act of September, 1939?
  Sir W. Womersley: That, again, is not a question for me.
  Mr. Stokes: Is not the only solution for the parents of these boys to bring a civil action against the surviving pilot?
  Sir W. Womersley: I have no comment to make on that.

  INDIA

    Journalists (Visit to Great Britain)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for India what consideration has been given to the possibility of Indian editors or responsible journalists representative of all parties visiting this country?
    The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): The Government of India are investigating the proposal, but I understand that the practical difficulties are likely to be considerable.
    Mr. Sorensen: Are the practical difficulties any greater in respect of India than they are in respect of West Africa or the West Indies? Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it highly desirable that, as evidence has come from those two Colonies, similar arrangements might be made in regard to India?
    Mr. Amery: Transport from India by sea is very much longer than that from either of the places mentioned by the hon. Member, and transport by air is very difficult to secure.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman still investigating the matter; and, if so, will he give some report at a later date?
    Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir. I have asked the Government of India. They are investigating the problem, and will no doubt let me know before long.

    Mr. Gandhi
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for India whether Mr. Gandhi has asked for permission, or made any other attempt, to write to the Viceroy or the Secretary of State since March last; and whether the Viceroy or the Secretary of State has communicated with Mr. Gandhi or any Congress leader?
    Mr. Richardsasked the Secretary of State for India whether there has been
    1758
    any recent correspondence between Mr. Gandhi and the Viceroy or between Mr. Gandhi and the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Parkerasked the Secretary of State for India whether Mr. Gandhi has asked for permission, or made any other attempt to write to the Viceroy or the Secretary of State since March last; and whether any such permission has been granted or withheld?
    Mr. Amery: The answer is in the negative. Letters have, however, passed from time to time between Mr. Gandhi and the Home Department of the Government of India, but I am not prepared to disclose their number or their contents.
    Mr. Sorensen: Could we have no idea of whether the communications were of a political nature, making any representations or any protests?
    Mr. Amery: No, Sir. In view of the circumstances of Mr. Gandhi's arrest, the Government of India decided that he should not be afforded any opportunity of expressing or conveying his views to the public, either in India or through me.
    Mr. Sorensen: How then can the public form any opinion on the views Mr. Gandhi has about the present situation?
    Mr. Amery: It is not desired that they should.

    Fourth Indian Division (Visit of Representatives)
    Captain Gammansasked the Secretary of State for India what progress has been made with the proposal to bring representatives of the Fourth Indian Division to this country?
    Mr. Amery: I am glad to be able to inform the hon. and gallant Member that arrangements are now being made for a party representative of all ranks of the Fourth Indian Division, both British and Indian, to visit this country.
    Colonel Arthur Evans: Is it possible to arrange at a subsequent stage for the representatives of this gallant Indian division also to visit the United States?
    Mr. Amery: This question has been considered. The difficulty is, of course, that this division is engaged in active operations, and the length of time involved in their crossing the Atlantic might make it difficult to spare them.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does the visit of these representatives mean that the difficulties of transport have been overcome in this case? Anyhow, will they be able to express their views when they arrive here?
    Mr. Amery: This division is not in India, but in North Africa. They will be here to say something about the wonderful things they have done in this war, and not to ventilate political questions, which I imagine do not interest them.
    Mr. R. J. Taylor: Will all ranks be represented?
    Mr. Amery: Yes, sir.

    Food Grains (Imports)
    Mr. Barstowasked the Secretary of State for India the total quantity of food grains sent to India from this country, the United States of America and Australia since January, 1943?
    Mr. Amery: I regret that particulars of individual commodities from the countries named are not made public.

    Soviet Day (Celebration)
    Mr. Messerasked the Secretary of State for India why permission was refused for the celebration of Soviet Day on 22nd June in Coconada?
    Mr. Amery: I have no information, but I will make inquiries.

    Provincial Government Ministers (Moslem League)
    Mr. Dobbieasked the Secretary of State for India which of the Provincial Governments represent a coalition of parties or groups; how many are formed exclusively by Moslem League members or under its leadership; what proportion of these Ministers are recent adherents of the Moslem League, or other political group whom they claim to represent; and how many have met the Assembly concerned and sought or received any expression of confidence?
    Mr. Amery: All the Ministries in the six Provinces in which the normal constitution is functioning are based on coalitions of parties or interests. Five of them are headed by Ministers who belong to the Moslem League. Except in Sind, where two Ministers joined the League last autumn, I am not aware that any of the Moslem Ministers have only recently joined the League. I have no information
    1760
    that a vote of confidence has been withheld from any of these Ministries. The recently-formed Ministry in the North-West Frontier Province has yet to meet the Legislature.

    Anti-Fascist Committees
    Mr. Dobbieasked the Secretary of State for India what information he has concerning the establishment in recent months of anti-Fascist committees on a popular basis; the nature and extent of the propaganda; how widespread they are in Bengal; and whether these activities have been subjected to police investigations?
    Mr. Amery: I have no official information but am prepared to make inquiries if the hon. Member will let me know what he has in mind.

    Census (Publication)
    Mr. Rileyasked the Secretary of State for India what part of the Indian Census Record, 1941, has been published in India?
    Mr. Amery: In addition to tables for individual Provinces, States and Agencies published last year, Part I of Volume I of the Census of India, 1941, was published in India on 31st March, 1943. So far as I am aware, no other Part has been published up to date.

  JUVENILE DELINQUENCY
  Admiral Sir William Jamesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent statistics of juvenile crime show that juvenile crime is of rare occurrence in towns where the schools are provided with playing fields and games are organised for the pupils after school hours?
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have no doubt that the best method of checking lawless activities by the young is to provide them with opportunities for other activities, and that this is one of the many advantages of providing playing fields or opportunities for games: but the point is not one which lends itself to statistical demonstration.

  MEMBER'S DETENTION
  General Sir George Jeffreysasked the Home Secretary whether he will con-

  1761
  sider giving the hon. Member for Peebles and Southern (Captain Ramsay) a little more latitude and change of scene than those in Brixton Prison where he has been for three years?
  Mr. H. Morrison: Most of the persons detained under Defence Regulation 18B are accommodated in the Isle of Man. For the few who have not been taken to the Isle of Man it has not been practicable to make better provision than is available in certain prison establishments. I have not heard that the hon. and gallant Member for Peebles and Southern (Captain Ramsay) would prefer the Isle of Man, and before taking any decision I should take account, as I do in other cases, of any representations he may wish to make.
  Sir G. Jeffreys: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. and gallant Member in question was both a gallant and a loyal officer in the last war and that he shed his blood for his country—
  Mr. Leslie: What has he done since?
  Sir G. Jeffreys:—and does he think that his continued close detention is justified?
  Mr. Morrison: With great respect—
  Mr. Speaker: We cannot re-open the merits of this case.

  SPECIAL CONSTABLES
  Mr. Bernard Taylorasked the Home Secretary whether medical examination takes place prior to a person being accepted as a special constable; and whether application may be made for discharge on grounds of domestic hardship?
  Mr. H. Morrison: I understand that the practice in regard to medical examination varies in different forces. It is open to a special constable to apply for discharge on the ground of domestic hardship, and the decision rests with the Chief Constable. If my hon. Friend has some individual case in mind, perhaps he will send me particulars.

  MARRIED WOMEN'S NATIONALITY
  Mr. Pethick-Lawreneeasked the Home Secretary whether he anticipates an early opportunity of further consultation with the Dominions with a view to seek-
  1762
  ing a way round the difficulties regarding a revision of the law relating to the nationality of married women?
  Mr. H. Morrison: Whether there will be an early opportunity for such consultation must, in present circumstances, be a matter of some uncertainty, but, as I told my hon. Friend, the matter will not be overlooked.

  INTERNEE'S SUICIDE, ISLE OF MAN
  Sir H. Williamsasked the Home Secretary whether he has any statement to make with regard to the death by suicide of Mr. Kurt Schier on 11th July in an internment camp in the Isle of Man?
  Mr. H. Morrison: An inquest was held in this case by the Coroner at Douglas, Isle of Man. He found that the cause of Mr. Schier's death was strangulation by hanging himself at a time when the balance of his mind was disturbed. The deceased had recently applied unsuccessfully for release from internment, and evidence was given at the inquest by a fellow internee who was captain of the deceased's House in the Camp, that Mr. Schier had threatened on more than one occasion during the three weeks before his death to take his life. Unfortunately these threats had not, I am informed, been brought to the notice of the Camp Leader or of any responsible person who might have taken steps to prevent the tragic occurrence.
  Sir H. Williams: Was it not the case that the deceased was informed about three weeks before that he was likely to be released, that a further communication indicated a change of decision, and that was the cause of his mental disturbance?
  Mr. Morrison: I am not aware of that fact.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: Is it not worth while inquiring what caused this man to become unbalanced and to commit suicide?
  Mr. Morrison: We cannot have any further information now than that which transpired at the inquest. I think it is clear what the circumstances were.
  Miss Rathbone: Is it not the case that this unfortunate man had complied with every request made to him and had filled

  1763
  up all sorts of forms volunteering for war service, and that he gave way to a fit of despair because his hopes had first of all been raised; and does not the whole thing point to some change in the procedure of putting in applications for release?
  Mr. Morrison: I do not think there was anything exceptional in that regard. This man was not a refugee, and there should be no misunderstanding on that point. Clearly I must do my duty by what I conceive to be the security of the State, and I cannot be deterred by the possibility of suicide.

  AIR-RAID SHELTER BRICKS (POST-WAR USE)
  Mr. Thorneasked the Home Secretary how many air-raid shelters there are in the United Kingdom above and below ground and how many bricks were used to build them; and what the Government intend doing with the bricks when the shelters are pulled down after the end of hostilities?
  Mr. H. Morrison: I am afraid the answer to my hon. Friend's Question is that I do not know.
  Mr. Thorne: Can my right hon. Friend say to whom the bricks would belong, whether the Government or the local authority?
  Mr. Morrison: In most cases they would belong to the local authority.

  NEW FIRE GUARD ORDERS
  Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Home Secretary when the new Fire Guard Orders will be signed?
  Sir John Mellorasked the Home Secretary whether he can make any statement on the present position as regards the new Fire Guard Orders?
  Mr. H. Morrison: I signed the new Orders yesterday, and they will be published with a full explanatory memorandum in the week commencing Monday, 9th August. In order to give time to the authorities and occupiers concerned to make the necessary readjustments in their arrangements, the Orders will not come into force until 20th September.
  Mr. Smith: Can the Home Secretary say whether the observations made in the last Debate were taken into consideration before these Orders were drawn up, and, if not, would he be good enough to give consideration to them before the Orders are debated in the House?
  Mr. Morrison: The points that were raised in the Debate have been taken into consideration, and indeed many of them had been taken into consideration before they were actually made in debate.
  Sir H. Williams: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that there are now only a few Sitting Days available during which an opportunity can be sought to discuss Orders set down for consideration?
  Mr. Morrison: Certainly, I think the Government are under an obligation to provide facilities for the Prayer, and, indeed, I do not think we have any option. We would not wish to exercise it if we had, and we will certainly bear that in mind.

  MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY
  Mr. Hammersleyasked the Home Secretary whether he is considering, in cases of matrimonial separation, the difficulties arising from the fact that rights as to maintenance and custody have to be determined in one court under the Summary Jurisdiction (Separation and Maintenance) Act, 1925, and property rights have to be decided in another court under the Married Women's Property Act, 1882; and whether he will take steps to mitigate the unnecessary legal expense?
  Mr. H. Morrison: To give courts of summary jurisdiction jurisdiction in disputes about the legal title to property would not be a desirable course. On the other hand, if my hon. Friend's suggestion is that courts of summary jurisdiction should cease to function in separation and maintenance cases and that their work should be transferred to county courts, I have no evidence to show that this change would be advantageous.
  Mr. Hammersley: As the right hon. Gentleman's reply seemed to indicate that the former procedure would not be desirable, will he give some indication why it is not desirable?
  Mr. Morrison: I do not think that courts of summary jurisdiction would be appropriate courts to deal with the important question of the allocation of property, in which considerable legal complications arise. On the other hand, they are eminently suitable to deal with domestic problems and difficulties between husband and wife.
  Mr. Hammersley: As this matter is one of great difficulty, would not the right hon. Gentleman consider having some inquiry within his Department as to possible improvement in procedure?
  Mr. Morrison: I have considered that, but I do not think there are before me proposals for improving procedure, and I do not think that at present we had better embark on this subject.
  Dr. Edith Summerskill: Has the right hon. Gentleman not expressed publicly his views on the economic rights of housewives?
  Mr. Morrison: Yes, I have, on certain aspects, in a daring moment, but I do not think I will walk into the matter legislatively at present.
  Mr. Messer: Would it not be dangerous to have these domestic cases in police courts?
  Mr. Morrison: On these property matters they would be quite unsuitable, but they are eminently suitable for, and do good work on, the domestic problems.

  CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
  Mr. Radfordasked the Home Secretary whether he will introduce the necessary legislation to provide protection for dumb animals which have been subjected to gross ill-treatment by their owners?
  Mr. H. Morrison: From the particulars which my hon. Friend has been good enough to send me I understand that he is concerned about a case in which a horse was left in possession of an owner who, on 22nd July, was convicted of ill-treating it and sentenced to three months' imprisonment. In any case where there is evidence of a kind suggesting that the animal may be exposed to further cruelty the Court has power to deprive the offender of his ownership; but my information is that in this particular case
  1766
  the animal has been killed, and accordingly the question of ownership no longer arises.
  Mr. Radford: While I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, does not he realise that such cases of cruelty may occur from time to time and may not all be dealt with in the way as this case has been dealt with?
  Mr. Morrison: If the circumstances were similar, they would. I appreciate my hon. Friend's point, but I think the law is as satisfactory as we can make it at the moment.
  Mr. Leach: If the right hon. Gentleman contemplates new legislation dealing with cruelty to animals, will he see to it that it covers the cruelty involved in vivi-section?
  Mr. Morrison: I do not so contemplate.

  EDUCATION

    School Meals
    Sir Charles Edwardsasked the President of the Board of Education what success has attended his request to local education authorities and the Minister of Food to undertake an accelerated programme for the expansion of school meals; why a maximum of 75 per cent. was fixed for the children who would receive these instead of such provision for every child attending school; and will he reconsider this?
    The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): There is every indication that authorities intend to accelerate to the utmost their school meals programmes in response to Circular 1629, but it is as yet too early to give a precise report. Experience suggests that provision for 75 per cent. of the children will usually be sufficient to accommodate all those whose parents wish them to have dinners at school, but I hope that authorities will exceed that figure where necessary. There are some schools in which meals are now being provided for all the children in attendance.

    Teachers (Supply)
    Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the President of the Board of Education the total number of teachers at present for which his Department is ultimately responsible; whether he can give an estimate of the

    1767
    number of teachers required to implement his plan of educational reconstruction; and, provided the education and training of such teachers is maintained at present standard, in what year he hopes to achieve the objectives of his plan?
    Mr. Butler: The present total number is approximately 200,000, including those in grant-aided, nursery, special and technical schools. Not far short of 70,000 additional teachers may ultimately be required. I shall be discussing the timetable of the reforms later to-day.
    Mr. Davies: Will the Minister make it clear, so as not to deceive the public, that these proposed reforms depend very largely upon the number of teachers trained and the building of new schools?
    Mr. Butler: I do not wish to deceive either the House or the public. I shall have an ample opportunity of developing this matter later to-day. In the meantime I am grateful to the hon. Member for his Question.
    Mr. Lipson: Is this figure of 70,000 additional teachers based on the assumption of a reduction in the size of classes?
    Mr. Butler: That is taken into consideration.

    District Committees
    Mrs. Adamsonasked the President of the Board of Education whether county district councils, having between them a population sufficient to justify them in making application for county borough powers, who apply to be allowed either to amalgamate or to establish a joint board for education purposes only, will be granted the powers of a local education authority under his proposals for educational reconstruction?
    Mr. Butler: Under the White Paper proposals powers may be delegated to district committees which in some cases will represent two or more county districts, but the authorities are to be the counties and county boroughs.
    Mrs. Adamsonasked the President of the Board of Education whether the majority of representatives on the district education committees to be appointed under his schemes for educational reconstruction will be appointed by the county council or by the county district council;
    1768
    and whether any differentiation will be made in cases where the whole or a substantial part of the area of the district education committee consists of the area of a Part III education authority?
    Mr. Butler: It is not proposed to prescribe the proportion of members of district education committees appointed by county councils and county district councils respectively. It will be for the county councils to prepare schemes for the constitution of such committees, and county district councils will be given the opportunity of making representations to the Board thereon.
    Mr. Hammersley: Will special consideration be given to the position of the Middlesex area in relation to their duties as a Part III authority?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, they have a very special problem, which is ever with me.
    Mr. Lipson: Will district committees levy the educational rate, or will that be the responsibility of the county council?
    Mr. Butler: I must have notice of that.
    Mrs. Adamsonasked the President of the Board of Education to what extent under his scheme for educational reconstruction will a county council be compelled to delegate to district education committees full powers of control over primary, secondary and higher education, respectively?
    Mr. Butler: The extent and character of the delegation to district education committees will be a matter for consideration in the first instance by the county education committee. If, however, any district committee is dissatisfied with the extent of the delegation proposed it will be able to make representations to the Board.

    Size of Classes
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsayasked the President of the Board of Education how many classes in elementary schools contained over 35 pupils on the latest date for which statistics are available?
    Mr. Butler: Owing to the necessity for reducing the collection of statistics to a minimum in war-time I am unable to give particulars for a date later than 31st March, 1938, when there were 74,455 classes containing 36 or more pupils in public elementary schools.
    Mr. Harvey: Can the Minister give any indication as to whether there has been an increase, broadly, in the number of over-crowded classes?
    Mr. Butler: It is impossible to give a generalisation, but in some cities there is a tendency for some classes to be too large.

    Russian History (Teaching)
    Miss Wardasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the one chair of Russian History in this country has been vacant since before the war; and, in view of the desire of the people of this country to have an informed knowledge of the Russian people, will he take immediate steps to provide an adequate number of chairs?
    Captain McEwen (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The filling of the Chair of Russian Language, Literature and History at the School of Slavonic and East European Studies is a matter for the authorities of the school. I understand that the reason why it is vacant is that no candidate regarded as suitable is at present available. In the meanwhile teaching has been carried on by honorary lecturers. The establishment of further chairs in Russian history would be a matter for the authorities of the various universities, who however would be bound to take into consideration the availability of sufficiently qualified candidates in a subject which has not hitherto been widely studied in this country.
    Miss Ward: Have not the Government of Great Britain some responsibility in the matter, and will the Government turn their attention to tins important question?
    Captain McEwen: I think that the question of responsibility has been acknowledged in the answer.
    Miss Ward: Then will my hon. and gallant Friend kindly do something about it?

    Slavonic and East European Studies
    Miss Wardasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the provisions for Czech, Polish, Serbian and other Slavonic studies at London University depend entirely
    1770
    upon the generosity of Allied Governments who pay grants in aid to the School of Slavonic and East European Studies; and will he, in the interests of wider educational advantages and international good will, consider examining the whole question with a view to British co-operation?
    Captain McEwen: My hon. Friend is misinformed. The School of Slavonic arid East European Studies receives a subvention from the general funds of London University, of which it forms part, and these funds, are themselves aided by a grant from the Treasury.
    Miss Ward: Will my hon. and gallant Friend find out how much is allocated to the teaching of the languages which I have indicated?
    Captain McEwen: I will endeavour to do so.
    Mr. Hannah: Must not this whole matter depend on the number of students wanting such history?

  WAR DESPATCHES (PUBLICATION)
  Mr. Stokesasked the Prime Minister why publishing despatches in connection with events in Norway in 1940 and in Greece in 1941 would now give information of value to the enemy; and whether he will assure the House that all despatches received from generals on both of those expeditions are being carefully preserved for future study?
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlle): His Majesty's Government consider that the publication of the despatches in question would give information of value to the enemy. In common with other despatches the two despatches referred to by the hon. Member are being preserved and have been studied.

  GERMAN INVASION PREPARATIONS, 1940
  Major Vyvyan Adamsasked the Prime Minister whether, as questions of security can, at this distance of time, be no longer involved, he will describe the character and extent of any attempt at the invasion of these islands made by the enemy during the summer and early autumn of 1940?
  Mr. Attlee: It is well known throughout the world that the enemy's preparations for invasion in 1940 were frustrated by the Royal Air Force. As, however, the staffs of the Service Departments are at the present time heavily engaged on current duties, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is reluctant to impose on them the additional work of preparing a detailed answer which would satisfy my hon. and gallant Friend's curiosity, without at the same time disclosing to the enemy the extent of our sources of information.
  Major Adams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I do not wish to impose any unnecessary burden on the staffs and that I was merely asking as a matter of historical interest? Will he give me this information? Can anything but good result from publishing the bare outline of the facts at this distance of time? Further, may I ask whether on 7th September, 1940, the giving of the signal "Cromwell" was intended to be actual or for exercise?
  Mr. Attlee: I should have to have notice of that question.
  Mr. Stokes: Will my right hon. Friend inform the House who drafted that impudent reply?
  Major Adams: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that every hon. Member of this House, whether he is in the Forces or not, has a perfect right to ask such Questions?
  Mr. De la B ére: Surely we are entitled to a courteous reply.

  BEVERIDGE REPORT (IMPLEMENTATION)
  Mr. W. H. Greenasked the Minister without Portfolio what progress has been made in the preparation of legislation to carry out the Government's policy of implementing the general principles of the Beveridge Report?
  The Minister without Portfolio (Sir William Jowitt): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave yesterday to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hornsey (Captain Gammans) in regard to children's allowances. I cannot make any further statement as to the
  1772
  Report as a whole beyond saying that further progress has been made in working out the details of the scheme.
  Mr. Green: Can the Minister say whether the progress which has been made is sufficient to enable him to indicate approximately when legislation is likely to be introduced dealing with any phase of the Beveridge Report?
  Sir W. Jowitt: As I explained yesterday, I am not able to say at the moment.
  Mr. Shinwell: Is it not possible for the Minister to present an interim report to the House to give Members some indication of the progress which has been made in the study of the Beveridge Report?
  Sir W. Jowitt: That matter will certainly be considered.
  Mr. Shinwell: Does the Minister mean that he intends to consider the request I have made to him, or will he give a firm reply?
  Sir W. Jowitt: I cannot give a firm reply now; I will consider the request of my hon. Friend.
  Mr. George Griffiths: Can the Minister give us any information as to when parents are to get the five shillings promised them by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? They are waiting for it.

  POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION (COMMITTEES)
  Captain Gammansasked the Minister without Portfolio whether he will cause to be published a statement showing the membership and scope of the special, Departmental and inter-Departmental Committees to whom the investigation of various aspects of post-war reconstruction has been referred and the stages reached in their investigations; and whether any approximate date can be fixed for the submission of their Reports?
  Sir W. Jowitt: I dealt with this matter in my speeches in this House on the 1st December and 22nd April last and also in my replies on l0th January and 13th April to Questions by my hon. Friends the Members for Romford (Mr. Parker) and Chester-le-Street (Mr Lawson) respectively. I do not think I can usefully add anything to these statements.
  Captain Gammans: Can the Minister give us a list of the Committees, Departmental and otherwise?
  Sir W. Jowitt: No, I think that is most undesirable. The Committees are composed simply of civil servants who have been asked to advise the Ministers on particular questions. The fact that it concerns two Departments means that two or more civil servants send in what are to all intents and purposes minutes to their Ministers.
  Captain Gammans: Are all these Committees composed of civil servants?
  Sir W. Jowitt: Yes, Sir.

  AGRICULTURE

    Service Women (Harvesting Work)
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to make some further statement regarding the numbers of personnel of the three Women's Services who are to be permitted to volunteer for harvesting work this autumn?
    The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): Members of all Services, male and female, are being encouraged to volunteer for agricultural work while they are off duty or on leave, and there are no restrictions on the number of men or women who may so volunteer.

    Golf Club Employees (Harvesting Work)
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, for purposes of assisting with the harvesting this year, he will confer with the Minister of Labour so as to permit of the county war agricultural committees, in collaboration with the Ministry of Labour, directing the large number of employees of golf clubs with agricultural experience who are at present engaged on maintenance of the fairways, for work in connection with gathering in the harvest?
    Mr. Hudson: I am already in close touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service about harvest labour requirements. The needs of food production have received wide publicity and I feel sure that all people in country districts—not only golf clubs and their employees—will appreciate the need for giving all the help they
    1774
    can. If necessary, however, I shall not hesitate to ask my right hon. Friend to direct suitable persons to undertake harvest work.
    Mr. De la Bère: Can my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that he has no instructions from the Cabinet that nothing is to be done to upset the ordinary peace-time facilities of the golf clubs who employ men on the maintenance of greens and fairways? Perhaps in view of what he said yesterday he can give us an assurance on this point.

    Italian Prisoners of War
    Mr. Bernard Taylorasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction among the farmers in the area covered by the Mansfield and Southwell Agricultural Committee arising out of the employment of Italian prisoners of war; and whether he has any proposals to remedy the situation?
    Mr. Hudson: No, Sir, but if the hon. Member will let me have particulars, I shall be glad to have further inquiries made.

  HOUSING

    Subsidies
    Mr. Craven-Ellisasked the Minister of Health whether it is intended in local authority post-war building to subsidise the house or the occupier; and on what grounds is the decision based?
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): The subsidy at present payable under the Housing Acts is related to the house and not to the occupier, As regards the future, I would refer my hon. Friend to the statements made on 3rd June and 17th March last, of which I am sending him copies.
    Mr. Craven-Ellis: Would it not be desirable that occupiers should have any subsidy which is required instead of local authorities, who selected, as they did after the last war, the best of the tenants, leaving the poorer tenants to herd into over-crowded slums?
    Mr. Brown: That raises the whole basis of the Housing Acts.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: Is it not a fact that many local authorities chose the poorer classes of people to occupy their houses?

    1775
    If the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis) wants to know where they are, let him ask me.
    Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is not what the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis) said entirely contrary to the facts?
    Mr. Brown: As I have just said, this raises the whole problem of the Housing Acts.
    Mr. McEnteeasked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to state what subsidy it is proposed to pay to local authorities on houses built by them and let to tenants at an approved rent after the war; and will he consider paying a similar subsidy to private builders provided they build houses of a standard approved by his Ministry and to be let to tenants for a period of time and at a rent laid down by him?
    Mr. Brown: The answer to both parts of the Question is "No, Sir." As regards the first part, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply, of which I am sending him a copy, which I gave last week to my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths).
    Mr. Wakefieldasked the Minister of Health whether private enterprise will be given the same subsidies as those paid to local authorities if it undertakes to clear the slums, abate overcrowding, and give preference to persons who are occupying insanitary or overcrowded houses with large families or living in unsatisfactory conditions at rents in appropriate cases similar to those charged by the local authority?
    Mr. Brown: I can assure my hon. Friend that I would not refuse to consider proposals from any responsible body willing to undertake the building of houses subject to the conditions he has mentioned. As my hon. Friend knows, the clearance of slums and the abatement of overcrowding involve matters other than the provision of new houses, and the wide powers required for these operations have been conferred by Parliament on local authorities. The difficulties of giving similar powers to non-elected bodies might well prove insuperable.

    Local Authority Houses (Ownership)
    Mr. Craven-Ellisasked the Minister of Health whether he will devise a scheme
    1776
    which will enable an occupier of a local authority house to become the absolute owner at the end of 35 to 40 years, of the house he occupies and, in the meantime, allow him to remove from one district to another, governed by his employment, without losing the right to ownership at the end of the period and so avoid the immobility which the present system of purchasing houses imposes and the unnecessary unemployment often brought about by being anchored to a particular house?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am unable to add to the replies which I gave to my hon. Friend on this subject last week.
    Mr. Craven-Ellis: Will there be no attempt whatever to give those who are now making such great sacrifices a stake in the country for which they are fighting?
    Mr. Brown: I am afraid my hon. Friend is riding two horses which do not run very well together—the narrowest possible field for building by local authorities and the greatest possible encouragement to make the sale of their houses attractive.
    Mr. Craven-Ellis: The only way of getting houses is by private enterprise.

    Empty Houses
    Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Health whether he will give power to local authorities to requisition empty houses for war workers or ex-Service men discharged for wounds or sickness in areas where there is an unsatisfied demand for houses?
    Mr. E. Brown: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement, of which I am sending him a copy, which I made in the House last week on the decisions taken by the Government on the Report made to me by a conference of representatives of the associations of local authorities and of the London County Council.
    Mr. Keeling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Report recommended only that these requisitioned houses should be available for war workers? Is it not fair that men who are discharged from the Services should also be eligible for them?
    Mr. Brown: It is much wider than the hon. Member suggests. In view of the

    1777
    present situation the Government have authorised me to delegate to local authorities power to requisition empty houses for the purpose of improving the conditions of any families which are at present inadequately housed.
    Sir Reginald Blairasked the Minister of Health whether it is still necessary to maintain so large a quota of empty houses in the Greater London area available for potential homeless persons; and whether he will consider giving directions to local authorities to make a substantial reduction of the existing quota in order to render available more accommodation for hardship cases which are not within the categories of homeless or transferred war workers?
    Mr. Brown: This matter has recently been reviewed by the Special Commissioner for the Homeless in the London region, in consultation with my Department. Any further substantial reduction in the amount of accommodation reserved for the homeless would not be justified in present circumstances. But local authorities have been asked to substitute, so far as possible, accommodation in large houses for the smaller houses now held in reserve, so that more of the smaller houses can be used for cases of hardship. I would also refer to the statement regarding measures which the Government have decided to rake to make additional accommodation available for families inadequately housed which I made in the House on Thursday last and of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.
    Mr. Hammersley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this problem is becoming very acute? Will he make some approach to local authorities to give them some practical help?
    Mr. Brown: That is exactly what we have done as the result of months of discussion.
    Sir Percy Harris: Does my right hon. Friend realise the effect on people looking for houses who see so many empty houses? Should they be made available when they are so urgently required?
    Mr. Brown: That is what we are doing but I must have regard to what is likely to arise, because if there were a heavy raid in any part and there were failure to house the homeless people, those who are now calling for one policy would then call for the opposite.
    Mr. Cluse: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that this continued reservation provides an opportunity for profiteering?
    Mr. Brown: What I have already referred to represents the Government's policy.
    Mr. Driberg: Is it the same policy for Greater London as for provincial towns?
    Mr. Brown: It will depend entirely on the advice of those responsible for civil defence in the area.
    Mr. Sorensen: When the right hon. Gentleman refers to London, does he mean the Greater London as well?
    Mr. Brown: Certainly—the London region.
    Lieut.-Colonel Dowerasked the Minister of Health whether he will give householders the facilities to repair and market their houses before local authorities may seize them for the same purpose on the grounds of their being empty?
    Sir Leonard Lyleasked the Minister of Health whether before the Summer Recess he can state the detailed instructions issued, or to be issued, to local authorities in respect of the requisitioning of empty houses for the purpose of accommodation of persons at present inadequately housed?
    Mr. Brown: As the object in mind is to ensure that suitable premises which might otherwise remain unoccupied are made available, I propose to make it clear both in my discussions with local authorities and in the circular which I shall send to them that where requisitioning is being considered in relation to any particular property the intention of the owner or tenant should be ascertained and he should be afforded an opportunity of letting or reoccupation, as the case may be, before requisitioning is applied. Any scheme for repairs will have regard to the desirability of ensuring that an owner who is willing to carry them out himself should be given every opportunity to make his own arrangements.
    Lieut.-Colonel Dower: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, because so many houses can be put in a state of repair if a more generous view is taken of the £100, which is the present limit that can be expended?
    Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he encourages the marketing of houses and the repair of these vacant houses there is a grave likelihood that on the Stock Exchange, where plenty of money is available, gambling will take place, as it has already taken place, in small property?
    Mr. Brown: That question does not arise here. The Question asks about Government policy in regard to the requisitioning of houses by local authorities.
    Lieut.-Colonel Dowerasked the Minister of Health whether he will give instructions to local authorities to grant members of His Majesty's Forces vacant possession of their houses at the conclusion of hostilities if seized by such authorities on the grounds of their being empty?
    Mr. Brown: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the difficult problem of the release, at the conclusion of hostilities, of requisitioned houses is already receiving careful consideration. It is clear that special arrangements will have to be made in respect of dwellings to which the owner, or the tenant if he has maintained his tenancy, wishes to return.
    Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that large numbers of members of His Majesty's Forces who have been called up and are serving their country have emptied their houses to escape rates and have every intention of returning to them, and that if they return to find somebody else occupying them, they will feel that they have not been treated very well?
    Mr. Brown: There are a number of such problems, and I will bear in mind what my hon. and gallant Friend says.

    Temporary Dwellings
    Mr. McEnteeasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the abnormal shortage of houses that will exist at the end of the war and the impossibility of building an adequate supply of suitable houses in a reasonable time, he has considered the desirability of pushing forward a programme of temporary dwellings to meet the needs of men and women returning to civil life from the war-time services and those needing new homes because of enemy action?
    Sir Irving Alberyasked the Minister of Health whether any emergency
    1780
    plans have been made for dealing, on a temporary basis, with the acute shortage of housing which will result after the war?
    Mr. E. Brown: As it is clear that the required number of new houses must take a considerable time to build, the possibilities of interim measures such as the erection of temporary dwellings, the adaptation of large houses for use by two or more families, and the exercise of billeting and requisitioning powers are being explored. I am bound to say, however, that experience has shown that there are weighty objections to each of these alternatives and I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the subject must be examined with great care before a decision is taken.

  ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN (STATISTICS)
  Mr. Sextonasked the Minister of Health whether he will give the total number of births for the years 1923, 1933 and 1942, stating for each year the number of births of illegitimate children?
  Mr. E. Brown: Following are the figures for England and Wales:

  Date

  Total live births

  Illegitimate live births

  1923

  …

  …

  758,131

  31,522

  1933

  …

  …

  580,413

  25,408

  1942

  …

  …

  655,075

  35,164

  PUBLIC HEALTH

    Tuberculosis
    Mr. Messerasked the Minister of Health whether he has any statistics showing the increase in the number of cases of active tuberculosis occurring among those who are house or family contacts of previously notified cases?
    Mr. E. Brown: No such statistics as my hon. Friend refers to are available; nor could they be obtained without a special inquiry of all tuberculosis authorities, and this I should not feel justified in undertaking at the present time. The risk of family infection is fully recognised and authorities are alive to the importance of making every effort to examine family contacts of known cases of tuberculosis.
    Mrs. Tate: When the right hon. Gentleman compiles statistics, will he give the

    1781
    figures for pulmonary and non-pulmonary tuberculosis separately and remember that pulmonary tuberculosis is not contracted from milk?
    Mr. Messerasked the Minister of Health whether, under the new tuberculosis scheme, a local authority will be empowered to continue to pay the Government scale of allowances from local funds in those cases where the patient cannot return o any form of work?
    Mr. Brown: The statutory powers of tuberculosis authorities in this respect are contained in Section 173 of the Public Health Act, 1936, which authorises them to make such arrangements as they think desirable for the treatment of tuberculosis and for the after-care of persons who have suffered from tuberculosis. The decision on individual cases is a matter for the authority and their statutory powers are neither extended nor diminished by the fact that special arrangements have recently been authorised to repay from the Exchequer as a war service the cost of making allowances in certain cases.
    Mr. Messer: Does that mean that they need not necessarily go back to the Poor Law if they are not fit for work?
    Mr. Brown: The power of the tuberculosis authorities remains unimpaired.
    Dr. Summerskillasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the allowance payable in respect of a housewife suffering from tuberculosis is only 100 a week; and whether he will consider increasing this amount with a view to enabling a family to obtain adequate domestic, help while the housewife is in a sanatorium?
    Mr. Brown: The scheme of allowances for persons suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis is designed to provide adequate maintenance for persons undergoing treatment whose earnings are lost as a result of giving up employment in order to undertake treatment. Exceptionally, the particular allowance referred to in the question can be paid when earnings are not lost but the person undertaking treatment is the housewife and increased expenditure is involved in obtaining domestic help from outside the family which the authority are satisfied is necessary and cannot without hardship be met out of the resources available to the family.
    1782
    I should be prepared to look into any cases in which it is suggested that hardship arises.
    Dr. Summerskill: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how it is possible for a working-class family, where the housewife is suffering from tuberculosis, to obtain a woman to undertake all the work of the household for 10s a week while she is in the sanatorium?
    Mr. Brown: I will look into that, but there are three kinds of allowances—maintenance, discretionary and special. This is a special payment.
    Dr. Summerskill: Does a housewife who is not working outside the home receive only 10s a week? Is that so or not?
    Mr. Brown: There is discretion on the part of the local authority and the whole of these arrangements are made in that way under health and not under public assistance.

    Nurses (Training)
    Miss Wardasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the recommendation of the Rushcliffe Committee with regard to the payment of educational grants to sister tutors, he will accept, at any rate for an interim period, the standards of training already agreed by the Board of Education and the General Nursing Council in relation to pre-nursing courses in secondary and technical schools and implement the findings of the Committee without delay?
    Mr. E. Brown: As I indicated in a reply to my hon. Friend on 15th instant, I think it will be best for me to defer consideration of this recommendation until the General Nursing Council have made Rules with a view to securing a recognised standard of training for sister tutors. Qualifications which are adequate for teachers in pre-nursing courses are not necessarily suitable for teachers of student nurses in hospitals.
    Miss Ward: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his whole policy with regard to nursing has been purely obstructionist, and will he please alter his policy?
    Mr. Brown: Mr. Speaker, I hotly contest that. More has been done in my 2½ years at the Ministry than in 20 years. before.
    Miss Ward: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that his answer will give satisfaction to the nursing profession?
    Mr. Brown: I am sure that the result of a recognised standard will give satisfaction, and nothing else would.

    Nurses (Clothing Coupons)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Health whether he will make inquiries into difficulties among nurses in hospitals respecting coupons for clothing, particularly in regard to the relinquishing of coupons- for second-hand uniforms, with a view to arranging with the President of the Board of Trade to extend to nurses the arrangement already existing with the Civil Nursing Reserve or otherwise to secure that nurses shall have a reasonable supply of coupons for their personal use?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am not sure what difficulties my hon. Friend has in mind, but if he will give me further information, I will gladly consider the point in consultation with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I may say, however, that the conditions as to coupons which apply to the Civil Nursing Reserve apply also to other hospital nurses.
    Mr. Sorensen: Has the right hon. Gentleman received representations already on the point regarding the difficulty of nurses securing sufficient coupons for their personal use?
    Mr. Brown: The chief complaints have been about shoes and stockings. We are going to make representations to the Board of Trade on this point.

    Queen Charlotte's Hospital
    Dr. Summerskillasked the Minister of Health why steps have not been taken to repair the nurses' home at Queen Charlotte's Hospital in order that those beds which are now occupied by the nurses in the hospital may be made available for expectant mothers?
    Mr. E. Brown: The Nurses' Home at Queen Charlotte's Hospital was never finished owing to the outbreak of war, but I understand that a proposal to complete at least part of it will shortly be made to my Department. I may add that last autumn licences were granted which enabled the hospital to open twenty beds.
    Dr. Summerskill: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government have used the nurses' home at Queen Charlotte's Hospital as a warehouse for blitzed furniture for years? Will he explain why the furniture has not been removed?
    Mr. Brown: I have pointed out that I have not yet received a request from the hospital. I understand that I shall receive it shortly.
    Dr. Summerskill: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hospital authorities have told me that his Department has been asked time after time to remove the furniture, and that as a result of their refusal yesterday alone 20 expectant mothers were turned away and 250 this month because the Government refuses to take action?
    Mr. Brown: My information does not tally with that. I understand that there have been two opinions in the hospital, but, as I have said, I have not yet received their request.
    Dr. Summerskill: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I had this information from the hospital an hour ago?
    Mr. Brown: I shall take what the hon. Lady says into account.
    Mr. De la Bère: Let us have it put right to-day.

    Diphtheria (Incidence)
    Sir C. Edwardsasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the incidence of diphtheria is far greater during school life than before the children go to school, and is progressively declining more quickly at pre-school 'than at school age; and whether, as the old, dilapidated, insanitary and unhealthy school buildings are largely responsible for this, he will take immediate steps to deal with this matter?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am aware that the position regarding incidence of diphtheria among children is broadly as stated by my right hon. Friend. I am advised that defective school premises might be indirectly conducive to childhood infections in general, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education will be concerned to see that everything possible will be done to secure a high standard of school buildings.

    War-time Nurseries
    Mr. Lindsayasked the Minister of Health how many war nurseries have now been established by his Department?
    Mr. E. Brown: At the end of June, 1,315 war-time nurseries were in operation, 234 more were approved but not yet in operation, and 113 were in an earlier stage of preparation, making a total at all stages of 1,662.
    Sir H. Williams: Can my right hon. Friend indicate roughly the percentage of usage of war nurseries?
    Mr. Brown: I shall be glad to do that if the question is put down.

    Water Supply, Newton, Yorkshire
    Mr. Spearmanasked the Minister of Health what steps he proposes to take at Newton, Yorkshire, in which village of over 200 inhabitants the only water available, apart from any rainwater they can collect, is the water from two ponds into which the house drains run?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am arranging for one of my inspectors to investigate the position locally, and I will communicate further with my hon. Friend when I receive his report.
    Mr. Spearman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since I brought this to his notice nearly three months ago no steps have been taken to improve the water position, and would it not have been possible for my right hon. Friend to have done a considerable time ago what he now proposes?
    Mr. Brown: I have had some correspondence with the local authorities. Perhaps my hon. Friend will discuss it with me.
    Rear-Admiral Beamish: Will my right hon. Friend direct attention to the hundreds of other villages which are suffering from lack of water?
    Mr. Brown: If I had the labour and material, I should be only too happy.

    Alien Doctors
    Mr. Hannahasked the Minister of Health whether he will consider a scheme by which an alien medical practitioner
    1786
    might convert a temporary into a permanent registration by two or three years of unimpeachably efficient service?
    Mr. E. Brown: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to a Question put by him on this subject on 20th May.
    Mr. Hannah: Can nothing be done for these gentlemen?
    Mr. Brown: I did not say that. I gave all the answer I could on that occasion.

  GIBRALTAR EVACUEES (INQUIRY)
  Earl Wintertonasked the Minister of Health whether he will appoint a committee of persons, unconnected with his Department, to inquire into the allegations regarding their treatment made by a section of evacuees from Gibraltar, as well as by other persons having experience of the conditions?
  Mr. E. Brown: I have seen the allegations referred to by my Noble Friend's Question and have asked Major Patron, who has been appointed by the Government of Gibraltar the Commissioner for the Gibraltar Evacuees in the United Kingdom and who is a member of the Board of District Commissioners in Gibraltar, to give me a report on them. After I have received it I will consider what action, if any, needs to be taken.
  Earl Winterton: In view of the serious allegations that have been made in a place to which I cannot refer and in the Press, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether this gentleman to whom he has referred is an entirely impartial person and has had nothing to do with the treatment of these refugees in this country?
  Mr. Brown: He is a man appointed by the Government of Gibraltar to look after the evacuees' interest, and my first duty is to inquire from him.
  Earl Winterton: My point is, Had this gentleman responsibility for the conditions about which complaint is made?
  Mr. Brown: His only responsibility was to the Government of Gibraltar. We have 34 of these centres, 32 under the Ministry of Health, one under the Essex County Council and one under the Middlesex County Council.

  BANKNOTE FORGERY
  Mr. Thorneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give any information in connection with the charge made against Mr. A. Ward for forging £5 Bank of England notes; can he say how many notes were forged; if any other men were involved in the case; and what he intends doing to prevent similar forgery?
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): It has not been possible in the time available to trace the case, but if my hon. Friend will send me particulars I will have further inquiries made.

  ST. KITTS (LABOUR BONUS)
  Mr. Rileyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information regarding a recent labour deputation from St. Kitts to the Governor at Antigua; and what answer has been returned to the petition presented to the Governor, signed by 3,000 workers in St. Kitts, protesting against the recent decision of planters to discontinue the payment of the annual bonus to estate labourers?
  Mr. A. S. L. Young (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The Governor of the Leeward Islands has informed my right hon. and gallant Friend of a dispute in St. Kitts arising out of the discontinuance of the annual bonus and its replacement by an equivalent increase in weekly wages. A strike was called by the Trade and Labour Union as from 17th July, My right hon. and gallant Friend is glad to say that the Governor has now informed him that a compromise acceptable to both parties has been arranged, and the union has ordered resumption of work.

  JAMAICA (RENTS)
  Mr. Rileyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the dissatisfaction prevailing in Kingston, Jamaica, regarding the high rents charged for living accommodation there; and whether he will consider setting up a rent control board for Jamaica?
  Mr. Young: My right hon. and gallant Friend has received no representations on the subject, and he is asking the Governor for a report on the situation.
  Mr. Riley: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Minister to look at the Kingston newspapers, which show the tremendous discontent there is about high rents?
  Mr. Young: I will convey that to my right hon. and gallant Friend.

  COLONIAL EMPIRE (REGIONAL COMMISSIONS)
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider setting up a Colonial Council consisting of the representatives of the Colonies in London to give and receive advice in regard to the proposed Regional Commissions and such other matters as might affect the well-being and prosperity of the Colonial peoples?
  Mr. Young: My right hon. and gallant Friend is at all times anxious that the people of the Colonial Empire should have the greatest practicable say on all important matters which affect them, but he does not consider that the setting up in London of an advisory council of representatives of the' Colonies would be a useful means of giving effect to this principle.

  AIRCRAFT FACTORY POSTERS, TRAFFORD PARK
  Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Aircraft Production whether he is aware of the issuing of posters by the Trafford Park Civil Defence Controller which indicate the names, offence and fines imposed on people; whether he is aware that these posters are resented; that many employers have refused to put them up; and whether he will put a stop to this action as the people concerned have already been punished for their offence?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production (Mr. Ben Smith): Yes, Sir. The posters, which were issued by the Trafford Park Estate Civil Defence Controller, who is a servant of the factory occupiers on the estate, have been withdrawn.

  INJURED R.A.F. EMPLOYEES, SIERRA LEONE (COMPENSATION)
  Mr. David Adamsasked the Secretary of State for Air whether arrangements have now been, or will be, made

  1789
  for the settlement of compensation claims of injured workmen in Government service in Sierra Leone, by the local branch of the Overseas Department instead of by the respective Government Departments in this country, whereby delays and hardship to injured applicants or their dependants ensue?
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): Settlement is already made locally in cases of temporary disablement of locally entered Royal Air Force employees. Awards in respect of permanent disablement or death must be referred to this country, but in order to avoid hardship to injured work-people or their dependants the Air Officer Commanding, Air Headquarters, West Africa, is being authorised to make advances locally in appropriate cases.
  Mr. Adams: While I thank the Minister for this advance which has been made, may I point out that there are numerous cases of small accidents which have been referred to this country, and can that matter be inquired into?
  Captain Balfour: I have said in my reply that temporary incapacity can be settled locally. It is the larger interests, for which interim payments will be made, which are referred to this country for final settlement.

  DOMINION TROOPS (ACHIEVEMENTS)
  Sir T. Mooreasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can give the House a statement in regard to the part so far played by the troops of our Dominions in the various theatres of war?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Emrys-Evans): The outstanding achievements of Dominion troops in so many theatres of war are fully recognised and deeply appreciated both by the House and by the general public. They have also received on very many occasions the warmest tributes from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his periodic surveys of the war. In these circumstances my right hon. Friend does not think that any useful purpose would be served by the issue of a statement of the kind contemplated by the hon. and gallant Member.

  SICK AND WOUNDED SERVICE MEN (RAILWAY ACCOMMODATION)
  Major-General Sir Alfred Knoxasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport what machinery exists for the allocation of suitable accommodation to sick or wounded Service men when moved by rail from hospital to their homes or to convalescent homes; to whom application should be made in order to reserve such accommodation; and whether notification of the reservation can be made, at all events, 24 hours before the departure of the train?
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): When members of the Services are moved from one hospital to another, or from a hospital to a convalescent home, the necessary arrangements are made by the Movement Control of the Service concerned. For this purpose, the officers of the Movement Controls communicate direct with the railway companies. This system does not apply to men who are returning to their homes, when they have been discharged from hospital and are fit to travel.
  Sir A. Knox: Are these sick people notified in time in order to make arrangements?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir.

  ERITREA AND ITALIAN SOMALILAND (ADMINISTRATION. BOOKLET)
  Mr. Astorasked the Minister of Information when he hopes to publish a booklet on the British Administration of Eritrea and Somaliland; and whether he will ensure that this booklet should be produced at the earliest possible moment?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Thurtle): This booklet is now being written, while the author travels in Eritrea and Somaliland. Until the text is received it is not possible to forecast the publication date, but I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be no avoidable delay and that we are as anxious to see the book in print as he is.
  Mr. Astor: In view of the fact that the officials of A.M.G.O.T. are largely drawn from the officials who have been running

  1791
  these other Colonies successfully, does not the hon. Gentleman realise the great propaganda value of getting this booklet out as soon as possible?
  Mr. Thurtle: If my hon. Friend wants an assurance that the book will be got out as quickly as possible, I can give him that assurance.

  GRASS SEED (SCOTLAND) ORDER
  Captain C. S. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date the Emergency Powers (Defence) Grass Seed Prices Order (S.R. & O. No. 922 /S.31, of 1943), which was signed on 28th June, 1943, came into operation, having regard to the fact that the imprint of His Majesty's Stationery Office indicates that it was not published until the month of July?
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Chapman): The Grass Seed (Growers' Fixed Prices) (Scotland) Order, 1943, came into operation on 28th June, 1943. The terms of the Order were communicated immediately to the representatives of the growers and the principal machiners as the persons concerned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the forthcoming Business?
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): Yes, Sir. The Business will be as follows:
First Sitting Day.—Committee and remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill. A Debate will take place on questions affecting Women in National Service.
Second Sitting Day.—Motion to approve the draft Supplementary Pensions (Amendment) and draft Unemployment Assistance (Amendment) Regulations.
Third Sitting Day.—It is proposed to adjourn for the Summer Recess.
During the week we shall consider any Amendments which may be made to Bills now in another place.
Mr. Greenwood: Has my right hon. Friend given any further consideration to
1792
the possibility of a discussion on the war situation and whether it would be possible, without having a roaming discussion on the war situation, to have a Debate one day in the next series of Sittings on the political aspects of it?
Mr. Eden: I have, of course, given some consideration to this matter. If I understand the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion aright, it is that we should have a Debate on the political aspects of the war situation. I am bound to say that at first sight I do doubt the utility of that at this moment. The Prime Minister explained the position the other day. He said, I thought with the general consent of the House, that we were in the face of a political situation which is changing or may change hour by hour and day by day. It is not that I do not want a Debate if the House would like to have one, but I think we must reflect upon its utility. May I put to the House another consideration which we have in mina? None of us can tell whether or not we may not have to return at some time during the Adjournment. I think myself it is very likely we shall have to. If that were the case, we should have to return for some definite situation, and naturally that would be an appropriate time, on a definite situation, for the House to have a discussion. For my part, I must say I would regard it as not very wise to have a Debate now on the political aspects of the war situation, with the Italian position as it is at the present time.
Mr. Greenwood: May I put this point, merely with a desire to help the Government and the Allies? It would, I think, give great encouragement to the forces of freedom in Italy and in the other occupied countries if this House were formally to declare its views on the political issue. It may be Badoglio or anybody else who becomes the leader for the time being of the Italian Government, but I think it would hearten the forces of resistance in Europe to know that this House of Commons does stand behind them in their fight for freedom.
Mr. Eden: I entirely agree that it is desirable that Europe should understand that, but I must say that I should not have thought Europe was in the very least possible doubt about it.
Mr. A. Bevan: Oh!
Mr. Eden: Does the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) suggest that we are not in favour of the forces of freedom in Europe?
Mr. Bevan: After North Africa we are not.
Mr. Eden: I tell the hon. Member—
Mr. Bevan: Well, give us an opportunity to tell them.
Mr. Eden: —that the Prime Minister and the Government have just as much right to speak for the forces of freedom as he can have. As regards the Debate, I would like to be given a chance of consulting the Prime Minister about this situation, because it is a serious decision to take if we are to have a war Debate. I can tell the House that in the view of the War Cabinet it is inadvisable—we have already discussed it—in the present circumstances. If we are to have one, if the House insists upon one—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes" and "No."] Clearly, it is a matter on which there are divided opinions, and it is very clearly a matter which must be considered carefully. If we are to have a war Debate, then there will be necessarily a rearrangement of the whole Business for the next series of Sittings, and probably an extra day's Sitting. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should allow me to consider the matter in the light of this discussion, and I will announce a decision on the first Sitting Day, because if there is a Debate, the House will certainly have to sit an additional day.
Mr. Greenwood: I do not see the reason for all this heat. I hope I have kept myself within the bounds of decorum. Would it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to make an announcement on the next Sitting Day rather than to wait till the first Sitting Day in the next Series? If that is possible, I think it will be for the convenience of the House to know before we depart for the week-end what the Business is to be.
Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. I will gladly consider the suggestion. I think I can certainly do it on the next Sitting Day. I would like to leave this subject on the note of saying that the War Cabinet did consider this matter yesterday, and they were definitely of the opinion that it would be inadvisable to have a Debate.
Mr. Greenwood: On the Business for the second Sitting Day, may I ask whether
1794
the Debate will be so arranged that it may cover the wider aspect of the pensions Regulations? I understand that the Regulations which are to be submitted to the House are Regulations directly arising out of the Bill that has been recently put on the Statute Book, but the last time this matter was under full consideration an undertaking was given that old age pensioners and others would have their cases looked at, with a view to revised Regulations. If that could be done, I think it would expedite a great deal the Business for the next series of Sittings.
Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, I will look at that suggestion and consider it, but I think it is a matter for the Chair. My impression is that the anxieties of the right hon. Gentleman would not be found to arise; but I think we had better see the Paper first.
Sir H. Williams: I should like to raise a different issue. The Business for the first Sitting Day has been announced as a Debate on women's work during the war. While that is no doubt a very suitable subject for discussion, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman could indices at whose request this Debate is taking place, and in future to indicate which of the "usual channels" has been consulted?
Mr. Eden: We are not making any precedent. For the last two years a Debate has been held on these lines, with the general approval, I think, and agreement of the House. It is quite natural that the lady Members of the House should like an opportunity like this, and I think the House is willing to accord it to them, in the wider interests of the nation.
Sir H. Williams: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman has completely misunderstood the purpose of my question. When we have special Debates arrangements are made through the usual channels. I would like to know, when we have special Debates arranged who has made the request.
Mr. Eden: I can tell my hon. Friend that the request was made by Members of all parties.
Mr. Glenvil Hall: May I ask whether the Regulations which we are to discuss upon the second Sitting Day will be issued in good time, so that Members may be able to consider them?
Mr. Eden: I hope that they will be issued to-morrow.
Mr. Gallacher: Is the Leader of the House quite cognisant of the fact that the military situation at the moment is more important than a discussion on the political situation? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is very much more important. Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind the point that our Russian Allies are suffering terrible casualties and that what we should be considering is how the most immediate assistance could be brought to them—[Hear, hear]—and the European Continent militarily, and not a general discussion?
Mr. Shinwell: Further to that question, in view of the approval accorded to the suggestions of my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) that there should be a Debate on the military situation, and the endorsement of it from the other side, will my right hon. Friend take note of that?
Mr. Eden: The hon. Gentleman has just proved my difficulty of the utter impossibility of extricating the military from the political.
Mr. Stokes: Are any arrangements being made with regard to the Debate to-day about a suspension of the Rule, as a large number of people want to speak? Is it intended to suspend the Rule so that we may have a longer time?
Mr. Eden: I was not proposing to suspend the Rule to-night. There is an extra hour on the next Sitting Day because there are no Questions. In those circumstances I do not propose to move the suspension of the Rule
Mr. Buchanan: I would like to raise a humdrum matter regarding the Debate on the Regulations. The Leader of the House said he hoped that the White Paper would be issued tomorrow; may I ask him to expedite it, as the matter is of some importance to us in our localities? Those of us who go back to our Divisions want to consult some of the local people regarding the position.
Mr. Eden: I think I can give the hon. Member an undertaking that it will be available tomorrow. I am afraid I cannot do anything about it to-day.
Mr. Stokes: May I press the point I have just put? A very large number of Members want to speak to-day, and I would ask the Leader of the House, if he has not made up his mind, whether he will undertake to give further consideration at a later hour to the possibility of suspending the Rule?
Mr. Eden: I have had absolutely no approach on this subject, and I think the remedy is partly in the hands of the House. I do not think we should suspend the Rule. It is rather hard on those who have to stay here if the House sits late, and it is important that a matter like this should be debated in a fairly full House. If we go very late, we do not have a full House. The remedy therefore really lies in the direction of shorter speeches.
Miss Ward: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will emphasise when he is discussing with the Prime Minister the proposal of a Debate, that there are a good many of us who do not associate ourselves with the demand that has been made for a Debate of that character?
Mr. Lipson: Could not the Rule be suspended to-day for a limited period? The matter is of very great interest to hon. Members, and a very large number wish to speak.
Mr. Magnay: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this suggestion more fully and to note that his remarks about the length of speeches do not apply to back benchers.
Mr. Edmund Harvey: Would my right hon. Friend keep in mind transport difficulties, which will be greater on the next Sitting Day, and possibly grant an extra hour to-day?

MAN-POWER (GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS)
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): The Government have recently reviewed the man-power position in relation to the requirements of industry and the Services. Developments in the war situation necessarily reflect themselves in our man-power policy, and I wish to inform the House of a number of steps which we have decided must be taken at once to meet present and prospective needs. Great though the expansion of the aircraft industry has been already, we must add

1797
still more to its labour force. This can only be done by the further recruitment of women, who will therefore not be available for the Women's Auxiliary Services, the Women's Land Army and other Services. The Women's Auxiliary Services are nearly up to establishment. Recruitment to these Services must be reduced to a minimum. For the time being, no more volunteers will be accepted save for a few special posts—this will apply as from tomorrow—and no further age classes of women will be made subject to conscription under the National Service Acts. Existing vacancies in the Women's Services will be filled by women in the present conscribed age classes, namely, the 1918 to 1923 age classes, who have already expressed an option for these Services and by women of other classes who have already volunteered. As the numbers available are likely to exceed the number of existing vacancies, we propose to ask those women who are not required for the Services for the time being to go into aircraft factories. It is a matter of regret that these Services will no longer be open to recruitment for the time being, but in existing circumstances this is unavoidable. The Government are confident that women, even where they have expressed an option for one of the Services, will be ready and anxious to help in every way they can to provide the aircraft needed to forward the magnificent work of the Royal Air Force and the Fleet Air Arm.
In addition to the measures to which I have referred, it has been decided to extend the age of registration of women for employment up to age 50 inclusive. We shall be registering the second half of the 1924 age class of women early in August, and we shall then proceed to register the 1895 and subsequent age classes. Changes of programme in respect of other forms of production will also help to build up the labour force of the aircraft industry. Preliminary consideration too has been given to the possibility of utilising in the aircraft industry the services of increased numbers of juveniles aged 16 and 17. This is part of the more general consideration of the employment of juveniles of these ages to which I will refer later in another connection. The man-power position in a number of other industries and services besides the aircraft industry calls for
1798
adjustment in order that our resources may be used to the best advantage. The construction of further airfields to accommodate the ever-increasing armada of our American Allies is of paramount importance, and the fullest use will have to be made for this purpose by the building and civil engineering industries of the labour which has been left in these industries. Special arrangements have recently been made with the co-operation of these industries to speed up this work, and the Government are grateful for the very fine job that is being done.
Next I come to coalmining. We cannot afford to risk falling short of coal supplies, either for our requirements at home or for those which will arise as a result of our operations overseas. To refuse these demands would mean prolonging the war, with all its suffering and waste. This must not happen. We have since 1940 used our man-power, including mining labour, where in prevailing circumstances it would be best employed. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power, however, warned the House only a month ago that the time was approaching when new demands would mean that the man-power of the mining industry must be reinforced. The war situation has already altered since then, and it is clear that demands next year will be of such a nature that they cannot be met with the man-power now available to the industry. At The beginning of July the labour force in the coal-mining industry stood at 706,000. The net wastage is 20,000 a year; and the average man-power for the year up to next April, unless we change matters, will not exceed 700,000. An average labour force at this level will not be sufficient to meet our probable requirements. Numbers must be substantially increased, and we must make plans for an additional inflow into the industry to raise the total labour force and to make good wastage. And we want these newcomers quickly in order that they may be trained.
I put this position to the miners' delegates at their annual conference at Blackpool recently. I pointed out that little, if anything, can be expected from a further withdrawal of ex-miners from the Forces or from other industries. The withdrawal last year was substantial; indeed, it exceeded our anticipations and has enabled my right hon. and gallant Friend the

1799
Minister of Fuel and Power to continue longer than he expected without an accretion of man-power. I indicated that it might be necessary to put entry into the mines on the same footing as service in the Forces and that we might even have to go down as far as boys of 16 years of age. At present the inflow of boys is mainly from the mining villages, but this is definitely inadequate, and if directions have to be given they cannot be confined to this class of boys. These were not plans on which a final Government decision had been given at the time; the only such decision was that the man-power situation must be dealt with by some effective method. I put the matter before the delegates for their consideration, and my right hon. and gallant Friend and I have since discussed it with a deputation from the Mineworkers' Federation. One thing which I intend to do immediately is to remove the age limit from the option to enter the mines which is given to men called up for the Forces; at present this is limited to men under 25. If a sufficient number do not exercise this option, my first line of approach will be to direct men between 18 and 25, who would otherwise be called up for the Forces, to enter mining instead. Volunteers will also be accepted from among any suitable men who are not engaged on high priority work. But if these measures prove to be inadequate, I shall have no choice but to reduce the age for directions below 18. My existing powers under Regulation 58A enable me to do this if it should be necessary. I recognise that the issue of directions to youths of 18 and under would place on the Government a special responsibility for providing further training if they need to change their occupation after the war; I intend to meet this by arranging that the post-war opportunities for training shall be open to them, as they will be to members of the Forces; and this will be so whether they are directed to coalmining or to aircraft production, as may also be necessary.
Another matter which, as I think the House knows, is causing me serious concern is the shortage of domestic help in hospitals and institutions of that kind. An essential basis for any scheme to recruit additional workers must be the existence of a proper minimum standard of wages and conditions. I hope that there will be
1800
a steady extension of agreements between employers and workers in this field as in others, but this must take time, and owing to the urgency of the matter I have appointed a Committee to undertake an immediate inquiry and advise me as to minimum wages and conditions. The members of the Committee are: Sir Hector Hetherington, Principal of Glasgow University, Chairman; Mr. Darby-shire, Vice-President of the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company, and. Miss Dorothy Elliott of the National Union of General and Municipal Workers. When the report of this Committee is available, I hope to be in a position to announce the further steps to be taken.
In addition to the measures which I have indicated, there are a number of minor but very important re-adjustments that are necessary, such as the return to the sea of certain sea-going engineers at present employed ashore and the recall of certain skilled men from the shipyards to locomotive building in view of the ever increasing part which transport plays in our war effort. All these measures are necessary if we are to keep pace with the changing needs of the war. I have no doubt that they will be accepted by the House and the country in the spirit in which they have previously accepted our earlier measures for mobilising and applying to the full the man-power of the nation.
Earl Winterton: As one interested for many years in hospital work, might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will give us an assurance that this Committee which he has appointed will make their report at an early date, in view of the really desperate situation in which most municipal and private hospitals find themselves?
Mr. Bevin: I can give that assurance. They are already taking evidence.
Mr. Rhys Davies: With regard to compelling youths at 16 to go down the mines, did I understand my right hon. Friend to say that youths at 18 and over will in any case be directed but that he is considering the problem of sending youths of 16? May we take it for granted that he will not send them to the pits during the Recess, and that Parliament will have an opportunity of saying what it thinks about the proposition first?
Mr. Bevin: I do not think that problem of going below 18 will arise until Parliament reassembles; indeed, it cannot. It will arise in the case of aircraft production.
Mr. Shinwell: In the case of directing boys of 16 to the mines, am I to understand from my right hon. Friend's reply that no action will be taken in the sense of such direction until the House has an opportunity of discussing it?
Mr. Bevin: I cannot accept that position. In view of the Act of 1940 I am responsible, and I have never accepted the position that before I begin to exercise these directions I have to come to the House. The House charged me with the duty of finding the man-power required, and therefore I have to treat this industry on exactly equal terms with those on which I have had to treat other industries.
Mr. Shinwell: On a point of Order. If my right hon. Friend persists in utilising the powers he possesses in order to put into operation this innovation, this startling innovation, which is resented in many parts of the country and this House, and which has very serious implications—it is the implications with which we are concerned—will you guide me, Mr. Speaker, as to whether by means of an Adjournment Motion before the House goes into Recess, we shall have an opportunity of considering the action of the Government?
Mr. Speaker: That would depend on the Leader of the House. The putting of a Motion on the Order Paper is not a matter for me.
Mr. Shinwell: May I put it to the Leader of the House as to whether an opportunity would be afforded before the House departs for the Recess to discuss this particular issue?
Mr. Eden: My right hon. Friend has made it quite plain on that aspect of the issue which the hon. Member has raised that no action can be taken before the House meets again. As regards the general position, I would suggest that we look carefully at the statement which has been made to-day, and I can deal, at the beginning of Business on the next Sitting Day, with any question on it.
Viscountess Astor: In this Committee which the Minister is setting up on the question of domestic help in hospitals,
1802
which is entirely concerned with women, would it not be wiser to appoint more women? May I tell the Minister—
Hon. Members: No.
Viscountess Astor: Could I have an answer?
Mr. Speaker: The Noble Lady failed to ask her question.
Viscountess Astor: I have asked a question.
Mr. James Griffiths: On the question of man-power in the mining industry, can the Minister first of all give any indication as to the total number of men who will be required and the proportion of boys to that number of men? May I ask him further whether, in considering the question of directing boys of 16 to the mines of this country, the Government are: approaching the matter from the standpoint of directing all boys of 16, wherever they are?
Mr. Bevin: I thought I had made it clear in my statement that I am limited at the present time. If I may make this confession, in getting lads for the mines up to now my officers have had to use considerable pressure, direct and indirect, limited largely to the mining villages, and I do not think that that is a right process. If I may answer my hon. Friend, the miner has his boy going to the grammar school and being educated as much as the boys of every other class in the community. Therefore, just as I approached the matter of the conscription of women and other classes to help the national effort, I came to the conclusion, I think a right conclusion, that I have to get these young men out of the whole community to see this particular job through, and I am not selecting miners' children only. There has been too much pressure in that limited field up to now. With regard to the second point, I cannot give the figures, because really I do not know them. The figure we have been working on up to now, including mechanisation, has been announced in the House several times by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power as a basic figure of about 720,000, but I cannot say what are the proportions of men and boys which will actually be needed. I have undertaken before I go any lower than 18 to see the Miners' Federation again with regard to the details of this matter.
Mr. R. J. Taylor: My right hon. Friend has said that he has the power to compel these boys to go into the mines. Has he any power in relation to wages?
Mr. Bevin: I am glad my hon. Friend has raised that point on wages. I would like publicly to express my regret that after I appointed the Forster Committee so long has been taken to work out the details for the scale. I am not prejudging any negotiations. It is not always on one side in these difficulties. I understand that the parties are meeting forthwith—I do not know whether to-day or to-morrow. All I can say to them is that, in view of the national emergency, I hope they will settle. It is perfectly obvious that I cannot direct a boy to the mines until it is settled. I must, through the Arbitration Court or in some other way, know what is the scale. That is the law.
Mr. Lindsay: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that it is only now, a year after the Forster Committee was appointed, that the parties are meeting to try and put into operation the short-term recommendations? Is that really true?
Mr. Bevin: I am afraid so, as far as I can understand it. It is a problem not for me but for my right hon. and gallant Friend who deals with the wage situation in the mines. I understand that the parties in the industry have not arrived at a conclusion as to the scale. I regret it. I think it ought to have been after the work of the Forster Committee. I hope they will recognise their obligation to the State and come to a conclusion quickly.
Mr. Turton: Will the Minister take into account the very great shortage of labour in agriculture before stopping recruitment for the Women's Land Army?
Mr. Bevin: The Women's Land Army are if anything above their ceiling, We have as a Cabinet had to put first things first, and the real thing that can prolong this war at this moment and hold up production is coal. Therefore, our attention has had to be turned to coal and to aircraft.
Mr. Foster: On a point of Order. I asked a Question on the Order Paper, No. 9, and it was stated that along with others it would be covered by the Minister
1804
in his statement. He has not referred to that Question or to the point made in the Question. Could I have an answer?
Mr. Bevin: The directions apply the same right away through under 58A.
Mr. Bevin: Is the House clear that young boys under 18 years of age will not be directed to collieries while the House is in Recess? There appears to be some confusion between the Leader of the House and the Minister of Labour on this point. As the right hon. Gentleman told the House that men of 18 are immediately to be directed to the pits, will he inform the House before we rise for the Recess what instructions are going to be given to National Service officers as to how they will discriminate between these men? Also, does he realise that the expedients to which he is now having to resort may cause such industrial disturbance as to outweigh any benefits?
Sir H. Williams: As Business has been announced for to-day and the Minister's speech should have been made at the appropriate time, is it not undesirable, Mr. Speaker, that 35 minutes should be taken in discussing this other matter?
Mr. Bevin: May I answer one question at a time?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asked me for my opinion. I hesitate to express opinions. That is for the Leader of the House.
Sir H. Williams: Surely what is now happening is a Debate of which there has been no notice?
Mr. Speaker: I have been watching the matter very carefully. I have made up my mind to allow one more question, and then I think we might proceed to the other Business.
Mr. Bevin: I have already said that this matter, so far as the mines are concerned, cannot operate while the House is in Recess; the machinery will not be ready. But I made it plain that that will not apply to aircraft. That must go on. I have to get the man-power now. I do not visualise any industrial disturbance on this matter at all. I believe—in fact, I am sure—that the proper direction, with rights of appeal and all the other machinery that exists in my Ministry for dealing with this matter, will work; and,

1805
if I may make a comment to my hon. Friend, I am not too sure but that in the final analysis the resulting comradeship in the mines will not help the coal industry.
Commander Sir Archibald Southby: With reference to the point raised by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) and without expressing an opinion one way or the other as to the desirability or otherwise of sending boys of this age to work in the mines, might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will bear in mind that certain assurances were given with regard to the age at which young people are sent on active service, and although it is of course essential that coal should be produced, might it not be desirable for the Government to reinforce any decision which they may take by securing an expression of the approval of this House?
Mr. Bevin: Might I point out that I have nor had an answer to the question I put as to whether the right hon. Gentleman will find some means of informing the House of the instructions given to national service officers in discriminating between boys of over 18?
Mr. Bevin: I am sorry I did not answer that. I cannot report to the House the special instructions given in this particular industry. Anyone directed to this industry will have all the machinery, all the rights of appeal, everything which applies to any other member of the community who is directed anywhere else. I think that covers it.
Mr. Bevan: There is a special direction.
Mr. Lindsay: Might I ask whether the Leader of the House will reconsider his decision about suspending the Rule today? I think I am speaking for a large number of Members who wish to take part in the education Debate. If we cannot have a suspension after this 40 minutes' discussion it will be a great pity.
Mr. Eden: I have observed that. I propose to move a Motion.

PERSONAL STATEMENTS
Commander Locker-Lampson: An unhappy incident occurred in the purlieus of the House yesterday in which I was involved, and inasmuch as I was to blame in any
1806
conduct of mine which was a breach of the Privileges of the House, I desire-to tender my full apology. I hope I shall be granted an opportunity later of making a personal statement. During the altercation with the hon. and gallant Member for St. Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid) I never struck him, although I was struck, but I repeat that if I am to blame for what occurred, I apologise to you, Sir, and to the House. I can only say how sorry I am that such an episode should have occurred in a House of which I have been only a humble Member for many years, but whose honour I would safeguard more than that of any other institution in the world.
Captain Cunningham-Reid; With the permission of the House, I want to make a very short explanation and apology to this House in reference to the incident which has just been referred to. I regret that I have to do this at this late hour, but that is no fault of mine. I believe that on these occasions the House is generally generous in its indulgence to personal explanations. I merely want to draw the attention of the House to what brought this matter to a head.
Mr. Speaker: In a personal explanation no contentious matter ought to be introduced.
Captain Cunningham-Reid: I would not have attempted to do that if it had not been for the fact that you allowed the hon. and gallant Member for Handsworth (Commander Locker-Lampson) to state that he did not attack me in this particular instance. That being so, I hope that you will allow me to give some explanation of what happened.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member for Handsworth only made a statement, and did not qualify it. I cannot allow the hon. and gallant Member to do more now.
Captain Cunningham-Reid: I will certainly bow to your Ruling, Sir; but will you allow me some other opportunity of making a personal explanation? I think that, in fairness, I should be allowed to make some explanation concerning a very serious imputation indeed, which is without any foundation whatever. I appreciate the situation now. Let me say, without any further ado, that whatever the circumstances were, whoever was in

1807
the wrong and whoever was in the right, I realise that the prestige of this House will be affected if the matter is left as it is now; and, therefore, on that score I do not hesitate to apologise both to you and to this House for any embarrassment that any action of mine yesterday may have caused.

PERSONAL STATEMENTS

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS
  That they have agreed to—
  Restriction of Ribbon Development (Temporary Development) Bill,
  Foreign Service Bill,
  Emergency Powers (Isle of Man Defence) Bill,
  Isle of Man (Customs) Bill, without Amendment.

BILL PRESENTED
  RENT OF FURNISHED HOUSES CONTROL (SCOTLAND) BILL,
  "to make provision with regard to the rent of houses or parts thereof in Scotland let at a rent which includes payment for the use of furniture or for attendance"; presented by Mr. T. Johnston, supported by the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor-General for Scotland, Mr. Westwood, and Mr. Allan Chapman; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed.—{Bill 5;7.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  "That the proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House) for one hour after the hour appointed for the interruption of Business."— [Mr. Eden.]

  EDUCATIONAL RECONSTRUCTION
  The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): I beg to move,
  "That this House welcomes the intention of the Government to proceed with educational reform, as evidenced in the White Paper on Educational Reconstruction."
  I could not help reflecting, as I listened to the description of feud and quarrel which we have just heard, that that atmosphere was more suited to the conditions which prevailed at the beginning of the century, when some of these great issues which we are considering to-day were debated. But my experience of these great issues, including the religious issue, has been quite different. The whole of my experience at the Board of Education in working with my collaborators, whether in the country or at Whitehall, has been that personal, sectarian and political feelings have been subordinated to the interests of the children. That is a very remarkable fact to recall. I trust that this House will continue to consider these vital questions in that same atmosphere. While we may all desire to put our own points of view, and while the procedure is calculated to help hon. Members to do so, let us also remember that we are engaged in no less a task than that of moulding the future of the young generation when fresh responsibilities, and heavy ones, are being laid upon our people. I am sure hon.
  1826
  Members will realise that I cannot do justice to this great subject in a hurry and that I shall have to go into some detail, despite the lateness of the hour.
  First, however, I would like to pay a tribute not only to those who have collaborated with me outside, but also to those who have assisted me personally in the task, particularly my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary who will be winding up this Debate. I shall be describing in a minute or two the manner in which we propose to divide up the subject, so that I shall not detain the House too long. In all these education questions history has shown that there is a combination of the wisdom of administrators, who have always played a great part in formulating the plans, and that of the more ephemeral politicians or statesmen—whichever is the appropriate term—who may be there for the moment. The administrators with whom I have had to deal have maintained the high traditions of the Board, and their wisdom has been brought into the formulation of this plan.
  In approaching the subject, I would like to deal with the question of recasting our full-time system of schooling, to consider how to adapt the dual system to the new conception, and to discuss the arrangements for making this plan work. I will then leave to my hon. Friend other vital questions, including those of the independent schools, which are to be inspected and registered—he himself presided over an inquiry on this matter in 1932—technical education and the great scheme of continuation.
  Before I launch into a discussion of our system of full-time schooling and the manner in which it is proposed to recast it, let me describe the whole philosophy of the scheme, which will run through all I have to say. We shall retain in our system a diversity of choice, while attempting at the same time to fuse the parts and weld them into an organic whole. Coming to our system of full-time schooling, it seems to me very like a schoolboy's jacket. It has done wonderful service, and much maternal care has been lavished upon it, but there are certain signs that it is becoming out of date. The sleeves are running far up the arm. The tell-tale let-down of material will barely cover the expanse of anatomy

  1827
  allotted to it. Stains, rents, patches and tears appear in various parts, and the shine on the nap makes one reflect on the need for change. It is not surprising, since the tailoring of this particular jacket was done in 1870, when our elementary system was designed to retain children in school up to the age of 10 years. The tailor—Forster—fortunately was a good man, and the material was exceedingly good with the result that when the Prime Minister—Mr. Balfour—in 1902 came to examine the garment he decided to adapt it, which he did with great skill, and he added a small extra garment. That was the beginning of our present system of secondary education. But even to-day less than 500,000 children are in the secondary system, and the capacity of the elementary system is strained to the utmost. Mr. Fisher's contribution, which has been recognised on all hands, was to stop half-time schooling and to carry the age up to 14, with other suggestions which the country has not seen fit to insist on being carried out. No attempts have been made in these years to alter the fundamental structure of our system, as I have described it, but an attempt has been made to regroup and reorganise the children into junior and senior departments, under what is known as the Hadow scheme, with the result that a start has been made in preventing children from being in all-age schools from the age of 5 to 14 with the consequent difficulty of supervision and the consequent need for age groups to be crowded into one class.
  The Government now propose a radical reconstruction of the whole scheme. We propose that the system shall be so reorganised that over 11 years of age secondary opportunities of varying types shall be offered to all pupils according to their aptitude, and, if the choice at 11 is not satisfactory, there shall be a re-sorting up to the age of 13. Let me for a moment, in considering the successive stages which are now proposed in the system, consider the needs of the younger and infant children. There has always been a tendency to concentrate on children over 11—they seem to have been more fashionable. It is often forgotten that it is in the early ages that the foundations of good habits and good character are laid, and also of good learning, and the Government suggest, for the first time,
  1828
  that a duty shall be imposed upon authorities for the provision of nursery schools where they are needed from the age of 2 upwards; and there is no experiment, or shall I call it development, which the Government will watch with more interest than this particular one, which goes to the root of many of our social troubles and difficulties.
  From the age of 5 schooling will be compulsory. I do not think I have had any greater anxiety in carrying out my responsibilities than in considering the needs of the infant and junior schools. It is here in many cases where the classes are very much overcrowded, and it is here that you get much of the neglect in regard to buildings, attention and the number of teachers necessary. Moreover, hanging over the whole of the junior world is the special-place examination, which we propose to do away with, so that in future a child may be selected according to its talent for the various different types and choices of secondary education which I propose to describe. The poor parent gets very little consideration in our education, and it is suggested that, although we shall not give way to the parents' belief that they think they know everything about their children and think they are the best children in the world—.
  Viscountess Astor: Oh, no, they do not.
  Mr. Butler: We shall try to bring them in to making the choice for the secondary opportunities which we propose to give to the children after the opinion of the teacher has been given. Coming to the secondary choices, they are, first, the new senior school as it is to be seen in various parts of the country and about which I shall be saying something; second, the ancient grammar school or the new secondary school education which has grown up and which we describe as secondary to-day; and, third, the junior technical school, of which there are far too few in this country. These choices were originally recommended by the Consultative Committee in their Report known as the Spens Report, and I would like to pay a tribute to the authors of that Report, for it is only to-day that we are inserting in our plans the outlines of the scheme which they recommended. I wondered, when I read the Spens Report, whether these choices were really a reality and whether we could in fact

  1829
  offer equivalent secondary opportunities to all children. But on going round the country and examining the schools in my official position, I have come to the conclusion that we can offer in this country secondary choices so adequate and varied that, in our own way and according to our own tradition, we shall be building a system of secondary education for all which will serve our purposes as a compact nation just as well as the high school system serves the purposes of the great American democracy.
  The new senior schools, which I want to consider first, are the ones which will fit most easily into the system. The ones that I have seen, for example, in Lancashire or in the West Riding, indicate the type o/ opportunity which can be given to children, and I would say to those idealists who want to see more than one form of secondary education in the same school—sometimes called multilateral schools—that I hope more than one type of secondary education may from time to time be amalgamated under one roof and that we may judge from experiments what is the best arrangement. In running over the senior school provisions in this country, one has been struck by varying characteristics in various parts of the country. In Staffordshire, I was particularly interested by the facilities for practical handwork and domestic science. It is in these senior schools that one sees the substitution of a well-balanced regular daily meal for the wet sandwich which the pupil used to bring to school in the old days. One sees the consequent rise in the health and well-being of the children as a result of the development of this policy, which has increased by leaps and bounds over the last two years. We intend to drive forward so as to try to cover the large majority of the school population. In such rural counties as Somerset, or Suffolk, or Devonshire we see the beginnings of rural education being provided in these senior schools, and the teaching of the country way of life, which is very important to our people. May I say here that I am discussing the whole future of agricultural education with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, and to those who say that rural education was not sufficiently mentioned in the White Paper, I will give the assurance that I am pursuing these discussions and hope in due course to bring them to
  1830
  a successful conclusion from the point of view of the children.
  There is another part of England where the senior school is exhibiting very interesting tendencies and that is in such districts as Middlesex or Surrey or in the neighbourhood of our great cities, where the secondary schools, as they will be, are providing for the needs of a closely-knit society. The result is that you are seeing, where the State provision is adequate, abandonment by the parents of the choice of the smaller private school. I have noticed, in going about Wales and on a visit to Scotland, that the parents arc accustomed to send their children to the State schools at an early date in their lives, and I anticipate that, as the State provision improves and as the trend of economic circumstances continues, that habit will grow all over the country as the result of the improvements that we are able to make.
  Owing to the hour and also to the fact that I do not want to impose on the patience of hon. Members, I do not wish to make a special speech on Wales, but I would like the Principality to know that I have, as I have indicated by my interest in the Welsh language, a special interest in Welsh problems, and I trust that over this year as we are framing our plans every opportunity will be given for the development of the national self-expression of Wales within the framework of our education proposals. As it is, Wales has special features in the secondary sphere which are typified in the Welsh Intermediate Act, which was passed especially for the Principality. I trust that suggestions will be put to me this year from there in order that our plans may be made better.
  Considering the various types of provision in the senior school, let us come to a consideration of the other forms of secondary education. What I have said of parents gradually taking advantage of the State provision leads me to ask what should be more natural than that we should follow up this development in British educational policy and make available free primary and secondary education in all schools maintained by the local authorities? Thus, all three types—senior, grammar, if I may describe it as such, and junior technical—will be equally accessible.
  I come now to consider the second type of secondary school, the grammar school.

  1831
  I have heard on some sides that with the equalising and widening of opportunity a dull uniformity will creep over the whole of our school system. This is far from the intention of the Government. What I have said about diversity and the need for encouraging individuality applies as well to the secondary sphere and within the grammar school sphere, as it should apply everywhere else. It is the Government's desire to encourage the legitimate independence of the school as a unity so that the school has a school life and administration does not cramp down and destroy the personality of that life. Therefore, it is our intention that in secondary schools of all types, old and new, there shall be framed an instrument of government for such schools which will define the spheres of responsibility of the authority and the governors of the school. The old grammar schools were founded very often in periods of turmoil and strife in our history by eminent men and women who wished to pay a permanent tribute to the value of education in moments of adversity. They have been supplemented within the grammar school sphere by the new municipal and county provisions, started, as I described earlier, in 1902, which now provide more than half of the academic type of secondary education. This has been a splendid development, and these new secondary schools have revivified the traditions and enhanced the value of the secondary system.
  It is desirable that there should be a proper measure of independence in all these types of secondary school, not only in regard to the administration, but also in regard to the thraldom of examinations. If you free yourself from too much administrative interference, it is no good at the same time subordinating your curriculum to the supposed needs of universities or business. That is what happens if you subordinate the whole of your curriculum to examinations imposed from outside. The Government, therefore, welcome the appearance of the Norwood Committee's Report, which will have careful consideration. While we are talking of changes, I trust that we may make other changes in the secondary world. Many grammar schools, towards the end of the 18th century, became non-local. That means that they provided boarding facilities, and it is the Government's desire that boarding facilities shall be provided
  1832
  by local authorities so that parents who for good reasons desire a residential education for their children may find the facilities available.
  It only remains for me now to leave the sphere of the grammar school and come to the third type of secondary education suggested—the junior technical school, which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will describe later in more detail. I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that there are only 379 technical junior schools in the country at the present time. That figure is far too low, and it is our desire to see these junior technical schools as constellations surrounding the new technical colleges which we hope will be built up in our great cities and which will be the universities of industry. It is also intended that the junior technical schools will not confine themselves to a technical form of education but will also give a general education to their pupils.
  The final picture of the secondary world, including the future of what are known as the direct grant schools, must await the Report of the Fleming Committee. When we have that Report we shall be able finally to take decisions which will give the House and the country a full picture of the various and varying secondary opportunities which will be linked up one with another and into which all pupils will have the right to pass.
  This consideration of the secondary world leads me to consider for a few minutes the ancient and complicated problem of the dual system. In approaching it, I hope we shall be able to be inspired by the same philosophy that has so far animated my remarks, namely, that we should retain diversity while welding parts into an organic whole. I hope also that it will be remembered that the Churches were the pioneers of education and that they had a virtual monopoly before the State got going. In considering this ancient problem, I would like first of all to touch on the question of religious teaching. It is the Government's intention that the present practice in our schools shall be fostered and made to endure. I have purposely said "present practice," because it has been said that our schools are Godless and that our teachers are pagan. I indignantly repudiate any such suggestion. There is religious teaching over the length and breadth

  1833
  of this country, accompanied by forms of religious worship in schools, but, like many Debates in this House, the standard is uneven, and it is the Government's intention that this shall be put on a better basis. We have been encouraged in this matter by the development which has been taking place over the last seven years in the framing of what are known as agreed syllabuses of religious teaching. They are called "agreed," because the main denominations come together and frame them and reach agreement upon them with the teachers and the authorities. These syllabuses are widely used all over the country and are extremely successful. They include no distinctive doctrine or the tenets or formularies of particular creeds and do no violence to the Cowper-Temple Clause, which prohibits the teaching of doctrine in council schools. On this agreed basis the Government propose to deal with the question of religious teaching in the schools, supplementing it in the controlled schools, which are described in the White Paper, by two periods a week of trust deed teaching. In the aided schools, which remain free in this respect, religious teaching will be given at the discretion of the managers. These particulars are set out in full in the White Paper, but hon. Members may wish me to develop in a little more detail how this elaborate plan, which has been described by various journals as "ingenious," "Solomonic" and, occasionally, "statesmanlike," has come to be framed. I think I can do so because of the long experience of the negotiations in which I and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary have been engaged.
  The position is as follows, and these are the facts with which we have to deal: Over one-half our schools are denominational--a figure which may cause surprise to many who do not realise the general nature of our educational position. It is on this sector of the front that reorganisation of the schools into senior and junior departments has proceeded most slowly. Without this reorganisation true secondary education cannot be provided for the senior children. You cannot give proper secondary education in all-age schools which have classes of pupils ranging from 5 to 15 years, or later when the school age is raised. Moreover, conditions in denominational schools are quite often bad, owing to the lack of funds. Whether in town or village, the conditions in the class-
  1834
  rooms, the recreative facilities and the sanitary conditions are often below standard.
  Taking the educational needs of the country and the condition of these schools, let us look at the problem from the points of view of the various partners concerned. First, you have the point of view of the denominations, which desire more help to meet their new burdens and in general desire the continuance of the form of religious teaching to which they have been accustomed. The Free Churches, who own very few schools, retain their deeply felt grievance that their children in some areas, where there are no council schools, have to go to Church schools and thus live in an atmosphere, and be offered religious teaching, alien to their own beliefs. From the point of view of the Authorities in facing the present problem, they cannot fit the denominational schools into the appropriate provision for their area as educational necessity makes desirable, nor can they remove a redundant teacher from one council school to a denominational school, or even from one Church school to another. Looking at it from the point of view of teachers as servants of the public, they would prefer to be free from the denominational tests which condition their appointment to about half the schools—though the smaller ones—in our general provision. Therefore, from whatever way you approach this ancient and thorny question, you can see the various interests which have to be considered.
  In the course of the protracted discussions it became clear that alternative "A," as set out in the White Paper, would commend a large measure of acceptance and would provide a give-and-take solution of our problems. Let me describe how the various interests have been met. The owners or proprietors of the schools coming under this alternative would find their burdens removed and a place for the teaching to which they attach particular importance. The Authorities would find an immediate easing of their administrative problems, the schools would be, as their name indicates, controlled by them, reorganisation could be proceeded with, and the school would form part of the picture or provision of education for their area. Teachers could be exchanged more freely, and, what is important, by making the

  1835
  headships of these schools a Council appointment, many posts would be free from those denominational tests to which I have referred. In this way the Free Churches would be reassured that their children were not obliged to attend a school which was the preserve of the Established Church.
  It might well be imagined by hon. Members that at last there had been found a complete solution of the problem, because it would appear that the various interests were met, at any rate in the most important of their demands. It would appear that we could eliminate duality and that this solution would be universally applicable, but here, alas, we encounter a section of denominational opinion which has different views. They quite sincerely hold different views which it is the duty of this House to respect. These denominations are not confined to one faith. They believe that the children at their schools should be what I can best describe as "Church members," that the whole staff should be practising members of the body of the Church, so that children passing from class to class should never leave the atmosphere of the faith. Those for whom this solution would be imperative are not confined to Roman Catholics; there are many Anglicans as well. For these, for whom I have the greatest respect, a second alternative is suggested which proposes a more generous solution of the Church or denominational school problem than has ever been put forward before.
  Under alternative "B" they are assured of a proportion of the sum for alterations, repairs and improvements, and they retain complete liberty of doctrine and conscience. But they say this, "When we have to fall back on this second alternative which you provide, we would like you to remember that we pay rates and taxes that help with the provision of all schools. Just because we will not take your agreed syllabus and are not content for some of our teachers to be freed from denominational tests, just because we want our children to live in school the life of our faith, why should we be penalised and why should not our building costs be met as fully as those of others." Here—and I think I would be interpreting the feelings of the House and the country if I am severely practical—I
  1836
  would like to say that I do not believe it is profane or wrong to say that the payment of the whole expenses of a denominational school must involve a measure of public control which would be irksome to the beliefs of those who cannot accept our first alternative. If we were to give 100 per cent. to the denominational schools without the accompanying conditions of control which I have described under alternative "A," what would we have done in this House? We should have met one point out of the catalogue of many. We should have met the need of the denominations for more money, but in no other respect should we have solved the dual system. We should rather have perpetuated it in toto and, what is more important, we should have alienated beyond recall certain partners in the field of education who are indispensable, namely, the authorities, the free Churches and the teachers. Therefore I have not been able to concede the full demand of those who desire complete liberty of conscience.
  Mr. Logan: What does the right hon. Gentleman really mean when he says that that does not solve the problem of the dual system? Is it the intention to try to get rid of that system?
  Mr. Butler: No. The very fact that the dual system is being perpetuated should answer the hon. Member. We are continuing the dual system with the adaptations which I have been describing.
  Mr. Stokes: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to explain why the Scottish scheme is not applicable in this case?
  Mr. Butler: The reason is set out at such great length in the White Paper that I thought I had better not cover exactly the same ground but try to give as clear and homely a description of the problems as I could. [AN HON. MEMBER: "There are only two religions in Scotland."] That is the secret. The religious problem is quite different, and the proportion of Church schools is quite different in Scotland from what it is here.
  I come to the next practical consideration which hon. Members will have in mind, and that is, to what extent will the first alternative be taken up? Of course, if it is not taken up, our attempt to get rid

  1837
  of some of the problems would be vain and otiose. That affects very much the judgment of hon. Members in deciding on the value of a scheme such as this. I can only say, without wishing to pledge any outside body or to exceed what I ought to say, that the Church Assembly of the Church of England has twice approved a scheme on the lines of that which I have put forward. Therefore I come to the House with a scheme which I consider will command a reasonable measure of acceptance. The Church of England has some 10,000 schools. If the majority of them ask for alternative A, we shall have taken a practical step forward to solve this problem without entering into any scheme involving the elaborate provisions and the transfer and purchase of the schools or special terms for one denomination or another which are the blemishes of any alternative scheme that has been put before me. In this solution, at the same time, under the second alternative, certain denominational schools, including those whose views I have referred to, will be able to continue as they are now on better terms than they have had before. I believe this plan has a good chance of working, but if we alter the balance, we shall risk upsetting the whole settlement.
  I have naturally had to search my conscience, as responsible for the administration of education, as to whether denominations can manage on the basis of the second alternative, because one does not want to produce a plan which in the end will not work or will work to the disadvantage of the denominations. I realise the rise in costs with which the denominations are faced, and I have found to my hand a useful Measure in the 1936 Act passed by the Colonial Secretary. The proposals under that Act were rendered largely nugatory by the outbreak of war. It is now the Government's intention to revive all the proposals under that Act which were put in, without any qualifications as to the date by which they will have to be completed. It will be remembered that the grants under the 1936 Act were for the re-organisation of senior schools alone and that those grants amounted to not less than 50 per cent, and not more than 75 percent. But it will be realised what an immense help to the re-organisation of the schools and denominations the reintroduction of these proposals will be,
  1838
  particularly when it is remembered that re-organisation of the Church or denominational schools is one of the great problems which have to be solved to give children the secondary education that we wish to provide. Therefore it is decided that these proposals shall be introduced, and it is interesting to note that in the case of the Roman Catholic community alone, the proposals, including those under the Liverpool Act, amount to some 300 and it is our opinion that these will cover the great majority of the senior children of the Roman Catholic body who wish to be re-organised in senior schools. That confirms me in my belief that this will materially help both the Anglicans and the Roman Catholics in meeting the problems of re-organisation with which we are so clearly faced. I trust that the House will so far be with me that this is at any rate a plan which deserves consideration and has a. chance of working. I believe the extent of agreement which we have obtained for the plan is not likely to be exceeded by the production of any other plan, and I most conscientiously and sincerely recommend it to the attention of the House.
  Now I want to discuss the question of timing. Anyone who studies educational history must be struck by the leisurely pace at which educational reforms often appear to have been pursued and the extent of the plans which fall by the way. Reorganisation initiated 17 years ago is only just about half completed. The system of part-time continued education introduced by Mr. Fisher in 1918 and passed by the House at that date is operating in only one district—Rugby—throughout the, length and breadth of the land. I should like to pay a tribute to the Warwickshire Authority and to the school at Rugby on the manner in which they have kept the flag flying. It, is now the Government's intention to introduce a system of continued education for all children released part-time from industry up to the age of 18. I therefore thought, and my colleagues in the Government agreed, that the best way to produce results this time would be to bring forward a comprehensive and thorough plan and to present the whole scheme, and then to enlist the aid of Parliament and the country in order to put it through.
  Mr. Cove: We are a little puzzled. The right hon. Gentleman has

  1839
  referred once or twice to explanations to be given by his hon. Friend. We are not quite clear about various items in the White Paper. I thought his hon. Friend was winding up the Debate. Is someone else going to explain further the provisions of the White Paper, or are we having it all from him?
  Mr. Butler: The hon. Member is going to get a great deal more from me yet. I am hoping to satisfy him, and I certainly wish to satisfy the House. Even though we are having a two days' Debate, I had not wished to occupy more than my allowance of time. The hon. Member will not be disappointed by what I am going to say now.
  Mr. Creech Jones: We do not know precisely whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to follow the whole of the White Paper. He has indicated that certain parts are going to be left to the Parliamentary Secretary. We want to know whether the Parliamentary Secretary is to follow him immediately or whether we shall only be discussing a portion of the Paper.
  Mr. Butler: If I were to touch on every single point of the White Paper, I should be here the whole day. As there are certain aspects of it, particularly the question of the independent schools, with which my hon. Friend is very familiar, I think it will really be advisable to leave that to him. I shall be touching on most of the points, and my hon. Friend will supplement what I have to say at the end of the Debate. I do not think it would be in the interest of the House if we had more than two Ministers speaking. The usual complaint is that there are too many Ministerial speeches, and I think it is being let off lightly by having only two. I have said the Government thought it wise to present the whole problem to the House in order to enlist the - support of Parliament and the country to push it through. That will naturally mean that in a plan of this magnitude there must be certain priorities. That is, in simple language, that parts of the plan may come in before other parts. Therefore, in considering what parts to bring in, the Government have been animated by two principles. The first is that the several reforms should be introduced immediately material considerations, such
  1840
  as building materials, labour and the provision of teachers, allow and in accordance with the various priorities of the Government's various measures of social reform.
  The second principle is that if you are to extend the obligation of parents to send children to school, you must satisfy them that they will derive genuine educational benefit from the extended time that they are expected to remain. In the light of those two principles we can consider the nature of the programme for bringing in the plan. If you look at the question of the raising of the school age in the light of those two principles, you cannot help feeling that the raising of the age to 16, for example, must depend upon the virtual completion of re-organisation. Otherwise you would find children obliged to stay in a school with pupils ranging in age from five to i6 with, perhaps, in some more remote areas only two or three teachers to cover the whole of the age group. Therefore let us press ahead with re-organisation. Let us also remember in this connection the various programmes of the Government for immense housing development and the tremendous call there will be on building labour and materials. I think the House will come to the conclusion that our first measure should be to concentrate on raising the age to 15 as soon after the war as possible. Hon. Members will then want to know what we propose to do about the age of 16. I have indicated that our decision to raise the age to 16 depends on circumstances and the facts that I have mentioned, but it is our intention to provide the necessary machinery to do this by taking powers in the Bill to raise the age to i6 by Order in Council as soon as circumstances 'permit
  Let us consider the programme for the first three or four years in the light of what I have said. We should aim at raising the age to 15, completing the planning of full-time education and the provision of the various secondary opportunities that I have described We should push reorganisation substantially further and nearer completion than it is now. We should recast the local educational machinery, and we should start part-time continued education, which has been delayed for so long. If at the same time we can proceed, as has been requested in the country, with the development of technical

  1841
  and adult education, we shall, indeed, have made a very excellent start.
  Coming to the machinery of these reforms, the House will want to know about the money available and the nature of the local administration to be provided. No doubt the system of finance, the grant system, will have to be reconsidered at some later date, but for this transitional period the House will be wise to launch these reforms on the basis of the grant suggested. I am very glad to have obtained the approval of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to an overall exchequer grant of 55 per cent., which should help authorities to carry out this programme. The present all-over grant is about 50 per cent. It is proposed that the poorer authorities shall be aided in addition by special provisions, which will be set out later, to enable them to take their part in the reforms which are suggested.
  Mr. Leach: Will the right hon. Gentleman, before he leaves the question of increasing the age to 16, say something as to the provision of new schools which that reform will undoubtedly entail? If children are to remain for two years and there are all the ix-learners at the other end, a large number of new schools will obviously be required. How are the denominational body on a grant of so per cent, going to provide them?
  Mr. Butler: I covered some of that ground when I indicated that by the reopening of the 1936 Act the problem of reorganisation, at any rate for one major denomination, is largely met. That is the problem which most affects the raising of the age to 16. This plan is not one for providing money for new schools but one for enabling existing schools to fit into the system. The hon. Member has done a service if by his question he brings that out clearly.
  In considering the determination of the local education authorities, I come to another of the very thorny subjects which have evoked discussion and attention for the last 70 years or more. The Government's proposal to abolish the terms and the divisions of our education as we know them to-day, elementary and higher, to which the present local education authorities are related by their constitution, means that there must be a redefinition of education authorities. This is inescapable.
  1842
  It has been put to me that the path of caution and wisdom would have been to defer consideration until a review of local government had taken place. I will answer that quite flatly. If the House thinks that by postponing this question for a review of local government they will solve it, I do not believe they are right. I believe that they will be taking the most fatal step to delay these reforms. That is why it has been decided by the Government to grasp this nettle and to take no delaying action but make definite proposals. Without a redefinition of authorities we cannot get these reforms launched. I would like hon. Members to realise that it is difficult under our new plan to establish local authorities for education for children only up to the age of Ir. That would really be a ridiculous solution. If our education is to be an organic whole, organised through successive stages, the authorities must themselves be whole organically. That is the principle which has animated these proposals.
  I would make the following observations for conscientious Members who sit for some of the present elementary or, Part III authorities and have appealed to me ad misericordiam: First, I acknowledge the admirable work that has been done hitherto by the smaller education authorities, and it is the desire of the Government in framing a new scheme that there shall be secured for the leaders of education in the various areas a position of dignity and responsibility so that they can go on serving the cause of education as they have done before. Second, it is intended that the powers of delegation shall be properly exercised, that the appeal to the Board on the nature of the delegated powers shall be a reality, and that it shall be possible and, indeed, very probable that the powers for both elementary—or primary in the new phrase—and secondary education shall be delegated to districts under the scheme. In that way it will be seen that, although full details cannot be given in a White Paper, and must await the Bill, it will be likely that certain of the leaders of education in those districts will have more powers under these new proposals over primary and secondary education than they have actually had before. Third, nothing we propose removes anything from the sphere of local government. We simply

  1843
  suggest a rearrangement of functions as between certain authorities. During this summer I have little doubt that the Board will receive representations from all those interested. We shall hope during the summer—and that is one advantage of the procedure here
  suggested—to achieve a wider local administration in the final plan which will do no violence to the three principles set out in paragraph 114 of the White Paper and which will be just and fair to all.
  I come to the last main question with which I want to deal, the supply of teachers. I have indicated in my reference to the programme that we mean business about the machinery of reform, about finance, about the units of administration and about buildings, on which we have a special inquiry proceeding. It only remains for me to show that we mean business about the teachers. It is no good having a tidy, efficient plan for education unless there is the inspiration of leader-ship. We do not want to give greater opportunities only to the children; we want to give them also to the teachers. I should like here to pay my tribute to the manner in which teachers have risen to their responsibilities in the present crowded conditions and have managed our education as well as any other country in the course of this great conflict. In considering the future of the teachers we have long-term plans and short-term plans. We do not mean to fob the question off simply upon an inquiry or upon long-term planning. We believe the long-term consideration of the training and supply of teachers is perhaps the most vital matter for the future of education, and it has been entrusted to an inquiry under the Vice-Chancellor of Liverpool, Sir Arnold McNair. This will be reporting at a not impossibly distant date, so that we may soon have before us the findings of this long-term inquiry.
  We have to consider as short-term needs the immediate preparation of teachers to take on the first burdens of the reforms. For instance, I mentioned the raising of the age of 15 as soon as possible after the war. There are various other schemes in hand. As a preface to describing what those schemes are, I would like to say that the Government will first want to know that the House and the country mean business about educational reform. I trust that the House will
  1844
  take the first step by passing this Motion with acclamation. We shall then be encouraged to proceed, not with the details necessarily of the plan, but with the general question of educational reform and to intensify our search for teachers and our appeal to the profession and to new recruits. Having got over this hurdle, which I am convinced the House will take flying, we have to examine the sources of recruitment. We have our present sources which will be continued and there are new seams which we must tap. One of the most important seams will be those who are at present serving in the Forces, both men and women. We have several proposals in hand to secure suitable recruits. The first is under the Further Education and Training Scheme. This scheme has been introduced, as one was in 1919, to provide training for men and women coming out of the Forces. Already we are getting a few applications because men and women are being retired for various reasons. It is a comfort to realise that one-half of those applications arc for posts in the teaching profession. We trust the scheme will develop to an even greater extent than it did in 1919. Then there are the proposals under the Army Education Scheme. Correspondence courses have already been under-taken. We are also getting into touch with prisoners of war with a view to enabling them to start preparing themselves for what may be described as the greatest profession in the world.
  When the House comes to consider the matter, what more inspiring and varied experience could be offered to the generation which is winning us our opportunities than that they should help to train the next generation not to waste those opportunities. What a varied choice we can offer in our new schemes to the teaching profession, ranging from the nursery school for teachers interested in young children, right through the scale of infant, primary and the three types of secondary, whether practical or academic, into the young people's colleges which are to provide continuing education up to 18. Here is no mirage in front of intending teachers such as they may have seen dancing before their eyes in the course of their struggles in the desert. Here are no castles in the air, but here is flesh and blood and a new edifice to inhabit. Plato had a vision of the philosopher ruler, but I trust

  1845
  that in our generation it will come true in the teacher leader.
  Thus I believe Parliament has a double responsibility; first, to the generation which is winning this victory to assure them that a plan for the future world will go through, and, second, to the children to provide them with a chance to live in that future world. Thus Parliament may become a link between two generations. May we prove worthy by taking the first step on the road to educational reform this week. Let us see that in our time we have achieved something. We have got rid of the antiquated structure and reconstructed it. We have removed some of the impediments to the proper fusion of the efforts of Church and State. We have made it possible for children to be looked after up to 18 by care and supervision and we have induced a new love for those spiritual values which makes the human personality. If we can say that, we shall have fortified the character of the individual, and right action will flow from right character. If we can achieve right character in our rising generation we can say that in this time of strife we have ensured the fulfilment of our hopes.
  Mr. Creech Jones: The right hon. Gentleman concluded his speech with a moving peroration. I think we are all agreed that the Government have produced a memorable White Paper, and the President and the Parliamentary Secretary are to be complimented on submitting to the House and the country not a miscellaneous collection of reforms but an education plan. My friends and I pay tribute to the industry, imagination and broad conceptions which have been embodied in these proposals. We have been waiting for these proposals, as the country has, with growing impatience, but it will undoubtedly be true that if the scheme is fulfilled this country will have taken a very long step forward in education. In this scheme is embodied a great deal of what has been urged by my hon. Friends for the past few generations, as well as by many educationists and public spirited people who have been concerned with human welfare and democratic progress. But there are many misgivings among many such people as to whether the citadel of privilege has yet been finally taken, as to whether concessions of too important a character have been made to certain interests, and as to
  1846
  whether the vigorous spirit required for education reform is sufficiently evident in the White Paper.
  This Debate will serve little purpose unless we approach this question of education and the proposals before us in a constructive and critical, though none the less an appreciative, spirit. We must ask whether these proposals fulfil our hopes. Do they offer a rapid advance over a wide field? Do they provide a complete statutory framework for a democratic national system? Are they practically realisable? It is unnecessary to discuss the defects of our education arrangements to-day—their inadequacy in both quantity and quality, the neglect in administration, the stagnation produced by private enterprise in education and by the operation of the dual system in its present form, the provision of different levels of education for the well-to-do and the rest, and so on, because Section A of Chapter II of the White Paper and page 13 of Section IV are a severe indictment, and will remain a standing challenge to the Government and to Parliament until those defects are removed.
  It is unfortunate that we cannot see the whole of the plan now offered to us. The President has said that the training of teachers is fundamental, but that we cannot consider it until the Report of the McNair Commission is before us. Likewise, there is the problem of the place of the public schools, and the direct-grant secondary schools. Both these issues are highly controversial, but we must wait. We have only just received the Norwood Report on the curriculum for secondary schools, which raises a number of important issues concerned with the bias of teaching and the preparation of children for their livelihood and their life. On these matters we have still to await the decision of the Government. But the proposals opened out by the White Paper are to be welcomed, because, as the President has pointed out, they do insist that efficient education should be provided at all stages, that school life should be lengthened, that the range of opportunities should be increased, that the physical needs of children should be attended to, that nursery schools and young people's colleges should be made obligatory and provision made for youth, that a new emphasis should be put upon

  1847
  primary education and higher standards applied, that secondary schools should be available for all, with a common code for those schools, and that independent private schools should be registered. On all these points we welcome very heartily the proposals in the White Paper.
  The President has, as was to be anticipated, made important concessions regarding religious teaching in council schools, certain aspects of which are highly controversial, such as the position of teachers in relation thereto and the use of secular schools for denominational teaching. So far as the dual system is concerned, the President has offered a compromise rather than a solution of this particular problem. On this difficult matter I want to say only that I hope the proposals will remove old controversies for ever and make no new ones, and that the field will be cleared once for all for big educational advances; but in saying that it cannot be ignored that many people are disturbed about the price the President is prepared to pay for a settlement. The situation becomes more complicated in some respects by the various categories of schools created and the extension of the dual system into secondary education, and it is right that I should say that important bodies in this country would have wished to end the duel system altogether, and that it is no small public to whom the changes contemplated are causing great anxiety. We hope, however, that some finality will now be reached on this vexed issue which will give satisfaction all the way round.
  Before dealing with our main apprehensions and difficulties, I should like to refer in passing to the primary schools, because although our thoughts are largely directed to the general structure of the scheme, we are all conscious of the fundamental importance and the past neglect of the primary schools. We welcome the duty now imposed upon local education authorities to provide nursery schools and to raise the standards of the primary schools. Indeed, in the White Paper the existing evils are clearly seen. One hopes that the neglect of the past will be rectified quickly. One hopes that in the creation of nursery schools such schools for children from the age of 3 to 7 will not be ruled out, with junior schools from the age of 7 to 11. In the White Paper there is no indication
  1848
  of what is to be the maximum size of the classes or when that maximum, if it is already known, is to be reached, and no dates are mentioned for carrying through the improvements in respect of buildings and staff. Another thing we welcome is the provision for free medical inspection and treatment. There is now an obligation upon local authorities in respect of milk and meals. The cost is not so great, and we would rather hope that milk and meals for school childrden—a provision which has proved to be workable and is so valuable to the health and well-being of children—will be provided free. I would also point out, in connection with the extension of the age, that it is not clear from the White Paper whether provision is being made for allowances to parents for the maintenance of their children. Are we to understand that the undertaking given by the Government when the Beveridge proposals were under discussion that children's allowances will become operative over the country means that this difficulty of keeping at school children from ordinary working class homes will finally be removed.
  I want next to refer to one of the major problems which is worrying us on this side of the House. According to the White Paper, it will be over a long period that these changes will be realised. Perhaps we can be told; first, of what is to happen after the war, and what the President means by after the war. Is he thinking merely in terms of the conclusion of the European war, or are these proposals to wait for the end of a war which may be very much prolonged after the conclusion of hostilities in Europe? There is, of course, on this side of the House, as elsewhere, an appreciation of the fact that we cannot hurry through changes which are so far-reaching as these, that we are conditioned by a number of factors, some of which are outside our control. First, there will be the necessity for training sufficient teachers; there is a very real shortage of them, and it will take time. There is also a lack of buildings, and there are competing claims in respect of priorities. But it seems to me, there is no intense sense of urgency about the carrying through of these changes.
  There is to be, first of all, no start at all under the proposals of the White Paper, so far as one can see, until the conclusion of the war, even though a Bill

  1849
  is passed by this House. The school-leaving age is not to be raised to 15 until at least 18 months after the war. Is it possible for that interval to be shortened? School fees are not to be abolished until towards the end of the third year, and then that will only be a beginning. Young people's colleges for part-time continuation work are only to be brought in at the end of the third year, and then they are to start only by the provision of one day's attendance and not two. Also, the provision in regard to technical education will be further delayed, presumably for a period of four years. In the White Paper there is no period given within which the local education authorities are to complete their surveys and submit their plans to the Board. When one comes to the problem of raising the school age to 16, that is not likely to he done until more than seven years have passed.
  The President has told us that obviously many of the factors which will have to be considered in the unfolding of these plans are at the present time unknown, and the White Paper declares:
  "the rate at which it will be possible to proceed will depend not only on the factors mentioned in the preceding paragraph but upon the financial resources available, having regard to our existing commitments, to the new claims we may have to meet and to such orders of priorities as may have to be laid down. The rate of development of the proposals therefore will have to be determined from time to time in the light of those considerations."
  I do submit that that is profoundly disturbing. We want it clearly understood that for us there should be priority in regard to education, and that there should be an eager urge forward. If we are to linger on the way, weighing up one priority against another and taking into consideration the changing circumstances after the war in industry and in the country generally, we may be confronted not only with a very slow process of fulfilment, but possibly we may experience the disappointment which we had after the passing of the Fisher Act.
  The second main difficulty in regard to these proposals is the absence of a target date for raising the age to 16. I wondered, after reading paragraph 6 and paragraph 3 of the Appendix, whether industrial and financial considerations will not influence a decision, even in respect of the raising of the age to 15. Indeed,
  1850
  some of these paragraphs to which I have referred are couched in rather ominous-terms—"the needs of industry will have to be considered," and so on. It may very well happen that instead of 18 months after the end of the war, it may be a number of years before we reach the raising of the age to 15. I fear too that there may be a great deal of evasion and interminable delay and uncertainty, which really are not good when you are trying to bring the local education authorities into line with a view to getting your reconstruction proposals actually adopted. Certainly, if one looks at the Appendix, the financial arrangements do not contemplate the age of 16 until more than eight years have passed, and then there is some doubt as to whether it will operate even at that period.
  I cannot see how it is to be possible to work the secondary arrangements if certain types of education are to have a four-year period and a grammar school type of education is to have a five-year period. It seems to me that instead of achieving a common status in the various types of secondary school, by differentiating as against the technical and the modern school with their age of leaving at 15, we are again perpetuating the rather superior status of the grammar school whose normal leaving age is i6. I notice that the Norwood Report visualises the leaving age at 16.
  I come to the third difficulty in respect of secondary education itself. In the course of time, under the proposals of the White Paper, secondary education is to be made available to all children without fee. That is, of course, a most desirable advance. There will also be a single code and a common standard for the three types of school. All that is to the good, and it is to be hoped that there will be established a number of multilateral schools. There is a difference of view as to whether it is a desirable type of change to bring all types of secondary education under one roof. The Norwood Committee expresses its own doubts as to the line of development; but if there is to be a common code and a common status, and if we are to attach in education just as much importance to technical as to narrow academic or grammar subjects, then it is obvious that the more you bring together the children under the same roof who are pursuing different paths the more likely

  1851
  are you to get a common standard and a common code operating between one kind of education and another. As to the curriculum and bias of the secondary education I noted paragraph 28 of the Paper. It reads:
  "too many of the nation's abler children are attracted into a type of education which prepares primarily for the University and for the administrative and clerical professions;"
  I hope that does not mean that too many children are going to the universities. It goes on:
  "Too few find their way into schools from which the design and craftsmanship sides of industry are recruited. If education is to serve the interests both of the child and of the nation, some means must be found of correcting this bias and of directing ability into the field where it will find its best realisation."
  With that I think most of us would agree. But after this, in this consideration of secondary education one becomes a little puzzled about the general proposals of the White Paper. The President has quoted Disraeli at the head of his White Paper:
  "Upon the education of the people of this country the fate of this country depends."
  It seemed to me that he had unfortunately forgotten another familiar quotation by Disraeli in regard to the two nations. Anyway fees are to be abolished by the President in the maintained schools sometime in the third or fourth year after the war, but no decision is taken in respect of grant-aided secondary schools. These include the direct grant schools. When I saw the President's hesitation about that, I went back to paragraph I of the White Paper, and I read:
  "But such diversity must not impair "—
  and here, quite conveniently, the President omitted in his speech these words, "the social unity." Mark those words:
  "within the educational system which will open the way to a more closely-knit society and give us strength to face the tasks ahead."
  I next went to the last part of paragraph 2o, and there I read:
  "A. system under which fees are charged in one type of post-primary school and prohibited in the other, offends against the canons that the nature of a child's education should be determined by his capacity and promise and not by the financial circumstances of the parent."
  I thought we were getting on, but when we got to paragraph 32 we discovered that under the excuse that there is the Fleming Committee at work, no decision
  1852
  can be taken in regard to the aided schools. One is left to suppose that these aided schools, some of which are linked up with the local authorities—
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Ede): Will the hon. Member allow me to interrupt him? I do not think he has got the technicalities right. The only people who are excluded are the direct-grant schools. They are only temporarily excluded from consideration. Schools that are aided and maintained by the local authorities—to use the present nomenclature—are both to be free.
  Mr. Creech Jones: I am glad to have that assurance. It is not clear in the White Paper. My point still remains that so far as direct-grant secondary schools are concerned the decision in respect of those is deferred until the Fleming Committee makes its report. What this means in effect is that in the field of secondary education we are likely to have the maintained schools, and some of the aided schools on one side, free and the direct-grant schools and the private schools on the other side of the fence. In one case education will be free, and in the other case the parents will be able to buy that education by fees on behalf of their children.
  Mr. Ede: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman still says that "some of the aided schools will be on the other side of the fence." I thought I had made it clear that all the aided schools are maintained schools. The only schools not included are the direct-grant schools.
  Mr. Creech Jones: That is precisely what I am saying. They will all be on one side of the fence.
  Mr. Ede: All the aided schools will be on one side.
  Mr. Creech Jones: I should have thought that many of the direct-grant schools were in receipt of aid. It does not alter my point, that in secondary school education.' there will be a line drawn. Such a line perpetuates what has vitiated our educational system up to now. Some parents will be able to buy expensive education for their children and some schools will enjoy, as in the past, a special status. It is certain that

  1853
  some vested interests in education will be preserved. I object to the existence of vested interests in the field of education.
  Mr. Pickthorn: Why will they have a special status?
  Mr. Creech Jones: It is clear that many of the public schools at the present time enjoy a special status which is reflected in the whole of our social, economic and political system.
  Mr. Pickthorn: Why?
  Mr. Creech Jones: I am definitely opposed to snob schools of any kind, and I would like to know whether it is proposed by the Government to—
  Mr. PickthornDoes the hon. Gentleman suggest that a snob school is one to which a superior status is accorded?
  Mr. Creech Jones: I suggest that in the case of schools which are largely supported because of the financial ability of parents to buy the education of their children, the peculiar position of these schools in our national life does constitute them snob schools. All that I am now concerned about is that the Government should now inform us whether they have received any Report from the Fleming Commission, whether this problem has vet been reported on. I understand that there has been some discussion in regard to this question of schools receiving public moneys, and that a definite recommendation has been made that such schools receiving public moneys of any kind should be free. I would like to know whether it is possible for that Report to be in the possession of the House and whether it is the intention of the Government to act on that recommendation.
  I wish also to say a word about the machinery of administration, because this is a highly controversial and very vexed subject. I think that everyone will agree that it is desirable that the old Part III authorities should go, that is, if efficiency and economy in education are to be achieved and proper units of administration are to be established. I cannot at the moment discuss what has worried many Members, the general process of disintegration that is going on over the whole field of local government, but in the field of education I am not altogether happy that the proposals as I understand them are altogether just and satisfactory.
  1854
  Unless I am misinformed, it seems to me that certain of these proposals are fraught with some danger, because to hand over educational control and policy to many county councils is to hand them over to reactionary bodies. To hope that the joint district boards or district boards which are to be created can function with delegated powers but with no initiative or financial control, on the guardians' model, is to belie the experience of this type of body.
  It will be found that the progressive Part III authorities who will now be caught up in the new scheme of administration in these joint boards will often be penalised financially as a result of that co-operation, and that development in their areas is likely to be held up. I must confess that in some respects the arguments in the White Paper tend to beg the question. I would hope that when the Government are dealing with this very difficult problem they will see that the provision that is made inside the county areas will be of district boards sufficiently large for educational needs but exercising real responsibility and answerable, apart from their constituents, to the board, such boards reverting to the county control if they fail to fulfil their responsibilities, I think it would be fatal if we destroyed local initiative and the very considerable local interest which has been built up by the work on the existing educational authorities.
  There are one or two small points to which I would like to refer. First of all, I think that we are imposing some very considerable burdens on the local authorities in regard to the cost of educational extension. In 1938–39 the cost to the local authorities was no less than £8,000,000. It is visualised in the White Paper that by the consummation of these proposals the cost to the local authorities alone will have risen to something like £79,000,000. Unless there is some very drastic overhaul of municipal and local government finance or new means found of raising the funds for carrying on local government, I am afraid that many local authorities, in spite of the special provision which the President of the Board of Education has mentioned in his speech, will probably fall by the way. There is another point that I will mention with regard to young people's colleges. I think it is an admirable development, but

  1855
  we have to wait for three or four years before such colleges will be established, and further, not until eight or nine years have passed will consideration be given to the question whether these continuation schools—young people's colleges is much the better term, of course—shall provide two days instead of the one. That seems to me to be putting back the continuation education between 16 and 18 too long and making it far too brief in attendance.
  Again, I had hoped if I had had time to deal with the question of adult education, in which I personally have been very considerably interested for a long time. What the White Paper has to say about that is not very encouraging. The financial provision is of a somewhat limited kind, and considering the considerable discussion that has been going on all over the country, considering too the numerous proposals in the field of adult education which have aroused enormous interest everywhere, it seems rather unfortunate that there is little forecast in the Paper as to the manner in which the Board can help forward developments which have been so eagerly discussed during the last few years. Finally, there is a point too with regard to the universities, in that greater provision will have to be made in regard to State bursaries to the universities, and more money made available for research purposes.
  I conclude, therefore, by expressing the hope that the Government will live up to the hopes that are aroused by this White Paper. They must by all means as vigorously as they can tackle this problem of the provision of teachers and the building programme. The Board must not be intimidated by big interests but must show drive and determination in the carrying out of its proposals. There must be no whittling away of the standards which are set up in this White Paper. The Government, I submit, must make the time-table more definite, and must accelerate the bringing of the promised reforms into operation as quickly as is practicable. The opportunity to do bold things has come, and the nation is ready for them. I hope that without delay that opportunity will be seized in the Bill which is to come before the House in the autumn. Education is the central constructive service of society. It should be adequate to the vast and inspiring task of creating a genuine, social democracy. I
  1856
  believe that this White Paper contributes substantially to this end, but I want a Bill which will be more precise and which will meet the difficulties and objections which I have raised to-day.
  Sir Harold Webbe: I must resist the very serious temptation to enter into debate with the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) on many of those points of educational procedure and administration on which he has been speaking. I must resist the temptation too to follow him in what appeared to be the rather puzzling labyrinth of educational terms. But in one thing I would like very sincerely to follow the hon. Member, and that is in offering to my right hon. Friend and to his Parliamentary Secretary very sincere congratulations, not only on the admirably lucid statements to which we have listened to-day, but also on the production of a notable document, a document which marks a tremendous step forward in almost every branch of educational work, a document which shows not only all that administrative wisdom of my right hon. Friend, but, much more than the ephemeral qualities of the politician, his self-effacing method of referring to his own contribution. It is a document which bears clear evidence of courage and vision.
  But what interests me in this document much more than its mere contents and detailed proposals is the very obvious evidence of a completely new approach to the whole problem of education. Education is seen as a whole, "as a continuous process conducted in successive stages," but it is no longer seen simply as a great social service but rather as an essential thread in, the whole fibre of society. Schools and colleges are regarded not objectively as ends in themselves but as instruments of social progress and as a means to the development of a national character and promotion of national purpose.
  It is from that angle that I would like to say something in regard to one or two of the more important sections of this White Paper. First in importance I put that section which deals with religious education. The purpose of education is set out in the first paragraph of this Report as being "to strengthen and inspire the younger generation" and "to open the way to a more closely knit society." For that purpose I put, as I say, the sections

  1857
  on religious education first in importance. It may well be that some Members will not agree with that order of emphasis, but I am sure they will agree, and I am sure no one more heartily than my right hon. Friend, that those sections, the proposals in them, represent very much more work, anxiety and difficulty than almost any other part of the Report, not only because of the inherent difficulties of the problem and the fact that it touches the conscience of men, but also because of the tragic history of misunderstanding and controversy, usually sincere, sometimes I fear prejudiced, which has in the past defied a solution and which has been such a stumbling block to many aspects of educational reform. The Minister's proposals in this regard seem to me to be a great advance on anything which has ever been suggested before. They seem to me to offer for the first time some rasonable prospect of acceptance. I do not want to discuss those detailed proposals on this occasion, but I want to make an appeal that the proposals shall be regarded broadmindedly and with a genuine desire to secure agreement.
  In my submission there is nothing more vital than that we should endeavour "to revive the spiritual and personal values in our society and in our national life." We sometimes say that this is an irreligious age. I believe that that is entirely wrong. Religious topics, which a few years ago were regarded as almost improper, are now discussed freely in trains, in buses, at the fireside, in clubs, everywhere; and I believe that the people of this country have never been more ready for spiritual leadership and guidance than they are today. A man's religion and his creed, the relation which he establishes with his God, and the form in which he expresses that relation, is an intimate and personal thing, and I believe that my right hon. Friend's White Paper is fully right in saying that the State cannot—and I would say, should not, take upon itself the full responsibility for fostering the distinctive formulas of particular denominations. That is outside the function of the State, but it is of vital importance to the State that that religious consciousness which I believe to be latent in every boy and girl and in every man and woman should be awakened and strengthened. I believe that it is only on the basis of a true religion that men can have courage to adventure and strength to achieve. It is
  1858
  only with the inspiration of a true religion that men can combine to great purpose. Therefore, the awakening of this religious consciousness is a fundamental necessity for the production of that more closely-knit society which is the objective of my right hon. Friend. In the awakening of that religious consciousness the schools and the teachers must play a most important part, both by their teaching and, perhaps still more, by the example of their own conduct. Therefore, I welcome the proposals in the White Paper that special training should be provided in this most difficult of all branches of school teaching for teachers who feel a genuine desire to give instruction of that kind. I welcome also the proposal that religious teaching should not be given as a class subject, to be taught equally by all, but that it should be left wherever possible to those teachers who feel sincerely what they are going to teach. Religious teaching must always be as much a matter of the heart as of the head.
  These proposals, I am certain, will meet with much criticism—indeed, there are indications, not only in all our postbags but in this House to-day, that the storm may break. I beg the critics to examine their own consciences and to be certain that their criticism is sincere and has in it no element of prejudice or partisanship. I am optimistic enough to think that the circumstances of to-day offer a greater opportunity for accord and agreement than has ever been offered before. The strain and stress and the sorrow and suffering of this terrible war, which has lapped the doorsteps of almost every home in this country, have given
  us all a new scale of values. We have come to realise that many of these matters on which we have been divided in the past were matters of detail rather than of principle; and, therefore, I submit that, with that new scale of values, the whole of these proposals should be approached with that toleration which is of the essence of religion. This is a purpose in which we dare not fail. Whatever we may do to make our boys and girls scholars, whatever skill we may give them in the art and craft of citizenship, we shall have failed completely unless they grow up to be good men and women, with a high sense of honour, a sincere love of truth, a simple reverence in the face of those phenomena of life which they cannot understand or explain, and, above all, a

  1859
  readiness to put service to others in front of self-interest.
  I turn now to another extremely important section of the Report, that which deals with young people's colleges. The proposals are on the whole, I think, on familiar lines, but I see here also evidence of a new approach and a new point of view. "It is important to make clear that what is in view is no going back to school." "These schools should look to the future rather than to the past. That is, they should be associated with provision for adults and adult activities rather than with the schools that the young persons have left." This conception of the young people's college as the link between childhood and manhood is, it seems to me, vital to the achievement of that more closely-knit society which my right hon. Friend wishes to achieve. I believe that in this country that idea of the closely-knit society is most nearly attained in the Cambridgeshire village colleges, and particularly at Impington, the newest and best of them. Impington, as hon. Members are, no doubt, aware, is the centre of a group of other villages within a radius of 1o to 15 miles. It houses, in the first place, a modern school for the older children of that district. There they hive their practical work rooms and domestic science rooms. These rooms are used by the adolescents of that district for their evening classes and other evening activities. But much more has been added. On the same site and under the same roof there are facilities for adult education, university extension lectures, county libraries, reading rooms, games rooms and a large assembly hall for dancing, stage performances and cinema. There is accommodation for the Bee-Keepers, the Young Farmers, the Pig-Keepers, the Gardeners, the Women's Voluntary Service, the Red Cross, the Boy Scouts, the Women's Institute. All the social and educational activities of that whole area are concentrated at one spot. They have their playing fields, they have their gardens, they have their farmers' and fruit growers' test plots: everything in one centre; and in that centre, until the petrol restrictions stopped it, every evening during the year hundreds of youths and maidens with their fathers and mothers—yes, and their grandfathers and grandmothers—met for social and educational enjoyment.
  1860
  That is a practical experiment in community living, a practical demonstration of the rights and duties of citizenship, which is worth far more than all the books that have ever been written or all the lectures that have ever been delivered. I know it is impossible to reproduce Impington in every rural area, still less in every great town, but the purpose and spirit of it can be reproduced. If it is not possible legislatively to secure this, I hope my right hon. Friend, in the schemes submitted to him by local authorities will see that they place these young people's colleges at the centre of all their educational activities, and that they are linked intimately and if possible physically not only with the secondary schools on the one hand but, even more important, with the facilities for adult education and social enjoyment on the other. In that way, I think a practical step can be taken to secure this closely-knit society.
  Now may I say a word on technical education? I am sure the whole House agrees with my right hon. Friend that there is a very great need for the development of technical education. This country is definitely behind in that respect. We welcome also the paragraph at the end of the White Paper, which indicates that, in conjunction and in consultation with industry, it is proposed to develop the facilities for industrial research. But there is one omission, if I have read the White Paper aright. I see no reference to the provision of facilities for technical education of a post-graduate level other than industrial research. I believe that that is necessary, and I hope that when the Bill is before the House we shall find that that point has been taken care of.
  I want finally to say a few words on the question of priorities, with which the hon. Member for Shipley dealt. We must be realists. We should all like to see a reduction in the size of classes, the wiping-out of all the black-list schools, the completion of the Hadow reorganisation, the introduction of day continuation schools, the development of technical education and all the rest, but all these things—to say nothing of raising the school-leaving age—mean more teachers, and, even more important, bricks and mortar and bricklayers. The supply of building materials and building labour immediately after the war will be completely inadequate for the total needs of the country. We have it on

  1861
  the authority of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour that for something like two years after the war mere repairs and deferred maintenance will absorb virtually the whole efforts of the building industry. On top of that, and apart from what we desire in education, there is an urgent need for housing. Every damaged city is producing its plans for tremendous development. There will be a grave housing shortage and the building materials and labour simply will not go round for all these things at once. It is definitely misleading the public to hold out false hopes which can never be realised. To urge, as has been done to-day, that the school-leaving age should be raised at once, day continuation schools started at once, and the Hadow reorganisation completed at once, day continuation schools started at once, day continuation schools started at once, and the Hadow reorganization completed at once, is just holding in front of the public a ridiculous promise which there is no possibility of carrying out. There is nothing that damps enthusiasm and tends to discourage more than hope deferred.
  Therefore, we must be realists in this matter and appreciate that the desires of those of us who are interested in education cannot be considered alone. If we succeed in rebuilding all the schools that have been destroyed, in repairing and rehabilitating all the damage and in getting back to the standard of classes and the number of teachers we had in 1939 within 18 months or a couple of years of the end of the war, I believe we shall have done a great job. That does not in any way lessen the desire of some of us who are deeply interested in education to see these great reforms and developments put in hand at the earliest moment with the maximum energy. I am convinced that the Government mean business; I am certain that the President of the Board of Education means business. I end where I began by congratulating him on his White Paper. He is setting out on a voyage of adventure in which he will have the assistance of the whole House and for my part I wish him God speed and a quick and happy landing.
  Mr. Sexton: For many years now, far more years than anybody in the House has lived, the importance of education has been stressed. It was stressed by the Greeks more than 2,000 years ago when Diogenes said:
  1862
  "The foundation of every state is the education of its youth."
  That statement was emphasised by Cicero when he said:
  "What greater gift or better can we offer to the State, than if we taught and train up youth?"
  Its importance is emphasised in the White Paper, which states in the first paragraph:
  "In the youth of the nation we have our greatest national asset.… We cannot afford not to develop this asset to the greatest advantage."
  In view of such pronouncements, both ancient and modern, it is a tragedy that so many centuries have passed and so little has been done towards implementing those statements. In their escape from the Egyptian bondage the Jews were compelled to wander in the wilderness for a generation, but in escaping from the bondage of ignorance the children of the world and of this country have been forced to wander in darkness for over 80 generations. One criticism that I make of the White Paper is that the light of learning is not to be allowed to shine within a strictly defined period of time. Reference has been made by earlier speakers to paragraphs 5 and 6. There you can see how nebulous is the scheme from the point of view of a prompt start. We are told that changes cannot be achieved at once. Nobody expected that they could, but some definite work preliminary to the introduction of the scheme ought to be proceeded with at once. Buildings, equipment and teachers are mentioned, but the question which should be answered is, What is the order of priority which educational requirements occupy in the programme of priorities? The rate of progress referred to in paragraph 6 is in language very redolent of other post-war schemes. The rate of progress will depend upon the financial resources available. Does that mean that the recommendations of the White Paper may in effect be postponed for another generation?
  These proposals of the White Paper are closely bound up with the related matter of teachers, their recruitment and training, and also with the problem of the public schools. These form an integral part of any sincere educational reconstruction. Yet the McNair Report on the former and the Fleming Report on the latter are not available and cannot be

  1863
  discussed. The immense question of educational reconstruction has arisen because of the inequalities and injustices of the past and of the present. Equality of opportunity has been inscribed upon the banners of all political parties and organisations for many years. It is time now to bring down that excellent motto and translate it into living fact. If that be done, it will fulfil the major part of educational reconstruction. Some people say that the country has at present equality of opportunity, and they talk of the educational ladder. But to realise the steepness and the narrowness of that ladder, see how infinitesimal is the opportunity of working-class boys and girls to get to the top. It is not lack of ability but lack of opportunity which keeps them at the foot of the ladder. As a teacher I maintain that the workers' children are as excellently endowed intellectually as those of any class in the nation.
  I pay tribute to the gallant parents of some of these boys and girls who have passed on to secondary education. These parents have sacrificed a very great deal to enable their children to reach that high standard. It is not a small thing for a mother and father when the latter is only earning from 25s. or 3os. a week to forward their child's education. I have known a number of cases where that has been the income of the family, and the boy or girl has been awarded a junior scholarship at the secondary school. On the other hand, the children of the well-to-do have not to scale a ladder at all. They have a grand staircase by which they can ascend to the high seats of learning. The economic condition of parents decides the quality and quantity of the education of their offspring. Proof of that was found in the fact, stated in the White Paper, that over go per cent. of our children leave school at 14. They do not leave school; they are dragged out of school because of the economic conditions of their parents. Many times in my teaching career I could have wept to see boys and girls torn away, from me at 14, and, remember, these boys and girls, we are told by all and sundry, are the most priceless asset of the nation. When you come to country schools the chances of higher education are reduced. Some of the reasons are that the buildings are out-of-date, have antediluvian equipment, and long desks which ought to have been
  1864
  scrapped years ago. I remember teaching in one school when an old man came into the building, and, pointing to a long desk, said, "I sat there 65 years ago, and my grandchild is sitting there to-day." They are unhygienic and difficult to sit in, and that is the sort of equipment we find in many of our country schools. We have insufficient staff and have not the usual amenities, sanitary and otherwise. Sometimes there is no playground at all. I remember another school at which I taught where the children had to play on the King's highway at playtime and in the lunch hour. Such conditions are relics of the past when the education of country children was openly sneered at.
  Major Sir Edward Cadogan: To what particular authority is the hon. Member referring?
  Mr. Sexton: I am talking of long ago before the 1902 Act, when local authorities were the managers of the schools. It is only now that these country children are being recognised not only as children of the countryside but as children of the nation. Fifty-two years ago to-day a boy entered the teaching profession, which has been called by the President of the Board of Education, the noblest profession of all. He felt very important, because on his very first day he had reached the position of principal-assistant, because he was the only assistant there was in the school. What were his duties? I refer to these things, because I want to compare the present condition of things in which some improvement definitely has been made and for which we are all glad. Primarily he was a teacher. There were set before him 40 pupils ranging from three years to eight years. He had to be an assistant cleaner in the school, because once a week he had all the maps and pictures to take away from the walls and dust. He had to be assistant cook, because he had to look after the oven in the school—and between 8o and go per cent. of the children brought their mid-day meal—in order to heat up the pies and the bottles of tea: Every Friday he had to be furniture remover, as he had to place the desks in a neat rectangular pile in the main room, because on the next day the petty sessions were held in that room. What was his remuneration? Five pounds per annum, paid quarterly. I think they paid it quarterly, so that he could see that he got something. I was that boy, and for 44

  1865
  years I have been a teacher. I have taught all day long, from going in the morning to coming home at tea time, not being able to study as I ought to have done part of the time for my own academic benefit. I was actually teaching with no one to help or guide me, so that I know something of the educational problem. Out of those 44 years I have spent 32 in country schools, and I know from my own experience that children have been shamefully denied their just rights of education and are still being robbed of their lawful heritage.
  How are the iniquities to be removed? The White Paper shows us. If the proposals in the White Paper are carried out, alI these injustices will be swept away. Children's allowances will do something towards the maintenance of children, but they are not enough. What of the only child, who will get no allowance? What of the child of the father who is on low wages, or is receiving unemployment or National Health Insurance benefit? What of the only child of the widow who has 10s. a week? Is that enough to help maintain them as they ought to be maintained? This question of maintenance will have to be far more seriously tackled than is at present suggested. In the better schools to come there should be smaller classes. I speak as one who knows, because I have tried to teach 80 children in one class—an utter impossibility. In country schools there should be a smaller number of grades. When I was a head teacher, before I came to this House, I was tied up all day with teaching. The class I had was from 11 to 14 years, while one of my assistants had another class from 7 to 11 years. It is absolutely impossible with such different age groups and grades to do any definite educational work. At one time in my career we had the old examination system where the head teacher's salary depended upon the number of pupils he got through the three R's. My head teacher's salary was £50 per annum plus what he received from Government grant, which meant what he could make out of the children by screwing and forcing them into the same mould to pass the same examination. You might as well try to force all children into the same physical mould as to try and press them into the same mental mould. The danger of pressing them into a physical mould is physical deformity; by mass
  1866
  teaching it is mental deformity, which is infinitely worse. Head teachers of smaller schools ought to be placed on a par with head teachers of larger schools. They should be set free from teaching all day in order to attend to organisation and administration. I have been in small and large schools. In large schools, where you have a well trained and qualified staff, the head teacher has an easier job than in country schools where the staff is not so well qualified.
  As regards religious teaching and dual control, I had eight years' experience of teaching in denominational schools, and. I can say that there never was any religious problem inside the school. All the controversy came from the outside. In my 44 years' experience I have never known of one child being withdrawn from religious education, either an agreed syllabus or dogmatic training. The tone of a school is bound up not only with Scripture lessons and dogmatic training but with the lessons of truth, honour, neighbourliness, love and beauty. For my part, the Scottish system would satisfy me If we could clear away the vexed religious question as they have in Scotland, I should be satisfied. When I read the memorandum with regard to religious instruction in the schools in Scotland, which was issued this year, I did not find in it a word of complaint about the way in which they go on in Scotland. Everything seems to be going on all right, and so far as I know Scotland is in no way behind this country in education.
  As regards the proposals for secondary education, I would advise care about the separation of scholars into three different schools. The proposal is to have grammar, technical and modern schools. Perhaps it' would be wiser to have multilateral schools where the three sides could be taken under one roof. This would prevent the evil of competing grades and the abbreviated labels—"gram," "tec," and "mod —being attached to them. Other Members will no doubt discuss the question of young people's colleges. All I wish to say about them is that I think the name is clumsy. I would prefer to call them academies of youth, because such places seem to be concerned with the social, humanising and practical aspect of life just as did the Greek academies of old. We must never forget that we are all learn-

  1867
  ing, we are still going to school, even in this House day by day. As Solon said:
  "I grow old ever learning many things."
  I well remember the mechanics' institutes of the past, which miners used to attend in the mining villages. They have died out; their functions seem to have changed. Could we not revive some of the functions of these old institutes of the past, these workmen's colleges and village halls?
  May I say, in conclusion, that this scheme is like the previous scheme which was formulated during war-time. The last one was scrapped because of financial considerations. Is the same thing to happen to this one? If so, the country will realise that the oft-repeated phrase, "Equality of opportunity" is merely a phrase, that their vision of a sincere re-construction in education will remain a dream and that the immortal mechanism of God's own hand—the mind—will continue to be neglected Let us not rob human beings of that unpurchasable blessing of education—the inculcation of self-respect. It may be hard to keep the wolf of hunger from the door, but once you chase the dragon of ignorance from the hearth there still remains to a man self-respect and hope, and it is because these twin virtues along with others will arrive from a complete education that I wish the present proposals to be urgently considered.
  Mr. Lakin: The hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Sexton) has given us a most interesting story of his personal experiences, to which this House has listened, as it always does listen, with respect, but I cannot help thinking that too much of it was concerned with the past. My hon. Friends on this side of the House are more concerned with the future. We think this scheme is bold and progressive, and for that reason we welcome it. If the White Paper's proposals are eventually translated into an Act, we shall in due course change the face and mind of British civilisation. It may be true that for some time we shall have to wait—we have not the teachers or the buildings—but perhaps by I950 we shall put human beings into their proper place as the most important part of this great nation. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education has realised that education must
  1868
  be carried into adolescence and beyond, that education can be unified without uniformity and, best of all, he has realised that there must be equality of opportunity. I think that is most essential.
  As I wish to be brief and cannot range over the whole White Paper, I would like to refer to the question of teachers. They are the most important thing of all; they are the master key of the White Paper. If you get the right teachers, I think the syllabuses can almost look after themselves. How many of us owe so much to one or two particular teachers who have inspired us in our early life? This is a great opportunity for teachers. We must treat them right and with fairness, we must give them self-respect and must respect them. After all, teaching is one of the greatest vocations to which any man or woman can be called. Teachers are to have a great new responsibility thrust upon them, and rightly. They will be put into a position where their judgment is to supersede the special place examination for children of 11 years. That is a great responsibility, but I believe they will accept it willingly and discharge it faithfully. On one point the Norwood Report, which is an excellent Report, supplements the White Paper. I refer particularly to careers at the university. It is a most excellent thing that the canon laid down in the White Paper, that capacity and promise and not financial circumstances are to be the determining factors in secondary education, shall also be the determining factors in university education.
  I hope that is one of the things my right hon. Friend will press forward as quickly as possible. It is certainly indefensibly illogical that we should, as we do even in a great part of our education now, prepare a young man for the university and then, at the very gate, leave him entirely unprovided for and unable to pursue the object for which he has been trained. It would be ridiculous for anyone in his senses to say that this is not an inspiring forecast of the Act which I hope is to come very soon. My right hon. Friend has realised, as the Norwood Report also realises, that Wales is indeed a special problem. The offer of an Advisory Committee goes some way towards meeting Welsh national aspirations, but I am afraid it does not go nearly far enough.

  1869
  I want to deal with one particular point, the Part III authorities; and because I respect my right hon. Friend's faith and work, it is very grievous to me that I should join issue with him on this point. It is not a parochial matter but one that goes to the very core of British tradition, a tradition which my right hon. Friend has more respect for than perhaps any other man in the House. He says he wants to maintain and widen local interest in education, and the strong local feeling of patriotism and a great deal of the unpaid activity that are put in by the Part III authorities are to be encouraged. My right hon. Friend wants to merge those people into a district committee. Whenever I hear the term "district committee" I think of gas and water undertakings. This, surely, is a matter of human life and destiny and cannot be treated as a commodity like gas, water or electricity. Who is going to take any notice of the Mid-Glamorgan or South Glamorgan district committee? How will it be constituted? Who will take the trouble to look after it, and how can it deal with different places with the same interest that it should?
  I agree that there is no answer to the argument that some stages of a child's education should be entrusted to one authority and others to another, except that there arc some small authorities which are far better than counties and county boroughs. The real trouble with the proposal is that it is really a revival of the ad hoc principle: a school board, without responsibility. Will these district committees have the right of inspection? Clearly not. Yet inspection, surely is the very key to all educational administration. He has promised to delimit the authority of the Part III authorities, but will this delegation include all the powers that are now delegated by the education authority to the education committee, except, of course, the imposition of the rate. Or would he at least follow the analogy of Section 56A. of the White Paper, which refers to the "Controlled" voluntary schools, and retain the Part III authorities as local boards of governors with the right, if necessary, of imposing a special rate for special services? We do not know. What I am afraid of is that these district committees will have no life in them at all, and teachers and managers do not want a lifeless third body interposed between them and the authority.
  1870
  My right hon. Friend has to take a national and an objective view. I know it is a most difficult question and I have the utmost sympathy with him. There are bad Part III authorities no doubt, just as there are good ones, but I make no apology for speaking for my own town of Barry, which is a Part III authority. I think I can give an unanswerable case that a place like Barry must have its full control of elementary, and indeed of higher, education. My right hon. Friend realises the place that education takes in Wales. I think he knows that in many of the newer Welsh industrial towns the real landmark of the town is the school. There are not many others, and it is like the shadow of a great rock in a weary land very often. Barry is one of the best of those authorities. It has a population of 40,000 and a school population of 5,000. Therefore it does not come within the White Paper, which gives the right to certain towns to have a district committee. It has always been a progressive town in its education. Before the Burnham scale was adopted nationally, Barry paid probably the highest salaries in the Kingdom. The result is that it has always had the best teachers. It has never been asked to increase the number of teachers, but on occasion it has been asked to reduce the number. Already it has two nursery schools, whereas in the whole county of Glamorgan there are only four.
  My right hon. Friend may think that this is parochial, but it is not. It touches the very heart of Britain. The education rate of this authority is 4s. 5d. The county rate is 5s. 9½d. for the equivalent elementary education. That is 30 per cent. more and certainly no better. He proposes to hand this excellent authority over to the tender mercies of the Glamorgan County Council. The hon. Member for Neath (Sir W. Jenkins) is the chairman of that august body, and I am glad that he is here, because the people of Barry feel that the new education will be administered by people who are to be appointed by the county council and they will not be directly elected by the people. That in itself is a most undemocratic proceeding. Keenness will suffer, because they know that they will have to report, not to a body exclusively concerned with education, but to a body with multifarious interests which cover the whole public administration. Most serious of all, they

  1871
  have the feeling that such is the constitution of the Glamorgan County Council that there is great danger, as they have learned from past experience, that party politics will play too great a part and the real interests of education too small a part in the future. Therefore I appeal to my right hon. Friend. This is not an appeal ad misericordiam but an appeal to fairness. Is he going to throw over an authority such as that, which has the record and the financial resources to deal with elementary and higher education? Is it right and fair, and will it be in the interests of education? I say "No."
  Professor Gruffydd: It is as much a pleasure as a duty to congratulate my right hon. Friend not only on the substance of the White Paper and on his unusual good sense, I might almost say cunning, in testing the temperature of the water before taking the plunge. By means of this Debate we can now criticise the proposals of the White Paper without that feeling of challenging the immutable, which one finds when dealing with a Bill. I am going to ask my right hon. Friend to believe that none of the rather drastic changes which I am going to suggest are made in anything but a spirit of extreme good will and complete appreciation of the enormous labour which he and his advisers have undergone in preparing this White Paper and in preparing for the corning Bill. The Paper itself is a complete summary of the President's intentions with regard to education for the future. He has given a clear sketch of two kinds of proposals, first the changes to be made in the more unsatisfactory features of our present system and, secondly, the changes which have to be made in order to extend the system as amended so as to get a fuller educational life for the Britain of the future. But there is one very important section to which I think he has given too little attention, namely the administration of education, both centrally by Government and locally by local education authorities and other bodies. I cannot help regretting this omission because, after a lifelong study of this question from every angle, I am convinced that no real reform in education is possible on purely educational grounds. That is to say, that there is no reform possible in the substance of
  1872
  our educational provisions unless it is accompanied by a very considerable reconstruction of the machinery by which those provisions are carried out.
  Before I make some drastic suggestions on this question I want to say a word about that Medusa's head of our educational system, the so-called dual control, to which so many references have already been made. I want to emphasise one point in particular, that the question of religious instruction is tightly bound—it is not a separate question—with the question of Dual Control. I think the White Paper, on the whole, treats them with a greater separateness than is warranted by history or by circumstance. It may be well to remind ourselves of one simple fact, that Roman Catholics and many Anglicans regard the training of the young as an essential activity of the Church rather than of the State. I do not agree with that view, but it would be quite impossible for me or for any one else to say anything useful about education until we recognise that fact. If the Roman Catholics and the Anglicans did not take this view, there would be no controversy about dual control because all schools would then be under the State. But that claim has been made and it has been reinforced by more than a century of tacit public acquiescence.
  To-day, the educational reformer is faced with the impossible task or arbitrating between two mutually exclusive views of education. It cannot be said, and no one in this House would maintain, that the compromises of the past have notably furthered the cause of either religion or education, compromises which we accepted because we valued a quiet life above logic and a clear conscience. All that can be said of them is that in a sense they worked. That is to say, the wheels continued to turn round, though the machine was in every respect inefficient. In this White Paper, a real attempt is made to solve the difficulty, an attempt which certainly will, if adopted, ease some of the present friction so far as administration is concerned, but not so far as conscience is concerned. The objection to the dual control system is only partly administrative and the proposals as they are in the White Paper will fail to satisfy two important sections of public opinion, namely,

  1873
  those who believe that the churches today, under present conditions are ineffective in imparting to the young their Christian view of life and should be given a greater opportunity of doing so by the help of our educational system. That, I think, can be said to be the Anglican point of view. There is another section at the opposite end which comprises those who resent any priestly or ecclesiastical interference in schools predominantly maintained by public money and who think that such interference would, inevitably, impose religious tests upon the teachers. I do not wish for a moment to revive the religious controversies of the past. To most of our generation they are as comical as Dundreary whiskers and crinolines. I have no confidence that either of the two sections of opinion to which I have referred will be quite satisfied by the solution contained in the White Paper.
  Here in the White Paper we have envisaged as far as Protestant schools are concerned—and I make no apology to my Catholic friends for using that word—
  Viscountess Astor: It is a very good word.
  Professor Gruffydd: It is a very good word and I always use it. As far as Protestant schools are concerned, we have an agreed syllabus of so-called religious instruction given by secular teachers who may be, indeed, specially trained for the purpose; and, secondly, we have the denominational teaching at the demand of the parents which is also given by secular teachers, who, again, may be trained. I have no doubt that all properly equipped secular teachers can teach most effectively an agreed Scripture syllabus, or even an agreed moral syllabus, because interpretation, as such, plays no part in those subjects. But when we come to religion we might as well face the truth. If religion is to mean anything different from mere Scripture and ethics, it seems to me that the proposals are impossible. The relations between the religious teacher and his pupil must be a spiritual one. All churches and creeds have realised this truth throughout the ages and have, in general, entrusted religious teaching, as distinct from ethical instruction, to those who are familiar with its dogmas and accept its theology, that is to say, to its own ministers. As it is at present, priests and pastors of the Protestant churches
  1874
  find an increasing difficulty in keeping in touch with the young. That will be the experience of every Member of this House whatever his constituency. I remember that in my own youth the boys and girls of my generation were organised into classes by the church, through its minister and his voluntary helpers. I am certain that no teacher, however well-trained, in any day school, would ever have given us the understanding of the faith of our fathers which those teachers who were not trained did in the churches.
  I can think of no more certain method of raising atheists in this country than to place religious instruction, especially denominational instruction, in the hands of secular teachers who, for the most part, whatever their own convictions are, have to impose knowledge on an unwilling class. We must remember—and I have a long experience of teaching—that all classes of ordinary secular schools "creep unwillingly to school." Then there is the position of the teacher to be considered, and I wish the House would pay some attention to it. In areas where denominational teaching, as conceded by the coming legislation, will be in general demand, how are we to avoid subjecting teachers to denominational tests. Suppose you have a primary school staffed by three teachers and the demands made by the parents are for three types of denominational teaching—Church of England, Orthodox Free Church and Unitarian Free Church. How can we then help imposing tests on the teachers, as all the teachers will be occupied in teaching one of these three denominational subjects? In a new school, for instance, where those types of instruction are demanded, teachers with definitely religious and denominational views, will, naturally, be appointed as against those who do not hold views which will fall within the framework of the religious instruction given in the schools.
  Mr. Ede: My hon. Friend has not quite grasped what the position is. There will be no school in which three types of religious instruction can be demanded. In the controlled school, the normal teaching will be that of the agreed syllabus, but the parents of children holding the faith of the original trust deed of the school, may demand teaching in accordance with that particular faith. There is no third alternative—Mr. Gladstone is quite dead.
  Professor Gruffydd: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for that explanation, but I do not think that the answer covers the point at issue. If it is just in one type of school to give denominational teaching and if we are to be fair to those schools, we must give it in all types of schools.
  I am going to make a suggestion. There is only one solution of this question, and as far as I can see it is foolproof. It is a solution that will end all voluntary schools except perhaps Roman Catholic schools—because they will be unnecessary and undesirable. Completely cut them out. Take over all schools and make them fully provided council schools. Pay their back debts and set them on their feet again, and have a unified type of governing body for all schools of the same grade. Invite the various churches to appoint religious teachers to visit the schools and instruct their own children at the same hour. In other words, it is the old right of entry. If necessary, pay those ministers and teachers, and especially pay those who are willing, in their ministerial course, to take teacher's training. Let the work done by them be inspected by special inspectors of the Board of Education, who will not, of course, inquire into the substance or orthodoxy of the teaching, but only into its competence.
  This will, at one blow, do away with the strangling growth of unreal compromise and inefficiency which has checked education for years in this country. It will form a closer link between the school and its environment and help to prepare the way for that noble aspiration of the President to which many parts of the White Paper amply testify, that the schools of all grades shall become the centre of the social life of the community and provide for that life most of its intellectual vigour and a great and growing awareness of the things of the spirit. It will also, incidentally, help the churches towards the solution of one of their most pressing problems, namely, the decline of their influence among the younger generation. As the British nation has still a majority of men who wish well to the so-called outer forms of Christianity, but who also wish for the utmost freedom of thought, I commend a solution on those lines to the serious consideration of my right hon. Friend who has, during his Presidency, been willing to give all prejudices short shrift and to give an understanding welcome to new ideas.
  1876
  I now wish to say something about the contents of the 12th chapter of the Memorandum, which is headed "Education in. Wales" and to which reference has been made by the hon. Member for Llandaff and Barry (Mr. Lakin). I suppose there is some reason for the omission from this rather jejune chapter of any reference to the problems of Wales, and I do not blame the President for not attempting to cut a figure in skating over the thin ice of this extremely small but dangerous pond. But we who represent Welsh constituencies cannot be excused if we miss the chance now offered of insisting that special provision shall be made for Wales in the reconstruction of education. I will not trouble the House with an account of many of the reasons why this is necessary as well as desirable, but will name only one or two. First, in addition to the numerous complications in education in England we have in Wales the problem of making provision for teaching two languages instead of one. [An HoN. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because the Welsh people judge that it is well to do so. In passing, I wish to pay a very special tribute to the President for his unsual—for an Englishman—understanding of the attitude of Wales to its own language and his general sympathy with it. This additional language teaching throws a burden on the Welsh Department, on the local education authorities and on teachers and on inspectors which it is very difficult for outsiders to gauge, and we are all convinced that, if only for this reason, any new provisions for England as such would inevitably be inadequate for Wales.
  Further, the administration of secondary education in Wales suffers under a deplorable state of cross purposes. The secondary schools under the 1902 Act are directly under the Welsh Department, while those under the Welsh Intermediate Act, 1889, are still under the Central Welsh Board, of which most people in England have never heard but which was created specifically for Wales because there was no provision in English law to supervise the giving of grants to secondary schools. When the Act of 1902 was passed I think Parliament made a serious mistake. At that time the Central Welsh Board should have been abolished, or, alternatively, all the schools in Wales should have been put under its authority. They have suffered from that mistake ever since. No one in Wales will now be

  1877
  content to see a new and revolutionary change in England while there are still lamentable anomalies in Wales still un-rectified. Some time ago, my fellow-countrymen formed a small committee to consider the circumstances, and with one dissentient, namely myself, that committee suggested a Welsh Council of Education, largely elected by the local education authority constituencies to take over the duties now belonging to the Board of Education. As I foresaw then, this proposal was unworkable and I am convinced that any attempt to revive that ill-considered project would be doomed to failure, for reasons which I shall be only too eager to explain if the proposal is ever made.
  In making my contribution with regard to Wales, I beg the utmost indulgence from my right hon. Friend for making a suggestion which, in my opinion, would not only solve the problem of Wales, but would also greatly strengthen and consolidate the system of education in England. It is, in brief, to carry out the intentions of Parliament in the Education Act, 1899, which created a Board of Education as an active agency to direct the control of education. It is to be noted that Parliament in its wisdom was, presumably, not willing that education should be under the control of one man, namely the Minister, as other Departments are under the control of the Minister, but considered that a multiplicity of counsellors was desirable in order to keep in touch with public opinion throughout the country. It did not appoint a Minister of Education in the usual sense, but a Board of Education with a Minister as President, that is to say, as the person responsible to Parliament. Did that Board ever meet? I am asking a question which I cannot answer, but I hazard the statement that the answer is "No." As a matter of fact, the Duke of Devonshire stated in a Debate upon the Bill in another place that
  "it was perfectly well understood that there would be no Board at all."
  To all intents and purposes, the Duke was right. The Board has never functioned and the so-called President is as much a monarch in his departmental realm as any other Minister. If there is one Department of Government which depends upon keeping in touch with opinion in the country and which must
  1878
  depend upon outsiders for expert advice it is the Department of Education. It is the one Department which cannot be static, which must grow like a living body, yet as at present operated, this Board, apart from its rather ineffective Consultative Committee, can have no new ideas except those supplied by the Minister and by civil servants. My suggestion is that a real Board of Education should be created for England and a precisely similar Board of Education created for Wales, smaller perhaps in membership, and that the President should be at the head of both Boards. By this scheme, we can have progress, and progress continuously fostered by the living experience of men in practical touch with the needs of the country and we can guarantee reasonable continuity of policy from one President to another. I have made what I think may be very drastic suggestions. My only excuse is that I have devoted the best part of my life to the consideration of this matter.
  Before I sit down I would ask the indulgence of the House for a few remarks an another aspect of the matter, that is local administration. In Chapter XI of the White Paper it is proposed to combine two or more areas
  "where this is conducive to efficient or economical administration."
  That is certainly right, in spite of what the hon. Member for Llandaff and Barry said, but it does not touch the main problem of the distressing inequality between different parts of the country in the adequacy of the provision they make for education. It is the Board's intention that every child should have an equal chance, but how can that be possible, unless there is some drastic change in the rating arrangements throughout the country and in the grants to schools? Let me take an example from Wales, which I know best. We should gain nothing whatsoever by joining together Anglesey, Carnarvonshire and Merionethshire, because each of them, individually, is too poor and if they were joined together they would be collectively poor. All those areas are poor and not an additional penny would be available for education and we should still see the schools in their present shameful condition unless something else were done. Why should a Welsh child because he was born in Glamorgan, under the very

  1879
  excellent chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Sir W. Jenkins) have opportunities which are denied to a Welsh child born in Anglesey? However the administrations are combined nothing is to be gained if the resources are still inadequate. What is necessary?
  I suggest that there should be a uniform education rate and a uniform education grant throughout a much larger area than is contemplated in the White Paper—in the case of Wales throughout the whole of the Principality. The efficiency of education should be the concern of the State as a whole and not of local councils as at present. In that way we should not have the alleged disparity between the very adequate Barry council and the Glamorgan county council. As it is, a child born in a rich industrial or commercial area has enormous educational advantages over a child born in any one of the many poor and backward counties of England or Wales. To me, it seems utterly incomprehensible that such an anomaly should be tolerated. It is not only a question of the doors of Eton and Harrow being open to a labourer's child as well as to a peer's. There is a graver anomaly than that to be set right. Education which is the birth-right of the child born in the slums of London or Cardiff or some other city must be put within the reach of the child born among the lovely rural amenities or Little Puddleton or Llannwchllyn.
  I conclude with a sincere expression of envy—envy of my right hon. Friend's youth and enthusiasm and of the great opportunity which has placed the future of British manhood in his hands. May he drive his furrow to the end now that he has put so determined a hand to the plough.
  Mr. Denville: Is it necessary, Mr. Speaker, that fresh air should be shut out of this Chamber?
  Mr. Speaker: I am arranging that the remaining windows shall be opened now.
  Mr. Denman: Up to how I think we shall all agree that this Debate would have been highly suitable to the Second Reading of an Education Bill. I do not know that there has been any appreciable difference between such a Second Reading Debate and the Debate
  1880
  upon this White Paper. Perhaps the last speech would have been more in Order on the Bill itself. The Minister did not refer to an Amendment which some hon. Members and myself have put on the Order Paper which indicates the eagerness of some of us to see a Bill and to get on with it. It has been the Government's policy, as far as we can tell, that this House should have no major legislation brought before it during the war if the Government can possibly help it. We want to save the Minister from that ban. He gave no signs that he would produce a Bill but I hope he will get encouragement from this Debate to bring in a Bill as soon as may be.
  This is a profoundly important White Paper and a profoundly important discussion. We all recognise that this change does mark a great move forward—or backward, because people take different views—in the direction of State control of the development of youth in this country. We all of us realise that that control may have great perils as well as great opportunities. Any hon. Member who has read that distressing book entitled "Education for Death" written by an American about Nazi education will realise to what depths of infamy education can be brought under the conduct of evil men. Though we have faith in the President of the Board of Education and his Parliamentary Secretary, it is still the fact that we are giving the State immense power, and that is something which should make us regard with open eyes the road we are taking.
  The President has no doubt carefully surveyed the duties of the State, the parent and the youth respectively. Assuming for a moment that education is confined to youth, we can see a steady change in the incidence of duty. It begins with the duty of the State and the parent and the aim is the good of the child. It ends in the duty of the youth to pursue the welfare of the community of which he is a member. I am a little sorry that the White Paper made no reference to this matter, which, for the first time in recent years, we have seen exemplified in the Military Training Act, 1939. That was the recognition of the duties of youth towards the State. Before this White Paper plan is put into full operation, we may well have reached the decision that democratic education is not complete unless

  1881
  it has a concluding stage in which it is the duty of youth to be trained in the service of his community; in which that duty is fully recognised and a period of service is inserted in relation either to the university or to the child's life. That point is not dealt with.
  Another point which is not dealt with is the employment of school children. The Act of 1918 made a series of important improvements in the law relating to the employment of juveniles. The White Paper is silent on the subject. We must recognise that in this scheme, juvenile employment is in one particular point removed from educational influence. We all like the idea of a school-leaving age at 15 or 16 without exemptions, but the procedure of exemption did give local education authorities some power in influencing the employment of children. The employer had to go cap in hand and satisfy the education authority that his occupation fulfilled certain specified conditions laid down in the Act, before the local authority would grant him release of the child until the age of 15 was reached. No doubt that would have been indifferently administered in some cases, but we know that a number of first-rate authorities were taking it very seriously and they would have had a very real influence in the conditions of employment of juveniles in their neighbourhood. Once again we shall get a situation in which the child suddenly stops his schooling and suddenly starts his employment without any necessary influence by the education authority. Of course, when the youth colleges are started there will again be an educational influence in the youth's career, but for anything up to six years there will be no such influence at all.
  Yet another point which I wish to bring to the attention of the President is that I believe our present system of having general Statute law that can be modified by by-laws in relation to children's employment has served its purpose and is no longer desirable. The time has gone when we should lay down statutory standards and permit variation by means of by-laws. If that change were not adopted, I should suggest another one, and that is that the by-laws should be confirmed by the Board of Education rather than by the Home Office. By-laws relating to the education of school children are essentially a matter to be dealt with on education principles rather than on industrial principles. Yes-
  1882
  terday, by the way, we had a meeting of the Committee on Wage Earning Children and the view was very strongly expressed that all employment for wages by school children should now be abolished. Work before school in which children become tired or wet is a mistake, and we should recognise that a child of school age is the whole time concern of the educational authority.
  I warmly commend in this White Paper the recognition of the place of religion in education. It is a commonplace to-day that education is not a matter of mere mental instruction, or even merely a device for promoting orderly activities of mind. We need to provide for the development of the whole man, physically, mentally and spiritually. The need is the greater in proportion as the State increases the range of its control. The State is now to have control up to the age of 18, and it must not develop lopsided men. That would be a profound mistake. The State has hitherto been unduly concerned with material things and has impressed its materialistic outlook upon its people. Education which fails to stir up and strengthen the religious instincts of man is incomplete. It must lead to a decadent society, lacking in vital purpose and living inspiration. I am not going to deal with the subject of the dual system. How to stimulate those religious instincts is a matter for experts in teaching, but I am quite sure that the best results are derived not so much from verbal instruction as from the creation of an atmosphere pervading the life of the school and giving the school community a recognisable character. The teaching is successful when the school is living its religion rather than when it is showing its capacity to talk about it. No syllabus alone can do that, only the personal quality of the teacher. On our success in finding and encouraging the true type of teacher the future of this country rests. I observe that the fires of controversy are already being lit. I feel sure that the House as a whole will have little sympathy with any denomination, however high-minded its supporters may be, that attempts to impose its will in hindrance of a general settlement.
  I come to my final point. I thank the President especially for his word "diversity" and for his insistence upon

  1883
  the importance of freedom in the school. He wishes us to retain diversity and to avoid dull uniformity. That is profoundly important. Neither school nor teacher can do its best work if made unnecessarily conscious of the weight of imposed authority. Of course, there must be order and system. But the more those engaged in the great adventure of teaching can breathe the air of freedom, the better for their pupils. Beware of the pursuit of equality. Catch phrases like "equality of opportunity" are very attractive, and we all like them, but they have their limitation. I have always urged and shall continue to urge that education should be related not to the pockets of the parents but to the capacity of the children. Equality of opportunity, however, does not and cannot exist, and undue pursuit of it may result in excessive standardisation and sameness. Children in two houses side by side in the same street may not have equal opportunity.
  Viscountess Astor: Even children of the same parents.
  Mr. Denman: Let us not try to delude people with that phrase. Opportunity depends even upon psychological factors within the children and within their parents. [Interruption.] I am sorry. I know that this is an interesting point, and I should like to pursue it, but my time is severely limited. I want other hon. Members to have their full equality of opportunity. I welcome what the President said about grammar schools. I believe that the freedom of the governors of the grammar schools has largely been preserved in the past. There are dangers in paragraph do, but I hope and I feel sure that under the President's administration the freedom of these governors will not be impaired. The more democratic a society, the more must the aim of diversity be pursued rather than the aim of uniformity and sameness. Man must not emulate the ant. We should make up our minds that the governing word of educational advance is "quality" rather than "equality" I am sure we all join in wishing the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary success in their enterprise. They have what is in the long run the major reconstruction task, more important than that of any other Minister and more important
  1884
  than any contained in all the portfolios of the Minister without Portfolio. I hope all sections in the House will collaborate in helping them to build with courage and wisdom.
  Dr. Haden Guest: I wish very shortly to draw attention to certain physical aspects of this subject dealing with the physical condition of the child, and I would refer to page 24, paragraph 95, in regard to school meals, which were designed to prevent the value of education being lost through the inability of children to profit from it through insufficiency of food. At the present time one quarter of the children in the country are getting a midday meal. I wish that the President of the Board of Education would undertake that it shall be a definite part of Government policy that in every school of every kind without exception, from the public school, where pupils usually get, but not invariably get, a meal at the middle of the day, to the schools which are now called primary schools, that there shall be one completely sufficient meal on all occasions and without any test: or question of ability to pay or otherwise. I am quite sure the experience we have had of this matter in the war will have shown the immense value of providing this meal, and in view of the fact which we have been told twice this week, once in a Debate on overseas trade, about restrictions and stringencies in the years after the war ends, and yesterday, when the Minister of Agriculture spoke of stringency for some years in regard to food, it is essential that we should now provide, before this war ends and before this year ends, one suitable meal for every child in every grade of school. I think that is a matter on which, whatever else we may disagree on, all Members of the House might agree.
  Then there is another matter that I must refer to, because I am astonished. I want to draw the President's attention to the wording of paragraph 94 with regard to medical inspection and the adequate treatment of defects found on medical inspection of children in school. The sentence I would draw attention to says:
  "When this stage is reached …"
  —that is to say, when there is a comprehensive and unifies. medical service. That may be a considerable time as yet—the White Paper to be issued by the Minister

  1885
  of Health has not yet been issued, and the House has not yet had an opportunity of discussing that matter, and it certainly is not going to be immediately possible to bring Assumption B of the Beveridge Report into existence, but whether that was brought into existence or not, this particular sentence is a dangerous one. It says that when this stage is reached of a general medical service being created:
  "… it will no longer be necessary for local education authorities to provide treatment, and their functions will be confined to providing medical inspections. …"
  I venture to say that is a very dangerous statement. It is the general experience that the medical inspection which was instituted quite a number of years ago brought knowledge in the schools of the existence of a large number of comparatively minor defects which had never before been treated by hospitals or doctors in the normal way. It was necessary to provide special school clinics to treat them. These, starting in London, have spread all over the country. They have proved their value, and the improved condition of development, the improved conditions of school children to-day as compared with the school children's condition 20 years ago, are undoubtedly due to the activities of the school medical service. This paragraph, unless it is explained away or unless it is retracted, is a dangerous one, because it would tend to undermine that school medical service, and it would be extremely unfortunate if that should be so.
  My concluding comment is that in the White Paper, extending to 36 pages, there are only one page and a few lines dealing with the physical conditions of the child. I venture to say that that is out of proportion. One paragraph goes so far as to deal with the whole class of children described as handicapped children—crippled and handicapped in various ways, who, it points out, are dealt with in Part V of the Education Act, 1921. All that the White Paper says is that this Part of the Act will require substantial modification. We might have been given a little more indication of the President's views on that point. What is it proposed to do With regard to the physical development of the children apart from food and the prevention of ailments by proper medical inspection? What is it proposed to do by way of games, sport and so on? This is referred to very briefly under the heading
  1886
  "The Youth Service," but only very briefly indeed. I venture to think that the President has been too much occupied with this unfortunate religious controversy, which seems likely to divide us again. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am glad hon. Members do not think so. I hope that the President will give more attention to the physical basis of education, the child's body, because you cannot get proper education into a child unless that child is properly fed, and you cannot get a very large number of children in this country properly fed unless they are given a meal at school. It is not only a question of poverty. You get conditions of bad feeding from ignorance among the children of many people who go to the public schools. I have known cases of persons attending schools, the names of which are household terms all over the world, suffering from rickets through malnutrition—bad feeding. One of the most important changes that could be made in education in this country would he to provide every child going to school with a good and a satisfactory meal in the middle of the day, whatever class they come from, whatever kind of school they attend.
  Colonel Sir John Shute: I do not often intrude myself upon the notice of the House, because I have found, so far as I am concerned, that the problems I have to deal with in my constituency are best dealt with by direct contact with the Ministers, or the Departments over which they preside. But on this occasion I feel it is right for me to place before my fellow Members some thoughts and opinions with regard to education problems in which I have been interested for the best part of my life. I shall deal with the problems specifically from the Roman Catholic point of view, of which faith I am a member. Doubtless others as the same faith as myself located in different parts of the House will add their contributions later to the Debate, so I intend entirely to confine my remarks as far as possible to the problem of the elementary schools, and the financial position they will find themselves in according to the terms of the White Paper. I would say, in passing, that I agree with many of the thoughts that have been put forward by previous speakers, and I could not agree fundamentally with many of the points put forward by the

  1887
  hon. Member for the University of Wales {Professor Gruffydd).
  It will be necessary, as I see it, but I trust without unduly keeping the House at this late hour, to sketch out the historical background of this part of the problem, which is one of outstanding, and indeed fundamental, importance to our Catholic people. Let me say at once that any comments I may make or any criticisms I may put forward I would desire to preface such remarks by saying that I am a whole-hearted believer in the sincerity and desire of my right hon. Friend a and also his most able and conscientious Parliamentary colleague in trying to find a solution of this age-old problem that has eluded so many of his predecessors. They have, to my knowledge, laboured patiently and with untiring zeal in seeing those who are associated with this problem to try and find a way out, and if I have any complaint at all, I would say only this, that I believe they have failed, as I see it, to take advantage to the fullest extent of the changed circumstances of the time and have allowed their minds to be too occupied and impressed by the arguments and suspicions of the past, many of which even at that time were, as I saw, illogical in their thesis and dishonest in their implications.
  I would turn to this brief historical survey. Prior to 1870, it will be remembered, the question of a dual system and the problems involved in it hardly existed, as the bulk of the elementary schools were denominational. There were some 6,700 Church of England schools, looking after 1,500,000 children, 1,691 schools of various denominations, looking after some 450,000 children, and we Catholic people had at that time 383 schools with 113,000 children. It was decided quite rightly that a much more complete system of education should be brought into being, and board schools, as they were then called, came into being. From that moment, I claim, injustice and inequitable treatment were meted out to the denominational schools, which have continued to a greater or lesser extent since. The first fundamental alteration in the financial provisions affecting voluntary schools took place in 1902, when a new Parliamentary Measure was carried to enable maintenance charges of voluntary schools to become a public charge. Otherwise all expenses of general
  1888
  repairs and so forth and the total costs of any new schools which were to be erected which for the preceding 32 years had been carried on entirely by subscriptions and private donations to the bodies concerned, were left entirely to the voluntary bodies concerned. At the same time we Catholic people—and the Church of England was the same—were at the same time as ratepayers paying fully our quota of rates for council schools to which practically none of our children went.
  Simultaneously with this, the famous Cowper-Temple Clause was incorporated in the Act of 187o. I claim that that Clause really meant that religious instructions of a certain kind became from that moment State subsidised and protected. The 1902 Act undoubtedly lessened to some extent the burden which had been carried solely by the denominational schools for 32 years, but since then many advances and improvements, all desired and desirable, have become more insistent, but no further aid was received to meet this financial burden. It is hardly surprising that in the course of years the Board of Education, after a survey of the schools of the country, found that many schools were not up to the standard they desired, and a black list was issued of those which were felt to fall below that standard. Even at that time I would point out the original black list was by no means confined to the denominational schools, for of the number coming under this heading while 2,113 were in charge of the voluntary bodies, no fewer than 714 were council schools.
  Here I might interpolate that by the end of 1938 the official figures of the Board of Education showed 417 improved or closed council schools, leaving 236 to be dealt with, but of the 2,113 denominational schools the same list showed that a total of no fewer than 1,585 had been removed from that category, all of those, which were still open having been improved by and at the sole expense of the voluntary bodies themselves. I have said "all those that were open," because many, primarily Church of England schools, had been either closed entirely or turned over to council schools because they could not or would not face the expense of the improvements. But no Catholic school had been closed and none

  1889
  handed over as far as I know, out of this list. The latest official figures that I can find are those of 1942, showing that out of the total I have mentioned 212 provided schools are still on the black list, 399 Church of England schools and Roman Catholic and other schools 142. Attempts were made after 1902 to upset the comparatively partial measure of equity and justice which had been obtained in the 1902 Act. In 1906 what was known as the Birrell Bill was brought forward. It failed to pass into law, notwithstanding the fact that the promoters had a large Government majority behind them in the House of Commons. The next step was the McKenna Bill of 1908, which introduced the new idea of contracting out by the voluntary bodies. That was withdrawn. Later in the same year came the Runciman Bill, which also had the, to us, objectionable Clause, with its subtle temptation to contract out of the general and national system, which we had no wish to do. This Bill went no further, and since then no fresh effort has been made to rob denominational schools of the partial financial aid given in the 1902 Act.
  Might I interject a few remarks on public control of voluntary schools, about which I am sure there is much genuine misunderstanding in the minds of those who have not studied this subject closely? The managers of voluntary schools are compelled, and rightly so, to carry out secular instruction exactly on the lines laid down by the local education authority. The managers do appoint the teachers on the regular teaching staff, but they must obtain consent from the local education authority before doing so. The managers must carry out the instructions of the local education authority to dismiss teachers on educational grounds. It is true that the managers have the right to dismiss teachers, but solely on religious grounds. The managers must provide a school house, free of charge, for use as a public elementary school, keep it in good repair, and make such alterations as may reasonably be required, all at their own expense. If the local education authority have no suitable accommodation available in the neighbourhood, the managers must allow the building to be used out of school hours for not more than three days a week if required for general educational purposes.
  1890
  Coming along through the years, I get down to 1923. I find, going through the records of what took place in this House, that the following Motion was carried nemine contradicente. It was moved by the late Mr. T. P. O'Connor and seconded by a most profound scholar, a member of the Labour Party, Mr. Sidney Webb, as he was at that time. The Motion was:
  "That the present system of imposing on Catholics of England the burden of building their own schools is contrary to religious and economic equality, and that the system of complete educational equality, as existing in Scotland, should, with necessary changes, be adopted in England."
  That was 20 years ago. I pass on to 1926, when we had the Hadow Report, which foreshadowed far-reaching changes for plus II children. We welcomed these proposals, as we shall always welcome proposals which mean improvements in the education of our working-class children. The very reasonable Catholic attitude was voiced in a resolution passed by the Liverpool Catholic School Managers, Association as follows:—
  "Whilst recognising the merits of the proposals"—
  that is, the Hadow proposals—
  "from an educational point of view, the managers of the Catholic elementary schools find themselves unable to carry out the proposals, because they are utterly impracticable without suitable additional aid from public funds, of which there is no promise."
  This resolution was not surprising in the light of what had happened in the meantime. The cost of erecting school buildings just before 1914 was somewhere about £12 per place. After the war it was about £40 per place and continued to soar. Some of the newer schools cost about £60 or £70 per place. Between 1915 and 1930 the Catholics themselves built new schools at a cost approximating to £1,700,000. The cost of repairs and improvements to these schools had gone up, and these had to be borne practically entirely by the voluntary bodies. There are other points: travelling expenses of teachers, the upkeep of playing fields and so forth; the cost of all of which falls on voluntary bodies. I think it is a conservative estimate that since 1918 the Catholic bodies alone have spent on their schools £2,500,000 on new buildings, extensions and replacements. In the archdiocese of Liverpool, where I was born, bred, and have lived, we have spent £490,000 on elementary schools, £200,000

  1891
  on secondary schools, and £io,000 on a training. college. I think that the lines of Rudyard Kipling dealing with the price we pay for our command of the sea might well be adjusted to the case of our Catholic schools:
  "If blood be the price of Admiralty,
  Lord God we have paid in full"—
  for our consciences. I now pass on to 1930. An attempt to revive the Hadow scheme was made, and a new Bill was introduced by the then Minister, Sir Charles Trevelyan. Two Bills were produced that year, and, after arguments, both were withdrawn. A third was introduced, and it passed its Second Reading in the House of Commons. On the Report stage, the late Mr. Scurr, a highly respected member of the Labour party, moved his historic amendment, providing:
  "That the Bill shall not come into operation until an Act is passed authorising expenditure out of public funds on such conditions as were necessary to meet the cost to be incurred by managers of voluntary schools in meeting the requirements of the Act."
  That Amendment was carried by 282 to 249. With this Amendment added, the Third Reading was passed. The Bill went to the House of Lords, and, with its Amendment, was rejected there. So the Bill was killed. Three years later there was a new Minister, Lord Halifax. He stated in Debate that the Scurr Amendment was fundamentally important, and added that he was quite certain that if at any time, especially in the light of reorganisation,
  "a fresh attempt to raise the school-leaving age, etc., were made without first dealing with the voluntary school problem, such an attempt would meet the same fate as formerly."
  I would remind the House that in 1935, just before the General Election, both the National and Labour Parties issued statements on educational policy, and both promised to introduce legislation to give further financial aid to voluntary schools to allow the suggested re-organisation to take place. Then came the last Education Bill in 1936. It passed through the Legislature under the Presidency of the present Colonial Secretary. In one of his speeches during the discussion on that Bill and referring to the failure to implement the Trevelyan Bill he lamented the fact that it had been impossible to meet the emergency but remarked that nobody had
  1892
  gained from this. For voluntary schools had for five years been without the possibilities of a grant, the local education authorities for five years had seen in many districts their scheme of reorganising held up because the grant was not available, and, of the children, many had passed from school life, without ever having been brought into the sort of senior school which a settlement of this grant would have made available for them.
  The 1936 Act, in which I took a part in Committee, marked another step forward in justice and equity, in so far as the new senior schools for plus II children were concerned, but only for this age range of scholars, it empowered the local education authorities to give a grant of between 50 and 75 per cent. of the cost of such alterations and improvements for the putting up of a new senior school if such new school would be more advantageous than the extending or reconditioning of an existing school. Financial aid was furnished, and in a great number of instances the full 75 per cent. was paid. It was not so in all cases, and Liverpool, to its discredit, refused to carry out the Act in its implied entirety. [An HON. MEMBER: "It was the Tory Party."] I agree that a Tory Party was in power for which I had no use. I dissociated myself from them. It was such a discreditable performance. I made no bones about it. A special Act of Parliament had to be passed to deal with the special situation in that city. Here is a point worth remembering. This Act allows public money to be found for new schools under certain conditions of repayment. Following on the re-organisation suggested by the Hadow Report, in the Liverpool Archdiocese they had arranged for 28,500 places at a cost to the Catholic community of £356,000, reckoning on a 75 per cent. grant and calculating each school place at £50. Owing to the war, many of these schemes could not be carried out.
  The President of the Board of Education will agree that in proportion to our numbers the Catholic body put forward a very large proportion of the total number of plans lying at present in the archives of his Department, to be carried out if, and when, the possibilities exist of so doing. But it must be remembered that no grant at all is to be made for any new school for juniors, and with the growth or change of population, the latter of which will probably be more marked in

  1893
  future by the replanning and transference of industrial areas, there is bound to be a call for new schools as our Catholic child population is, generally speaking, increasing. I have noted a resolution passed by the Trades Union Congress. It was brought forward, I understand, without previous notice of their intention to deal with this special problem. In it they suggest incorporating all denominational schools in State schools except insofar as denominations themselves may be able, and willing, to bear the whole cost of their separate institutions. It was surely an astounding negation of democracy and the right of conscience which this country still ensures to its inhabitants. I am not unduly alarmed by the resolution, because I am sure that it does not represent the views of the majority of the Labour Party in this House. Indeed I was assured by one of the important Labour leaders in my part of the world, with whom I am in friendly contact on many questions, that nothing would be more helpful to my party—the Conservative Party—to capture many of the seats now held by Labour members than that such a resolution should be adopted.
  Rather am I glad that there is a National Government in power with all parties in it, and the problem would seem to me to be easier of solution. That great Englishman and patriot, the late Cardinal Hinsley, whose death some few months ago was such a great loss to the country generally and to the Catholic body in particular, published a letter in February last, from which I extract the following to show his deep feeling on the question before us.
  "Our present difficulties, our debts for school buildings, our defects, are due to the inequalities of the past, which condemned us to compete with the provided schools in respect to building and equipment. This unfairness was inflicted on Catholic ratepayers and taxpayers because of their consciences, and because they could not accept a programme of religious instruction agreeable to more wealthy fellow-citizens. Catholics from these Islands and from the various parts of the great British Commonwealth of Nations, have given and are giving their full share to victory in the war, and we are most anxious to avoid a revival of the old controversies of the past, at this time of crisis. We are still willing to make financial sacrifices for conscience sake, but there is a limit and the present financial proposals are inadequate."
  One could prolong this and other arguments indefinitely, but I do not wish to
  1894
  detain the House any longer, knowing how many Members desire to speak. The Catholic body welcomes fully the general outline of the White Paper but we are desirous that our schools and the children therein, should have at their disposal all the advantages that are freely offered elsewhere. In justice and equity, I would always maintain that we are entitled to exactly the same financial support as the council schools, so long as we can find the requisite number of scholars to fill our schools, and the secular teaching is fully up to the approved standard. But if this complete solution is not yet possible, then I have to say that the amount we, as a body, would have to find under the suggested plans embodied in the White Paper, is beyond our power. We feel it right and proper that this fact should be stated frankly and clearly, so that no possible charge of breach of understandings can be levelled against us in the future. I leave the matter now to my fellow-Members, the great majority of whom are not of my faith; but I have full confidence in their fair and unbiased judgment and trust to them to see that we are not penalised, in the manner and to the extent indicated in the proposals now before the House.
  Mr. Guy: I appreciate very much the opportunity of saying a few words in such an important Debate. I would, first, offer my congratulations to the Minister and to the Parliamentary Secretary for having been able to reach such a measure of agreement as that brought forward in the White Paper now before the House. The proposals are far reaching and will have a great effect upon the well-being of the future of this country. I also feel sure that there are many Members of this House who would have liked to have seen these proposals brought in in 1923 instead of 1943. Heading the White Paper's proposals are the words:
  "Upon the education of the people of this country the fate of this country depends."
  No truer words could ever have been put before the House of Commons. Many of my fellow Members could, I am sure, speak of hard and bitter experiences which we have suffered as a result of the defects of the previous Education Acts which have been passed by Parliament. Many of us have suffered because of the absence of reforms such as those we are discussing now. I am one of five survivors of a family of 21. The five of us have had

  1895
  children who have won scholarships in the County of London. But the tragedy has been that each one of us has been compelled through economic circumstances to take away our children from further education and put them to work on the labour market in order to bring some measure of support and income into the family and to help keep the home going. I myself, stricken with ill-health through war service, and having a son who would have been able to continue his career at the City of London College, had to take him away so that he could go to work and support me, my wife and child. Only as recently as last week a brother of mine whose son was fortunate enough to win a scholarship in Somerset had to consent to my sister-in-law taking him away from school so that he could contribute towards the family income. My brother is in the Army, and he had to do this because of the inadequacy of the separation allowances. Therefore, I hope that hon. Members will see that what is said in the White Paper with regard to this question of allowances is implemented in the Bill which is to come.
  I am looking forward with very great hopes to the presentation of the Fleming Report. I trust we shall be sincere in saying that we do not intend to allow any exemptions at all when we raise the school-leaving age to 15. If ever there was a tragic aspect of the Act of 1936, it was that which allowed exemptions to take place. What would have happened in 1939 in the East End of London if Mrs. Jones's boy had been given exemption and Mrs. Brown's boy, a few doors away, had not? My hon. Friend the Member for North Islington (Dr. Haden Guest) has spoken about the feeding of our school children. I attach great importance to this subject. Many of us will remember past years when school children went out to school with a piece of bread and jam, and if they came home at midday were fortunate if they were able to get anything else. I suggest to the Minister that he should make it compulsory for all local authorities to provide two school meals a day, not one. Such an act would have a very beneficial effect upon our children's education.
  There is one other point which -has been too easily forgotten, yet which is important. I hope it will be made compulsory for local authorities to hold school
  1896
  camps to which our children can be sent for a holiday every year. Think of the beneficial effect of such holiday camps. It is no good talking about the future of our children and what should or should not be for their benefit unless their physical well-being is looked after. We have now arrived at the time of the summer school holidays. Year after year we see thousands of our children roaming the streets with nowhere to go. I believe we should get absolute unanimity of agreement on this question, not only among our ordinary people, but among large employers. Who have been more affected than they by the cadging appeals of organisations and individuals year after year for donations to send poor children out for a day in the country? Such things ought never to happen again. There have been organisations like the Country Holiday Children's Fund which have done useful work, but they have only been able to touch the fringe of the question, and the places the children have gone to have not been very satisfactory.
  I have had the opportunity and privilege recently of visiting many of our public schools, and I want to see the same opportunity for our children as is given to the boys of other schools. One of the principal features of their education is that they are well fed. That is a determining feature in the educational well-being of our children. A great responsibility rests upon the shoulders of every one of us to put the proposals of the White Paper into effect as speedily as possible in order that the children of the class that I am proud to belong to will have the opportunity of furthering their education in the best interests of the community at large.
  Mr. Nunn: I wish to join in offering my very hearty congratulations to my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on the really notable piece of work that they have undertaken. I am hoping that, when the Bill is presented to us and ultimately becomes an Act, my right hon. Friend's name will go down to future generations as that of one of those who made the soundest mark upon the civilisation of our people. He has something far more important in his charge than a mere departmental charge. His work will make an impact not only upon our own civilisation but in all probability upon the future of the civilisa-

  1897
  tion of the world. I think he has the capacity to do it in spite of the fact that he is perhaps a little too disposed to be modest about himself. I beg him to go the whole hog, take his courage in his hands and do a really good piece of work.
  I imagine that the hon. Member who spoke last moved everyone by the sincerity of his remarks, but I beg him, in common with his colleagues, to remember, when speaking about the privations of youth and so forth—I am not suggesting that he was in any way bitter about it; he was not—that those conditions are not entirely unknown on this side of the House. There are Members on this side who, thank Heaven, did not have everything handed to them in a silver or golden spoon. I think it has been the making of many people that they had to go through these privations in their early youth. When I recall the careers of some of my friends and realise what a lamentable use they have made of the splendid opportunities they have had, simply because they were handed out to them without any effort on their part, I am not always so sure that life is so unequal as to hand out everything to the man who does not have to make any effort. If we do not like making the effort at the time—and it is disagreeable to do it—it is a most salutary thing. Life is not a sheltered experience. There are some very cold winds that blow through life, and the sooner you get used to that fact the better for you and your future career. There is an idea current in certain quarters that people on this side are entirely ignorant of those things with which they themselves are so very familiar.
  I think most Members would agree heartily with the hon. Member that full opportunity should be given to any class of boy to go to a public school. I have the greatest possible admiration for the public school system, and I disagree entirely with anyone who says that the public school trains only a set of snobs. That is entirely untrue. In fact, the snobbishness comes from the persons who lodge the complaint. It is widely assumed that those who go to public schools go there because their fathers have the greatest possible ease in paying for them. Anybody who knows anything about, say, life in a country parsonage, knows that hundreds of parents are suffering great privation because, having
  1898
  paid through the ordinary methods of taxation for the general education of the country, they had determined that their children shall go to the same school as that to which they themselves went. They are starving and denying themselves, in order to meet that expenditure. What I should like to see if possible is that we should pass any class of boy—I do not like the word "class" because it is offensive, but I cannot think of another word—right through the public school. It would be good, not only for the boy who goes there but for the boys with whom he comes in contact when he gets there. Recently, the master of a good school told me that he would welcome it, because he thought it would have a good effect on his other boys. I agree. Do not let us have a stereotyped monotony in education. We want variety. If we reduce life to one deadly monotone, we shall take something valuable out of it. The more variety we can get in education, the better it will be for the country.
  I really got up to say a word on the Roman Catholic schools. I am not speaking as a member of the faith. If I am taxed on that point I would say that I am an extremely Low Churchman—using the word "low" in an ecclesiastical sense. I have had, perforce, for a good many years, to come in contact a great deal with the Catholic educational system, and in doing so, not only in this country but in other parts of the world, I have secured a sound idea of how they carry out their work. I have gained a great respect for their educational work. The basis of that work is not the daily act of worship; it is the daily contact between believing master and flock. I am not going to indulge in a historical survey such as the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Sir J. Shute) gave us. One of those surveys is probably sufficient for one day. I want to bring this matter back to its reality. What is the reality of the position? There is a fact existing, and that fact is that the Roman Catholic community, whether they are right or wrong—I think they are right—does not like any arrangement which cuts them off from daily contact with the young members of their flock. We pride ourselves on our religious tolerance. We can argue if we like, that the Roman Catholics should be more tolerant. I think that the Church of England and the Nonconformist bodies would be perfectly

  1899
  satisfied, probably, with the system of worship suggested in the White Paper. I am convinced that the Roman Catholics will not and that they will have a sense of grievance right through. I will read a letter which I received an hour or so ago from one who has every authority to speak for the Roman Catholic faith. It puts the point much better than I could put it.
  "I voice the earnest wish of all Catholic parents. The children belong to them, and they have a God-given right to educate them according to their conscientious belief. They see their fellow-citizens having schools built for their children out of funds to which all contribute; and those schools are built to satisfy the religious belief of the parents who send their children to them. Not unnaturally they ask why they, Catholic parents, should have to build, at immense cost, schools to satisfy their own conscience. Why not build Protestant, Jewish and Catholic schools, in cases where their numbers admit of it, taking care to see that the standard of secular instruction is the same for all."
  I believe that there would he a greater opportunity of getting acceptance of these proposals from the Roman Catholics if, in an area where there were sufficient Roman Catholic children to fill a complete school, that school were built by public funds in the ordinary way. It would not cost the country any more, because if the school were not built two council schools would have to be built. We might just as well face the question that there are so many hundreds of Roman Catholic children in the area who would fill a school. So why not build it? It seems to me a very small concession. This is not a matter of reason; it is a matter about which you cannot reason or argue. It is an indubitable fact which exists, and so long as there are Roman Catholics holding to their faith, so long will they hold that opinion and take that attitude. We may like it or not, but we cannot argue about it.
  Mr. R. Morgan: What would the hon. Gentleman do in the case of a single-school area?
  Mr. Nunn: Where there were not enough children to fill one school, they would have to make their own arrangements on the lines of the White Paper. I am only suggesting it for areas where it can be done.
  I want to make a comment on the subject of art. Among my few interests in life, art happens to be one. I do not
  1900
  know what my right hon. Friend includes in art, whether he means pictorial art or the arts of music, poetry and so forth. These subjects will have to be tackled with considerable vigour by our educational system, and I hope that when my right hon. Friend comes to tackle art, in both the primary schools and the continuation schools, he will have the courage to divorce it entirely from South Kensington. I, in common with most people who have taken a little interest in art, feel that the impact of South Kensington is one of the major tragedies of the latter half of the Victorian period, and it is still most marked all over the country.
  If my right hon. Friend can so arrange that his art students shall be taught the rudiments of drawing, the rudiments of perspective—and in all branches of education, there are no rudiments that can be acquired without taking a severe amount of pains and without blood and tears—and then leave the talented boys and girls more or less to paddle their own canoes, to find their own modes of expression, it will be some sort of effort to produce a nation which has a better idea of art than our nation has at the present moment. If when he is tackling music he can divorce the children, when they go up to the secondary schools, from that very useful tonic sol-fa notation which they teach in the primary schools, and train a large number of them to learn staff notation, he will not cut off the children of this land from a knowledge of music. It is true that it may have some effect in making a lot of people disagree with the jungle wailings which proceed from the radio night after night. He may even, by accident, cause the people of this country to feel queasy when so-called humour is produced by the same mechanism under the title of "Itma," but that would not be altogether without advantage. If he can do anything through his education methods to bring back something of those conditions which I remember in my rather remote youth, when it was not uncommon to go into house after house, even humble homes, and find three or four persons who could pick up a sheet of music and read it, even if their voices were not good, he will do a very good piece of work for the country.
  My last point is about teachers. It is difficult to talk about teaching staffs, because so many people are apt to suppose that one is being scornful of

  1901
  them or is sneering at them. We all know there are some splendid teachers, many of them quite the right type of men, doing good work, but we also know that there is in the profession some very inferior material, inferior temperamentally and inferior culturally, unfortunately. Something has to be done to put that right. I know that my right hon. Friend attaches a great deal of importance to this. I suggest that perhaps there is a strong wish to save the administrative machinery by making a regular service of the teaching profession. I should like to see things a little more elastic, with men coming into and going out of the profession. Nothing would do teachers more good than to go out into business for a few years after five years of teaching, under arrangements whereby if they could not succeed they could go back to teaching again. What I would like to see as much as anything is a regular system of exchange of the teachers of this country and the teachers of the Dominions and, if possible, of foreign countries. It can be done. I beg my right hon. Friend not to worry too much about the administrative difficulties. If he finds any difficulty he can always come here and get the full sympathy of the House.
  We must get into our schools men who will really take in hand the training of the future generation. It is not so much that we want children to learn how to pass examinations. I am rather scornful about examinations. I hope, above everything, that my right hon. Friend will never allow anybody to persuade Lim that...one of the main objects of education is training to get a job in life. The main job of education is to rear up people of character, to teach people to read. As a politician I would, above everything else, teach them to reason logically and to recognise a logical argument when they see it. Those of us who have to appear on platforms would then find ourselves much more comfortable. I do not know why the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) should think I am an optimist. I am hoping that by the change in education, we shall get a race of people growing up in this country who can both reason and hope for the future—because, without hope, their reasoning will be no good. I hope we shall get them to
  1902
  believe that one of the main objects of life is to seek truth and ensue it. If we can do that, we shall be going a long way towards making this country much happier than it has been for many years in the past.
  Mr. William Brown: We have had a very unusual experience in this House to-day. We have had a Minister speaking to us about the post-war policy of the Government. Sometimes Ministers are unable to speak to us about the postwar policy of their Departments, sometimes they are unwilling to speak. And sometimes, as in the case of the Minister of Agriculture, they are not allowed to speak to us. To-day, we have had a Minister who has been both willing, able, and free to speak to us about post-war policy in education, and that is a very gratifying thing. I should like to add my tribute in recognition of what hon. Members have said at least of the intentions of this White Paper.
  I want to express the view that there are three key words in this problem of education that go to the root of the matter. The first is "buildings"; the second is "teachers"; and the third is "maintenance." I will say a word or two about each of those three things. This programme envisages a tremendous amount of building in the post-war period. I am not sure that the Minister of Education will get that building unless he has already arranged a suitable priority for himself. This matter assumes some importance from what happened the other day when we were debating the Ministry of Works. During that Debate there was a widespread demand, which came mainly from the benches opposite, that as soon as the war came to an end the control of the Ministry of Works over building operations should be brought to an end. If that were to happen, we should then presumably see education authorities competing in a market still short of labour and materials for the wherewithal to equip themselves with schools. If that happens, I think that, grave as the rise in building costs has been since the war, it would go up to astronomical heights. Therefore I invite the Minister to give us an assurance that the Ministry of Works is playing ball with him in this matter, and that he will get the priorities and the material and the labour which this immense programme involves.

  1903
  The second element are the teachers. Here I want to be absolutely blunt. This education programme will call for probably 70,000 extra teachers. That was the figure given to us at Question time to-day by the Minister. I do not believe that we shall get 70,000 additional good teachers, with the teaching profession in anything like its present condition. I regard the teaching profession as a first-class example of skimping on necessary work. I believe the teaching profession has neither the status nor the emoluments that that important service ought to have. I regard it as an indispensable preliminary to putting education in Britain upon a really satisfactory basis that we should lift up the status of that profession, that we should apply, if you like, stiffer tests for admission to it, but that we should give to the good teacher a remuneration worthy of the service he renders to the country.
  We must be frank about this. That state of affairs does not exist to-day. I was talking the other day to the editor of one of our weekly papers. He has a daughter whom he has kept at school to a very advanced age. She has been trained as a teacher, and, on top of the ordinary training, has had a year's training in a Montesori school. Here in Britain we are very short of teachers. That girl, on the completion of her training, has been trying to get a job, and with those qualifications the best offer she has been able to get is £80 a year. What has happened to that girl? She has gone into a munitions factory. We have probably got a good additional munition worker, but we have lost what might have been a very excellent teacher. That is what will go on while the present range of emoluments stands.
  I happened to pick up in the Smoking Room this morning—and I am afraid I have broken the rule by bringing the newspaper out—a copy of the "News Chronicle," which gives the experience of one would-be woman teacher on this question of salaries and municipal service. She says here:
  "I left school at 18 and entered a training college where I stayed until I was 20. In order to pay my fees I had a loan of £80 from my local education authority."
  This lady is now working as a teacher. She has been working for one year. She does not qualify for the full war bonus, which by the way is itself grossly inade-
  1904
  quate, because she is not yet 21. Her salary is £13 10s. a month and her war bonus £1 12S. 6d.—a total of £15 2s. 6d. In order to be a highly trained and highly skilled teacher, she has stayed at school and in training until a comparatively advanced age. I beg the President of the Board of Trade to take this case seriously. I believe that there is a movement developing in this country away from what I might call the "black coat professions," because people believe they represent permanent penury and undistinguished poverty for a long lifetime. And they would rather wear no collar and get an income, than wear a collar and spats and carry a rolled umbrella, and endure poverty behind lace curtains.
  I do not believe that the Minister will get his 70,000 teachers unless he is prepared not merely to tinker about with this matter but to do something adequate. I beg him to star d up to the Treasury. It is a truism that behind every problem raised in this House you will ultimately find the hand of the Treasury. The Treasury is the common enemy of the House of Commons, and nowhere is it more the common enemy than in the sphere of the reasonable remuneration or wages of public servants. Before I leave this side of the matter I wonder whether the Minister knows of the concern caused, among those interested in education, by the Treasury's refusal to increase by a single halfpenny the pensions, of retired teachers? I have headed a deputation of M.P.s about it, and the Trades Union Congress has sent a deputation to the Chancellor, but still we leave these public servants aside. I mention the teachers, but that attitude is common to the Civil Service, pensioners, police pensioners and local government office pensioners.
  Mr. Quintin Hogg: And officers in the Forces.
  Mr. Brown: Certainly. These are categories where we are doing a gross wrong, and I hope that the Minister of Education will stand up to the Treasury about it.
  Mr. Wakefield: The hon. Member mentioned the case of a teacher. I wonder whether he can say whether the figures he quoted included any allowance for food or for accommodation, or whether it was just straight pay.
  Mr. Brown: Evidently it was straight pay, because she goes on to give her expenses:
  "Loan repayment £4 10s., board £6, superannuation 13s. 6d., insurance 17s. 6d., bus fares £1 and N.U.T."—
  which I may explain for the benefit of the uninitiated means the National Union of Teachers—
  "Red Cross, etc. 3s. 6d."
  It all makes a total of £13 4s., and she adds:
  "I have not £2 a month left."
  after she has paid the elementary expenses attached to her job.
  The third item I want to mention is the connection between maintenance and democracy in education, between maintenance and equality of opportunity. I saw in my own early experiences how impossible it is for there to be educational equality, while there exists gross economic discrimination. My father was a plumber—a very good plumber, and therefore a very rare man. He had seven children, of which I was the second—and much the best locking of them. I went to an elementary school like the other children, and I won a scholarship to a secondary school. It represented to my father, whose earnings were very small, a considerable sacrifice to keep me at that secondary school two or three years longer than I would have stayed at an elementary school. I will tell the House what happened. After I had been at that secondary school about two and a half years, and my scholarship was drawing to its close, my headmaster sent for me one day, and told me that the school gave a scholarship every year for Oxford. He told me to ask my father whether he would agree to my sitting for that scholarship, which the headmaster thought I should very probably be able to win. When 1 went home and told my father about it, he told me to go back, and ask the headmaster certain questions, which were: "Does the scholarship cover only tuition, or maintenance as well, and if it does not cover maintenance, what does it cost to keep a boy at Oxford?" I asked the question, and I received the reply that the scholarship did not cover maintenance. When I asked how much the maintenance cost, I was told by the master that if were a good lad, and did not smoke or drink, and never took a girl to
  1906
  the pictures—a wholly unnatural condition of life—I might be able to do on £2 per week. I took the message back to my father. His reply was brief and terse. "Willy, that is what I earn, and there are six more besides you, and your mother to look after." There was in my case complete opportunity to go to the university in theory, but the theory was completely nullified by the economic condition of my parents. I have very little personal feeling about it, because I know that there are other advantages to be gained than those of university training, in the rough and tumble of life, but that is a clear case where economic inequality utterly nullified equality of opportunity.
  That brings me to the fourth point that I want to make. The White Paper carries us roughly to the age of 15 and a little later to 16. I have been touched by many of the speeches to-day about the relationship between education and the development of Britain as a more organically united and closely-knit community. I have been touched by what has been said about the place of religion in educational life. I want to point out that the religious instinct does not develop until adolescence, at the same time as other adolescent instincts. It is about that time that the real training for citizenship in an educated democracy should begin, but it is unfortunate that that is where we stop. We carry education to a point beyond the beginning of adolescence, but drop it before the end. Now it is between the years of 15 and 19 that a young person experiences the biggest development of personality. It is then that enthusiasms develop, either superb or otherwise, and that the young person begins his training to be a partner in an organised community. Therefore it is then that education for citizenship is most important.
  This document carries us part of the way. It may be that the Fleming Report will carry us a bit further. I want the Minister to do two more things. I want him first to do a great deal more than has been done yet or even contemplated about adult education. I know it is true that all education is an education for life, but it is also true that most boys leave school without having come into contact with many of the problems that are subsequently going to dominate their lives, among them the problem of politics.

  1907
  I say that there is need in Britain to-day for the development of continuation classes for adult education which will represent a training in citizenship. Everyone will pay tribute to the magnificent work now being done by A.B.C.A. The very excellence of that work is a tribute to its necessity. It so happens that my constituency, Rugby, which is an enlightened one, is the only one, I think, in Britain, which runs an adult school under the Fisher Act. I have seen the work of that school at first hand. Believe me, it is first rate, and I should like to see institutions like it everywhere in the country.
  The second thing relates to public schools. I understand that some of my colleagues have lately received some interior illumination on this subject. They have discovered, to their extreme astonishment, that the public school boy does not necessarily walk about with his nose so high in the air that he cannot see what passes in his immediate vicinity. They have discovered that the training is not a holiday, but a very severe discipline, and that the grub is not always good. Indeed, sometimes the more expensive the school the worse the grub—one of the many contradictions which mark the economics of the capitalist State. I hope, of course, that the Minister will provide entry for working-class boys to the great public schools there are now. But if you take all the seats in all the public schools put together, the total number is so small in relation to the number of working-class children who could, in my opinion, benefit, that really it would not make very much difference if you reserved them all for this purpose. The essence of a public school is not that it should be situated at Rugby, Harrow, Eton or somewhere else. The essential feature of the public school is that, unlike the ordinary elementary or secondary school, the boy lives in association with his fellows under a common discipline, before going out into the world. That is the essential feature of public school education.
  I am concerned less with trying to get an extra seat into existing schools here and there than with the problem of how we can provide for literally scores of thousands of boys, say between 16 and 18, to live together in association before they go out into the world. I believe
  1908
  that fortune has placed the possibility of solving that in our hands. We have built in Britain in this war vast camps for the Army, Air Force and Navy and so on, and in those camps you get the essential elements with which to begin a public school, dining accommodation, sleeping accommodation, hall accommodation, sewage and drainage and all the rest of it. You could take one of those camps—I refer especially to those of the more permanent type—and with a very small relative expenditure of capital you could provide the extra accommodation required for classes, etc. I have sent a memorandum to the Fleming Committee which I hope they will investigate. We shall not have begun to settle our problem if we leave it at 16. We shall still have, in education as in life, the "two nations" which Disraeli spoke of, divided educationally and socially. It is a tragedy that it is only in time of war and great crisis that we suddenly discover among ourselves unity of purpose and unity of spirit, and that as soon as the war is over it begins to disintegrate. The political problem of Britain is to equip this nation in time of peace with the courage, the unity, and the identification one with another that it possesses in time of war. It is a very real problem, and what the answer to it is I do not know.
  The last thing I want to say is that there is a lot of misunderstanding about public schools. They have become associated with something with which they have no necessary connection, the tradition of the "old school tie" I disagree as much as anybody in this House with a system which gives in the Civil Service, the Diplomatic Service and in Government an undue proportion of the places to the products of a limited number of public schools in Britain. But that is not the fault of the public schools. That is the fault of the class division within society itself. I want to say this, that the public schools did something in England in the last three-quarters of the nineteenth century which I think is not appreciated as it should be, and it was of tremendous importance. When the industrial revolution came to Britain, when the domination of Britain by the old landed gentry ended, and the new type of hard-faced capitalist developed, it was the sons of those men whom the public schools of Britain taught and educated in the humanities. We may still think that they

  1909
  are not perfect, but I shudder to think what they would have been if they had not been to a public school. I have spoken much longer than I intended, and I apologise, but I felt that, as representing Rugby, I had a special interest in this Debate.
  Mr. Brooke: The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. Brown) has certainly performed a service by correcting the most untruthful allegation made during the Debate to-day—the allegation that public school boys are invariably well fed. I would like to follow him on the subject of teachers, but it strikes rue that the House could dwell more profitably on that when the Report of the McNair Committee is in our hands. In what he said about adult education I am with him with my whole heart. Again, however, I feel that what adult education needs most in this country is not change in the law, not change in administration, but the uprising among us of another man like Albert Mansbridge. It is by personal inspiration and that alone, that adult education will come into its own.
  In all that the Minister has offered to us, I put first his plans for religious education in this country. It is a tribute to the advance which we have made in 40 years that my hon. Friend the Member for West Newcastle (Mr. Nunn), speaking avowedly as a non-Catholic, can put as forcibly and movingly as he did the case for those who hold the Catholic faith. I would not have it thought that people like himself and myself feel any less deeply or strongly about the education of the children of the Churches to which we belong. Speaking here as a member of the Church of England, I want to put it on record that I regard the proposals in the White Paper as a fair and just offer to the Churches in respect of their schools. The White Paper does not do everything I should like in every direction, but it seems to me to be a genuine attempt to meet this horrible, long-lasting difficulty, and I can conceive no plan which would give a greater measure of satisfaction to the Churches and at the same time have any reasonable chance of obtaining general agreement throughout the country.
  I thought the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Newcastle was a complete answer to the proposals which the hon. Member for the University of
  1910
  Wales (Professor Gruffydd), with great sincerity, put before us earlier in the Debate as his solution of the religious problem. I beg my friends who speak in the name of religion, in this House or outside, to remember that all those who speak as they do must have at heart not only the interests of the children of their own faith or denomination, but, most of all, the interests of the children of the whole country. It is to get general agreement on the best possible plan for the religious education of the whole country that we must aim. I am very pleased indeed that the President of the Board of Education has introduced proposals for starting every day with an act of religious worship, and for religious education being given in all schools. My own hope is that in many schools it will develop until it becomes universal that the school one day in the year should have a day of dedication; a day of holiday because it is a holy day, a day marked by a religious service, and a day which will also be a day of reunion for all those in the neighbourhood who have passed through the school in days gone by. I believe that that development would be consonant with my right hon. Friend's hope that every school shall truly have a school life.
  Little has been said in the Debate about the wide development of nursery schools which the White Paper envisages. I hope that means that the proposal commends itself to all parts of the House. The Government have come out for nursery schools as against nursery classes. It seems to me desirable that, before we go too far, we should make quite sure that we have the whole of pre-school care and education of children integrated, lest we find growing up in some areas a haphazard, non-integrated system of day nurseries, nursery schools and nursery classes. There must be a right and a wrong in these things: it ought not to be left to chance. We are taking five as the upper limit for nursery schools. It is not absolutely certain that that is the right limit, any more than it is certain that II is the right age for passing from the primary to the secondary school. At the same time, we understand the Government's desire not at this stage to complicate their reforms by attempting to alter either the age of five or the age of r. I am not in the least afraid of the prospective cost of £10,000,000 per year for

  1911
  nursery schools. That sum will be more than offset by the consequential savings in the improvement of the quality of our population that this development will bring about. As for those, and there are many in this country, who would like to see all small children sent to the same schools, there can be no chance of that so long as two-fifths of the young children going to school in our big towns are suffering, as recent authoritative figures have told us, from head lice. That is a disgrace on our nation. It cannot expect parents who wish to keep their children clean to mingle their children with dirty children if they have other opportunities. The growth of the nursery school will, I believe, do more than anything to eliminate that slur upon our schools.
  As regards the triple system of secondary education, I have no time to deal with it at any length, but let me express the hope that the three kinds of schools will be kept close together where can be, and that the practical means of moving children from one type of school to another, if it seems desirable, will be made as easy as possible. It will be easiest when all three types of school are on the same site or in close proximity. We all want to know what the Government's eventual intentions are with regard to the direct-grant schools. I have an excellent school of that category in my constituency. We will not press the Government to give a premature answer, but Parliament should show that it attaches importance to their future. Personally, I am extremely glad to see in the White Paper the provision that secondary schools are to have an instrument of government setting out and safeguarding the rights of the governing body. It is not made perfectly clear in the White Paper whether, should there be a dispute between the local education authority and the members of the governing body, there will be any right of appeal to the Board. I hope that the President of the Board of Education will be able to assure us that there will be such a right of appeal.
  I now come to the children who will no longer be in full-time schooling. Between to-day and the time, not long hence, I hope, when we have the Bill before us for Second Reading, I should like to think that every Member of this House
  1912
  would read one of the most fascinating books which has recently come into my hands, called "Girls Growing Up," by Miss Jephcott. If they read that book, they will have no doubt whatever about the necessity of breaking the sudden transition from school to work by some kind of part-time education as is here suggested. It is to my mind the most grievous defect in our present education system that nearly all children are pushed over the cliff at 14—it will be 15 in future—and there is too little done to ease the transition for them from school to work. It is largely because of that that, for instance, the majority of boys and girls in their teens in this country are found to have no interest in books. They put their school days behind. They do not link up education and industry or other forms of work in their minds at all. It was a slur on us—for ultimately this House is responsible for education—that Miss Markham's Committee, when reporting on conditions in the Women's Services, had to say:
  "It is a melancholy reflection on the educational failures of the last 25 years that many young people refuse to use their minds at all outside working hours."
  Whether or not the House thinks that is too pessimistic, we know that there is a lot of truth in it. I hope the new scheme of young people's colleges will improve matters in that serious respect. The White Paper does not make it clear, to me at any rate, whether the development plans which each local education authority has to prepare are to include the provision of young people's colleges. They are to cover primary and secondary education and technical, commercial and art education, but I hope every local education authority will also be definitely required to produce a development plan for young people's colleges in their area. There will be some sticky problems about this. It is easier for big industry, but it will not be at all easy for the small employer or shopkeeper, to release boys and girls even for one day a week. But we must not be deterred by these difficulties. We have to find a way round them, and the sooner all of us start thinking how to do it, the better. It is the biggest task of all that lies in front of the local education authorities.
  I wish I could think that local authorities were not going to be deterred by finance. The present expenditure for

  1913
  education falling on the rates is, I believe, £52,000,000 per annum. The total rates levied in England and Wales amount to just under £200,000,000 per annum. This White Paper foreshadows an extra £28,000,000 falling on the rates and a further £4,000,000 when the school age is raised to 16, making an increase of £32,000,000 altogether, no less than 16 per cent. increase on the total rates levied at the present time. I ask hon. Members to go into their constituencies and judge for themselves whether local authorities generally will willingly and keenly embark upon a great progressive policy which alone will send up the rates by 16 per cent., apart from all the other kinds of expenditure that may fall upon them after the war. My fear is that not only these big reforms which the White Paper envisages but all the kind of things we have long known, for instance, overlarge classes, will fail to be dealt with unless my right hon. Friend the President is able to reach a more favourable agreement with the Treasury. It would be a bad thing if the Treasury gained for itself the unenviable reputation of having stood in the way of what might have been the greatest advance ever in the quality of the British people.
  I had hoped to have time to say a few words about the local education authorities themselves. Taken as a whole, they are not as good as they ought to be, although some are excellent. Has the President ever conducted a nation-wide examination to ascertain how the powers of co-option by local education authorities are exercised? If not, it strikes me that that would be, a very fruitful field for further investigation. In London the ordinary man in the street, the ordinary parent, is further cut off from the educational machine than in any other city. It happens in this way. London is such an enormous education authority. The other day I was talking with a group of interested people in my constituency about educational advance, and one was made conscious that there is in London, as distinct from other cities, little that an individual can do to exercise practical interest m education, between becoming a school manager and having some care for perhaps 500 children and becoming a member of the L.C.C. Education Committee and taking responsibility for 500,000.
  1914
  If we are to develop throughout the country this plan of district education committees, I hope the Board of Education will consider whether anything of that kind could also be brought into existence in the great area of London as well. The universities too are often not sufficiently associated with the work of local educational authorities. If the whole educational system leads up to the university, I am sure that the impact of the universities on local education administration throughout the country should not only be through examinations but through the universities playing a part in some kind of advisory regional system that might help to raise the level of administration throughout.
  Here in this sovereign Parliament we have been too content in the past with the defects in our educational system. We have been too content not only with the defects of machinery set out in the White Paper, but with obvious defects such as the ugliness of most school buildings. Why do we allow our children, the citizens of the future, to be brought up taking ugliness for granted? We must correct that. We must introduce into our whole educational plan far wider opportunities for education for responsible leadership. I believe that to be needed perhaps more than anything else. If we can help the President in these ways, I really think that we might do something as a Parliament to justify what the hon. Member for South Bristol (Mr. A. Walkden) said when he moved the Address on the first day of this Session, that, if we carried out our charge properly, we might come to be known as the Great Parliament. I am not sure that we have been gaining many marks so far in that respect, but now the opportunity has been given us. The President has put it before us. As for him, he went to the Board of Education two years ago in very dark days. I believe the whole House will echo it when I say of him that he has kept the divine vision in time of trouble.
  Mr. Logan: I welcome this opportunity of saying a few words in regard to the White Paper. I have many recollections of expressing opinions not only in the House of Commons but among members of my own body in regard to the question that is before the House to-day. There has never appeared to be any solution, in the British House of Commons, but I have

  1915
  heard a statement made to-day—I do not say this disparagingly—that, if the Church of England were put into the national system, all would be well. I believe that that kind of opinion, even if expressed from a Welsh university, is utterly wrong in regard to the national life. I think the House of Commons is a forum where we may honestly, and not by subtlety of language, express to Ministers and others the exact position inside the nation. If I had not had the opportunity of speaking to-day, I should have spoken outside, and I dare say my words outside would have been very different from what they will be here. This is, mainly, a matter in regard to elementary education and its advancement. I am a little too old now t0 listen to those who have had a university training and who come here as professors of universities to try to lay down a rule of life and say what should be the standard for our people in regard to education. I pay tribute to the President of the Board of Education and to the courteous Parliamentary Secretary for every assistance they have given me. I am not unmindful of the fact that when I went to a member of my own party who was Minister of Education, he showed me to the door and told me he would put me out. That may come at a later stage from the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary, but I hope not.
  From 1870 the question of education in this country has been a tragedy. No one knows better than Members of the House of Commons the tragedy it has been to the poor. The intolerance and bigotry that have been displayed whenever educational questions have been brought forward have taught me to be charitable in expression, and that I intend to be in my utterances to-day. We have reached a stage when the House has to look at this situation as it is and not as we would like it to be. We are told in regard to our national system of education that what is practically a State service will come into operation. I do not believe in the State managing my child. There are many homes where the people do not believe that either. I do believe, however, that it is the duty of the State to see that its children are properly educated and made fit citizens of a fit country. The right of religious training was deprecated by a medical Member who said that the question of good food was essential. The sooner some of my col-
  1916
  leagues learn to understand the true value of words and the fact that food does not count for everything in life, the better it will be for all concerned. The remarks of the hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Sexton) took my mind back to a time when I read the classics. I have read my Cicero, as he has, and my Diogenes and Socrates. Among all the classics, I found that Aristotle came the nearest to a knowledge of God. I want to get from that age to 1943 in a jump, because I am governed by the clock. Tempus fugit, and as we do not always have a chance at saying what we want to say I have to be very careful.
  The hon. and gallant Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Sir J. Shute) has put the whole position from the Catholic point of view, and I do not know whether I can add to it. He told us that he repudiated the city of Liverpool, and I am afraid that in that repudiation, it might be said that he was associated with me and my opinions from the Labour point of view. That is not so. The hon. and gallant Member for the Exchange Division is strictly orthodox, strictly individualistic and stands where he has always stood, in regard to the Liverpool position. I represent a different class of people. I represent the dockside. I represent those men that go down to the sea in ships. There are wide divergencies between the Scotland Division and the Exchange Division, in regard to politics, but in regard to faith, unity was never more thoroughly established. On the question of faith we speak as one. We do not speak as "Roman Catholics," with abbreviated titles, or italics, or inverted commas; we speak as members of a Church that was already well known in this country when education was being given to it. If you look round, you will find that many of the places that are now in the possession of others, were ours in those days long ago. As the ancient owners of those places we have a right to come, not cap in hand, not begging, not as friars or Ishmaels, but as Englishmen claiming equal rights with other Englishmen. If we are good enough to fight for this country we are good enough, in a national system of education, to share equally with every other man, woman or child in the benefits which the nation gives. For the Jew, the Catholic, or the

  1917
  Protestant, I demand not only equality of opportunity but equality in the State; their children should have the same chance as others have.
  I made a statement before I came to this House that I would speak only as I felt, and that what I said here I would say outside, and I will do so if the necessity should arise. I never read any more ridiculous or illogical statement than the statement that if Church schools will give up their rights—because they are not able to carry out their legal obligations—they can have a reduction in their managers and can get freedom in a national service, but that if they want to teach the faith of their fathers and to give to their children that moral environment which is essential, they are to be penalised. In other words, in a Christian land agnostics can have a school built by the State, while professing Christians, because they are not able to maintain their schools, cannot get religious teaching in schools. To me that is the most absurd thing I have ever read. I spent some time reading a work of John Stuart Mill and I could not understand it until it dawned on me that there were various methods of reasoning. If that be the method of reasoning of the Minister I want to set his mind at rest about what is likely to happen.
  We do not say that we are not anxious for a national service. There is not a man in the land who is not most anxious that every boy and girl should get every opportunity that the Minister can offer for education. Up to now the right hon. Gentleman has proved to be the most enlightened Minister we have had, because of the programme that he has put before us, but while I say that he has put a wonderful prospectus before us, I have a right to query that prospectus and to recall the promises made by other Ministers occupying positions similar to his own. I want to see the full implementation of ail the Minister's promises. We have the right to say to this British House of Commons: "If you want a national service you must treat every citizen alike. If secular education and advancement are considered knowledge, place the standard upon us and we shall give an advanced secular education equal to any of the other schools. If we can obey and carry that: out, you should give us facili-
  1918
  ties for our children equal to those of any other citizen."
  Why should any of our children be penalised because of the faith of their fathers? Why should I be penalised because I kneel, or because I stand, in a prayer to my God? Why should schools be built for a man who says there is no God and not for us? In the practical politics of this matter we get down to the man's faith and his duty to God, to his family and to the State. I tell this House that in the life of a Catholic his faith is of primary importance and the questions of environment and of the scholastic teaching that may be given and is considered necessary, are regarded as of importance. We insist upon these things. We are willing to fall in with a national service, but we are asked to forego things under the local agreement, in the matter of controlled schools and aided schools, and if we do so we are told we shall get this or that little dole from the Minister. The nation will express its opinion on this matter. There will be many agitations when the soldiers return, in regard to the future of their children. There are many men on our dockside who have risked their lives and others have lost their lives in the streets of my city. We are the poorest population in the north of England, and I therefore appeal to my colleagues, especially on the Labour benches, to forgive me when I say that these things are more important to me than life.
  I respect all their feelings, but I am anxiously asking them to give us the chance in life that they demand for their own children. If we worship God, that is a matter for ourselves. Give our children the chance under the national system of equal opportunitiy for education and development, to understand life. We want true education to come their way, because this nation has recognised education as essential. After the sacrifices of its men, women and boys, we hope that this Government does not propose to separate the wheat from the chaff but will give to all the equal opportunity in life which a National Government ought to give to its citizens.
  Mrs. Cazalet Keir: Twenty-five years ago Mr. H. A. L. Fisher said in this House:
  "The broad question before the House is whether the education provided for the general mass of our young citizens is adequate to our

  1919
  needs. Let us remember what we have been asking them to do, and what we intend to ask them to do. We have been asking them to die for their country, to economise for their country, to go short of food for their country, to work overtime for their country, to abandon trade union rules for their country, to be patient while towns are bombed from enemy aircraft, and while family after family is plunged into domestic sorrow.… I ask them whether the education which is given to the great mass of our citizens is adequate to the new serious and enduring liabilities which the development of this great world war creates for our Empire … I say it is not adequate. Any competent judge of facts in this country must agree with me. I believe it is our duty, here and now, to improve it."
  If those words were true in 1918, they are even more true in 1943. I quote this with only one object, because I am convinced that if we are to take a positive view of our responsibilities to-day, including, if I may say so, the Board of Education as well, the White Paper can become the most decisive weapon in winning the peace, and a peace which will not result in a third world war. I hope that in the Bill there will be statutory provision for the review of our educational progress at least every five years, so that never again shall we have on the Statute Book a great Act like the Fisher Act which to a large extent has remained inoperative.
  I would like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the excellent speech he made to-day, and on his good fortune to be President of the Board of Education at such a time as this, and also on the wisdom and the determination he is showing to make full use of this good fortune by wisely preparing his plans now, before the end of the war, so that when victory comes, as come it must, we can go full steam ahead on the educational front. I do assure him of one thing, as has been stated by other Members to-day, that the more energy, decision and speed he puts into his work the more greatly will the people of this country be pleased.
  Any criticisms that I make to-day will be made with a deep desire to be helpful and constructive in the great task which the White Paper sets before us all. My main criticism, like that of a number of other speakers, is concerned with page 4 of the White Paper. We are all glad that the Norwood Committee has reported. But what about the other two Committees? We are not even told exactly when they are
  1920
  likely to finish their work. I think the President's words were, "at some not impossible distant date." I should like to know exactly what that date is. I think that the very least we ought to demand in this House is that before embarking on a Measure of the importance and magnitude of the new Education Bill we must have the recommendations of the McNair Committee before us, because the recommendations of this Committee are fundamental to the whole future success or failure of the scheme. In addition, since the Norwood Committee has issued its findings, the teachers, if those findings are accepted by the Government, will have a further great deal of responsibility placed upon them. If a final Report is not possible in time, I would press for an interim Report. Surely, after they have been sitting for a year and a half, this is not asking too much. Before the Bill is introduced we should have a full day's discussion on the Reports and recommendations of each of the Committees which are sitting now. To start debating an Education Bill without knowing the recommendations of the McNair Committee is like driving a horse without reins.
  My right hon. Friend himself says, in paragraph l00 of the White paper:
  "It depends almost entirely upon the quality of those who staff the schools whether the reforms proposed will be merely administrative reforms or whether they will, in practice, work out as real educational reforms."
  Of course, we all want to know how the teachers are to be recruited, how they are to be graded and paid, and how their training will prepare them for the great task they have ahead. I agree with hon. Members who have said that it is vital that the whole status and prestige of teachers should be raised. I have often thought that this lack of recognition is instanced by the almost entire omission of the teaching profession from the Honours List. This inferiority in status is particularly noticeable, and regrettable, in the case of elementary teachers. If anyone is doing work of national importance, it is the teacher in an elementary school today. I know from personal experience that many head teachers are very unhappy because they are hopelessly overworked, with the wrong kind of work—not what they consider their real job. They are in many cases spending as much as 75 per cent. of their time doing what I might describe as extraneous work. I will give

  1921
  just one example. The headmaster of an elementary school in a country district, to whom I was talking about this problem last week, told me the actual experience he had had that day. One of his assistant masters had asked him if he would take the history lesson in his class from 11 0'clock in the morning till 12. No sooner had he started than at 11.10 the milk supply broke down. He had to leave to get it put right. Back to the history lesson. At 11.25, the labour officer for the war agricultural committee came in about the harvest camp. Back to the history lesson. At 11.45 a mother came in about' children being transferred to London. Thus ended the morning. At 1.30 he started off again with enthusiasm. At 1.40 the school attendance officer came, and stayed 10 minutes. Back to the history lesson. At 2.10 a psychologist came in with the billeting officer to get a report on a child who was leaving. At 2.30 he went back to the history lesson again. At 2.35 someone turned up to see how the proposed new canteen was progressing; and, as the school break was at 2.45, the headmaster reluctantly gave up so far as the history lesson was concerned.
  Mr. Messer: That was quite unnecessary. It was bad organisation.
  Mrs. Keir: This is most frustrating to a keen teacher. But what is more important is the children's side. These teachers should have proper secretarial help, in exactly the same way as teachers do in many secondary schools. I hope that this will be one of the recommendations of the McNair Committee. While on the subject of teachers, I think it should be provided in the new Bill that local education authorities cannot dismiss women on marriage.
  I want to say just one word about nursery schools. We all welcome the large amount of money that is going to be spent on children of nursery school age, and also the fact that it is now, for the first time, going to be the duty of local education authorities to provide these schools. I am sure my right hon. Friend knows that there is a considerable body of opinion in the country which would like to see all small children of the 2 to 7 age group put together, with the nursery school forming part of the infant school. It is felt that this is both best and wisest, educationally. While
  1922
  not wishing to go into details here, I feel that the President of the Board of Education probably knows all the arguments, and I ask him to look at this question again very carefully before the Bill is introduced. I am very glad that the White Paper recognises that the junior schools have been the "Cinderellas" of the system. The national policy for many years has been to improve the top first, although all mothers and teachers know that the first years are really the most important.
  I want to say just one or two things about the new secondary schools. Of course, free secondary education for all is a grand idea, but I am not altogether happy about the division into three types, although I know that this was the recommendation of the Spens Committee and that it has been adopted by the Norwood Committee. We do not want to see mainly vocational training between the ages of 11 and 15 or 16, and I feel sure that my right hon. Friend does not intend that this should be the case. But, surely, if you want to achieve equal status—and that is what you are out to achieve—it would be wiser to call all schools by one name, and then attach to certain schools a particular bias, such as technical or domestic. Between 11 and 15–16 I hope it will soon be—all children must have the widest possible form of secondary education, with anything that savours of the vocational taking definitely a second place. If all schools are called by different names, you may tend to defeat your object of achieving equal status. I am very glad to hear that the children will be freely interchanged between the schools. There should also be freedom of interchange of teachers. This will help in building up what we all want—equal status.
  Next I want to say a word about dual control. I congratulate the President of the Board of Education on having made a serious attempt to reach agreement on a problem which has been the subject of controversy since the time of the Lollards, 500 years ago. I welcome the fact that religious instruction is to be given in every school and that it will be given under Government inspection. A short time ago a friend of mine, who is an inspector, went into a small country school, and as she found a religious lesson being taken, she sat down quietly in a corner of the

  1923
  classroom to wait. Immediately, all the children turned their heads round to look at her, and this so annoyed the teacher that he exclaimed, "Stop looking at the lady and concentrate on Judas Iscariot."
  We all know that religion is not really a separate subject, but it is interwoven in every single thing we think, say and do. I hope the Bible, which is God's greatest gift to mankind, will be used widely. It is the only book which can, through study and understanding, give us real equality of opportunity. If we mean to use it, we must think about it and study it, and if we think about it and study it, we shall begin to practice it.
  To-day everyone is agreed on the principle of. compulsory part-time education, but one day a week is not enough, even to start with—two days are the very minimum. Industry will have to reorganise itself for peace at the end of the war, and it is far better to let it do this on a two-day basis from the beginning, rather than start with one day and a few years later disturb the whole juvenile organisation again, with all the probable controversy that is likely to take place. The more I think about it, the more I prefer the whole idea of a short, concentrated term of two to three months, such as is suggested for rural areas, because I think educational opportunities would be much wider, and there would be greater possibilities as regards corporate life, citizenship and social training, and probably less disturbance to industry. If for the time being only one day is possible, there should be a short concentrated course in addition. I hope the President of the Board of Education will give the matter further examination.
  As regards adult education, I do not think the subject has been dealt with adequately in the White Paper. It is through adult education that we intend primarily to help the present generation, whereas the majority of the White Paper proposals will benefit the children of to-morrow. May I say a few words about the Council for the Encouragement of Music and the Arts? This Council has shown in its short life that the study and practice of music and the arts are not just little frills to make life pleasanter. They are vital necessities; they are an essential part of life itself, and I was pleased to hear the hon. Member behind me refer to it in the
  1924
  way he did. This is one of the best and biggest discoveries of the war, and I think it should be carried on into the peace. I would like to see paragraph 78 of the White Paper embodied in the section on Further Education, as it applies to people before and after the age of 18.
  Of course, I welcome the extension of free meals and milk, but I am not quite so happy about the implications of paragraph 96. I think the Board of Education, under this new scheme, should embrace all the bits and pieces, if possible, from the other Government Departments concerning children of all ages—the delinquent children from the Home Office, the under fives from the Ministry of Health, and the educational functions from the Ministry of Agriculture. I am glad that my right hon. Friend is having discussions with the Minister of Agriculture on this very problem at the present time. In conclusion, I am quite sure that with all these big new schemes and the spending of vast sums of money it is essential to remember one thing—I think it was Dr. Tom Jones who said it:
  "There are no children in general; there are only children in particular."
  This is very important, because, owing to the size of our country, it is only by quality and not by quantity that we can hope to make our influence felt in the post-war world. Ten years ago, when advocating in this House the raising of the school leaving age to 16 and part-time compulsory education up to 18, I said that I hoped I should live to see this. I am glad and grateful that my wish will so soon be realised, but I would give this warning. I know from my own experience of administration that without continual pressure and prodding the best laid schemes can be unduly delayed. I am sure that my right hon. Friend, after his speech to-day, will supply the pressure, and I can assure him that we will supply the prodding. In the concluding words of his speech my right hon. Friend said, rightly, that character has made this country great. I believe that in character allied to education will lie her chief greatness for the future. There are tremendous changes ahead, and since education is the mother of all reform, it must lead all the rest. We talk often of the future. Let us not forget that the future lies soft clay to our hands, here and now. Let us shape it well.
  Mr. G. A. Morrison: We have listened to-day to a very interesting Debate on great and far-reaching reforms. The President of the Board of Education is faced with a unique opportunity. Competent observers have told me that people have never been so intensely interested in education in England as at present. We have never known in England so much public interest in this matter. Memoranda by individuals and still more by societies, political parties and other bodies, have been plentiful; newspapers and periodicals have been full of the subject. In the multitude of counsellors there is wisdom. The right hon. Gentleman cannot complain of lack of advice. Let me say at once that I consider the White Paper worthy of the occasion. I can scarcely pay it a higher compliment. It bespeaks care and discretion, vision, courage and wise judgment. Its authors must be congratulated further on having presented it in such a readable form.
  Some of the problems are very distinctly English or Welsh and I will not presume to offer advice on them. Others are common to England and to Scotland. Indeed, we cannot begin to operate some of these reforms in Scotland until agreement is reached on this side of the Border. It is difficult for a Scotsman to forget that Scotland could and would have operated the raising of the school-leaving age 24 years ago. The date was actually fixed by the Secretary of State. Again, in 1931, the same thing happened. So, I am not altogether disinterested in wishing the right hon. Gentleman better luck with his Bill than some of his predecessors have had. The educational memoranda of which I have spoken are naturally very varied in content and in outlook, but there is a surprising
  and welcome agreement on some of the main points. First, the raising of the school age to 15, this time without exemptions and, thereafter, as soon as may be, to 16. Secondly, part-time education up to 18 in institutions which will cater for a class hitherto more or less neglected—young people who have left school at 14 or 15; third, reduction in the size of classes, and fourth and not least in importance, a rapid increase in the supply of teachers and improvement in the methods of training and selection as well as in the conditions of service.
  1926
  Those who have been urging those reforms must be gratified to find that they are all promised in the White Paper. How welcome is the promise, in regard to the raising of the school age, that there are to be no exemptions. Those of us who were defeated on that point in the 1936 Acts often used to say that the allowing of exemptions would hamstring the whole reform. With regard to part-time education up to 18, those who have no firsthand experience have difficulty in understanding how fatally easy it is for pupils, leaving at 14, to forget much of what they have already learned. This, of course, implies a vast amount of waste of labour in teaching before that time. It was, indeed, one of our arguments for the raising of the age.
  The name "Day Continuation schools" is to be changed. It is a backward looking name, which seems to imply that the pupil is to go on with the kind of education he has left. The name suggested, "Young People's Colleges," or "junior Colleges," ought to prove more attractive. I think it will be found that one day a week which is suggested for instruction will be too little. These new schools are to offer facilities for social and recreational activities. There is no intention to regiment young men and women every evening of the week. That would defeat the whole aim of the scheme. Leaders will have to be selected with the utmost care. Many teachers will be attracted to this work, which offers a fruitful field of social service. The position of such leaders will call for special qualities and special training. Voluntary agencies are already doing useful work of this character and we want to extend this far beyond the small proportion of our young folk who are being reached and influenced at present.
  I do not wish to be misunderstood; the instructions given in day classes must be real instruction—solid, serious educational work under the very best teachers. Methods will, of course, be adapted to the age and capacities of the learners who, having begun their life work, feel that they ought to be free from some of the restraints of their early schooldays. I visited in the Spring the admirable continuation school at Rugby, which is the only area in England and Wales which has maintained a compulsory day con-

  1927
  tinuation school under the Fisher Act. I found an enthusiastic staff and happy pupils. The teachers welcome the cooperation of the voluntary agencies dovetailing their activities, and the employers find the school useful and support it wholeheartedly. There is almost no limit to the field of service which such institutions are going to offer. There will be groups for discussion and study, musical societies, orchestras, art clubs, camera clubs and lectures of all kinds and the young people should be encouraged to take an increasing share in their management. They should have real responsibility.
  With regard to the reduction in the size of classes, there will have to be a new conception in people's minds of the conditions under which effective educational work can be done. This particular reform is marked, I hope, for high priority. From the beginning of school life, classes must be smaller. We are glad to see the nursery schools given an assured place—their rightful place—in the school system. I always remember that Dr. James Kerr, a Scotsman, who did much of his work in London, used to say that the open air nursery schools were the greatest educational discovery of our time. All through the school, as I say, the classes must be smaller as soon as conditions permit. There will have to be new buildings and alterations in existing buildings. Above all, there must be a considerable increase in the number of teachers.
  Here I touch what seems to be the heart of the right hon. Gentleman's problem. Where is he to get the teachers? He has indicated some possible sources. I spoke in the Scottish Debate on Wednesday and I need not repeat what I said then. The supply of teachers was tending
  1928
  to decline on this side of the Border as in Scotland before the war. I do not know what the McNair Committee may recommend, but do know that the Advisory Committee set up by the Secretary of State for Scotland has promptly recommended an increase in remuneration. That is something but it is not everything. Efforts must be made to improve the status and the public estimation of the teaching profession. The establishment of closer relations with universities will help. They should have fully staffed and equipped faculties of education with facilities for experiment and research and scholarships for foreign travel.
  It being one hour after the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon the next Sitting Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION
  Resolved,
  "That the Statement of the estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation for the year ending on 3ist March, 1944, presented to this House on 6th July, be approved."—[Mr. George Hall.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after the Hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

NATIONAL WAR EFFORT
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Insurance Agents
  Insurance Agents
  Medical Student (De-Reservation)
  Medical Student (De-Reservation)
  ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)
  ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Horse-Flesh Trade (Supervision)
  Horse-Flesh Trade (Supervision)
  Ministry's Advertisements (Rates)
  Ministry's Advertisements (Rates)
  Flour
  Flour
  EUROPEAN BROADCAST SERVICE (STATEMENT)
  EUROPEAN BROADCAST SERVICE (STATEMENT)
EDUCATION
  School Premises, Weeford (Water Supply)
  School Premises, Weeford (Water Supply)
  Milk in Schools Scheme
  Milk in Schools Scheme
  Denominational Schools
  Denominational Schools
  SEPARATION AND MAINTENANCE ORDERS (DIVISION OF PROPERTY)
  SEPARATION AND MAINTENANCE ORDERS (DIVISION OF PROPERTY)
  TAXI-CABS (HIRING)
  TAXI-CABS (HIRING)
  BORSTAL INSTITUTION, ROCHESTER (ESCAPES)
  BORSTAL INSTITUTION, ROCHESTER (ESCAPES)
  BULGARIA (ARMISTICE CONDITIONS)
  BULGARIA (ARMISTICE CONDITIONS)
  SMALL SAVINGS (STATISTICS)
  SMALL SAVINGS (STATISTICS)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Overcharging (Prosecutions)
  Overcharging (Prosecutions)
  Board of Trade Public Relations Department
  Board of Trade Public Relations Department
  United Kingdom Corporation (India)
  United Kingdom Corporation (India)
  SERVICE HOSTELS, LONDON (RESIDENTS)
  SERVICE HOSTELS, LONDON (RESIDENTS)
  UNMARRIED MOTHERS (ACCOMMODATION)
  UNMARRIED MOTHERS (ACCOMMODATION)
HOUSING
  Rent Restrictions Acts
  Rent Restrictions Acts
  Empty Houses
  Empty Houses
  Repairs
  Repairs
  EVACUATED CHILDREN (PARENTS' PAYMENTS)
  EVACUATED CHILDREN (PARENTS' PAYMENTS)
PUBLIC HEALTH
  Tuberculosis (Radiography Units)
  Tuberculosis (Radiography Units)
  Diphtheria (Immunisation)
  Diphtheria (Immunisation)
FUEL AND POWER
  Mining Industry, New Entrants (Forster Report)
  Mining Industry, New Entrants (Forster Report)
  Bradford-on-Avon Gas Company
  Bradford-on-Avon Gas Company
  LONG-DISTANCE TRAIN SERVICES
  LONG-DISTANCE TRAIN SERVICES
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM
  ALLIED MILITARY GOVERNMENT (BRITISH REPRESENTATIVES)
  ALLIED MILITARY GOVERNMENT (BRITISH REPRESENTATIVES)
  RAILWAY CARRIAGE SEATING
  RAILWAY CARRIAGE SEATING
Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LAW REFORM (FRUSTRATED CONTRACTS) BILL, [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
RESTRICTION OF RIBBON DEVELOPMENT (TEMPORARY DEVELOPMENT) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
FOREIGN SERVICE BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
EMERGENCY POWERS (ISLE OF MAN DEFENCE) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

PENSIONS APPEAL TRIBUNALS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Constitution, jurisdiction and procedure of pensions appeal tribunals]:
LORD HEMINGFORD: There is only one observation I wish to make with reference to Clause 6. The Lord Chancellor has power to make rules with regard to procedure, and I am sure it is not necessary for me to do more than just call his attention to the particular point I have in mind. The question of representation before these tribunals arises. I do not think anyone would raise any objection to the
874
appellants being represented by somebody, not necessarily a professional man. For instance, the representatives of the British Legion do a great deal of very good work in that way. I hope the Lord Chancellor may be able to say that the rules will be so drafted as to avoid what happened as a result of the Traffic Act. There may grow up a small body of people, composed partly of former lawyers' clerks, who will tend to exploit these appellants by offering to undertake cases for them and to undertake it on percentage terms or something of that kind. I am only anxious that, if possible, the rules with regard to representation should ensure, as far as may be, that the appellant should be represented by somebody who can be regarded as having a good status.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): I am obliged to my noble friend for mentioning this point. As he said said, the duty will fall upon me under Section 6 to make rules of procedure for these tribunals. My recollection is, though I am speaking only from recollection, that the rules that were made in similar circumstances in connexion with the pensions appeal tribunals in the last war did make the sort of provision which my noble friend indicates—that is to say, that a body like the British Legion might in proper cases put forward for one of its members the case which he wished to make. As I say, I am speaking from recollection, but I will certainly look into this matter and at the same time will endeavour to guard against exploitation in directions which might be unsuitable.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

POST-WAR FORESTRY POLICY.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND rose to call attention to the Report by H.M. Forestry Commissioners on Post-war Forestry Policy (Cmd. 6447) and the recommendations therein; to ask His Majesty's Government for a declaration of policy on these matters; and to move

875
for Papers. The noble Duke (who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench) said: My Lords, I am taking the same opportunity as a Privy Councillor, as has been taken by Lord Brabazon and Lord Beaverbrook, of speaking from this side of the House, chiefly because, as Lord Brabazon remarked, of the convenience from the point of view of one's notes, and secondly, because I can face the Government Front Bench and can see from the expression of members on that Front Bench how they like my remarks.
Your Lordships may remember that in October last I initiated a debate in this House on forestry matters, and on that occasion I made it very clear that I favoured a separate Forestry Commission for Scotland under the Secretary of State for Scotland. I was, at that time, supported I think by a considerable body of opinion in your Lordships' House. I was very glad to see on July 26 in The Times newspaper, a very sensible letter from my noble friend Lord Rosebery on the subject. He, I am sorry to say, is not able to be here to-day owing to his urgent duties as Regional Commissioner for Scotland. At that time he supported my view and from his letter, to which I have just referred, I conclude that he still supports my view, given in the original debate, but making it clear that the Forestry Commission for Scotland should be an independent body or department under the Secretary of State for Scotland and not in any way under the Department or Ministry of Agriculture. I fully agree with my noble friend Lord Rosebery that agriculture and forestry must be kept separate and under different chiefs. There I think we are all agreed.
I have not in any way altered my view that there should be a separate Forestry Commission for Scotland under the Secretary of State for Scotland, and there is a strong feeling throughout Scotland both in the Press and among the public that this should be done. I have had numerous discussions from time to time with members of the Forestry Commission and members of the Scottish Forestry Societies, and I still feel that the most satisfactory plan would be a separate Forestry Commission both for Scotland, and for England and Wales. For instance, let me quote for a moment the situation with regard to the Crown Lands
876
Commission. As regards Scotland it is under the Secretary of State for Scotland and as regards England under the Minister of Agriculture. Exactly the same situation might be brought about by treating forestry in the same way as Crown lands. I do, however, realize that if the Government decide—and I hope they will decide soon—after weighing carefully all the pros and cons of the case, to have a single Forestry Commission for Scotland, England and Wales, then we who are in favour of separate Commissions are being met to a certain extent by the proposals in the Report of the Forestry Commission, which I presume many of your Lordships have read.
On page 89, in paragraph 544 of the Report, they say that a purely Scottish Committee will be appointed inside the Commission to deal with Scottish questions. The actual words are:
"So far as the increased scale of operations is concerned, we think a further devolution of powers from the headquarters of the Commission will be necessary, and that the basis of devolution should undoubtedly be the maximum efficiency of the whole undertaking. We believe that this best can be achieved by the following steps:

(1)Committees of Commissioners to be constituted for England and Wales, and for Scotland, respectively, to deal with executive business. It may be desirable for the Commission to co-opt to these Committees, either permanently, or from time to time for special purposes, two additional members who are not Commissioners.

(2)The appointment for executive purposes (as defined in Section 5 of the Forestry Act, 1919) of a Commissioner, instead of an Assistant Commissioner, for England and Wales and for Scotland respectively."

That is a step in the right direction but what I would like to know is what are the powers of these Committees. Are they adequate? I myself believe it is absolutely essential that these various Committees, certainly the Scottish Committee, should be brought under the control of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Particularly it would be far better so far as Scottish questions are concerned to have the Secretary of State for Scotland in charge of forestry questions in Parliament, instead of the Lord President of the Council, as recommended by the Forestry Commission on page 90 of their Report, in paragraphs 551 and 552. The Commission say, in paragraph 551:
"It may be, however, in view of the larger schemes which we propose, that Parliament may desire that the Commission be placed

877
under the control of a Minister. We do not recommend this change, but if it is made we consider that the Minister's jurisdiction should extend over the whole of Great Britain. In our opinion he should be the Lord President of the Council."
They go on to say in paragraph 552:
"Should the Lord President of the Council be charged with this responsibility, we consider that adequate co-ordination on questions of policy could be secured through a Committee, appointed by the Lord President and including the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister of Agriculture, and the Chairman of the Commission."
It has been said very often in the past that danger to the policy of the Forestry Commission if under a Minister of the Crown might arise from constant changes in the Government owing to General Elections and other causes, and that we might have a good and sympathetic Secretary for Scotland one year, to be followed by a bad Secretary for Scotland during the next years, with, of course, fluctuations in the affairs of the Forestry Commission. But this also applies to the suggestion by the Commission of the Lord President of the Council, who might also be changed from time to time. It does not seem to me therefore that that argument holds water. Since the Lord President of the Council might be changed in exactly the same way as a Secretary of State there seems no advantage in having the Lord President instead of the two Ministers primarily concerned. If Forestry policy were affected by the change of these Ministers it might be equally affected by a change of the Lord President. Therefore I think it is quite evident that the Commission would prefer to continue as they now are and have no proper Ministerial representation in Parliament. In other words, they would be nobody's children, politically, as they have been for the last twenty years. But I do not believe that that is a satisfactory or reasonable plan, and I think your Lordships will agree that there must be proper Ministerial responsibility in both Houses of Parliament.
Then again the basic laws of Scotland are quite different from English laws in regard to all matters that concern land, farming, agriculture and sylviculture. In addition to that, planning is being done separately for Scotland and for England. This point was made very clear in the letter written by the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, to The Times. Many of your Lordships may have read the letter, but
878
I would like to make this quotation from it.
"When the afforestation programme is decided it will presumably come under the planning authorities for revision; but the planning authorities in Scotland are not the same as those in England. It does appear, therefore, that if there is not a separate Commission for Scotland there is bound to be delay and friction of all kinds. Profound distrust of a single Commission has already been expressed in Scottish farming circles, in the Scottish Press irrespective of Party, and among local authorities and others interested in the planning of our land."
Another point is the selection of land for forestry schemes. The Report says that the land token has not produced very much mutton. In other words, it does not graze many sheep. That may be so, acre by acre, but what I think the farming community fears is that in taking, say, two hundred acres on one farm for planting they may be spoiling the agricultural output not only of this area but of a much larger extent by making the remainder of the farm useless. I was informed only the other day that a certain estate has been spoiled from an agricultural point of view by placing plantations in situations which militate against the grazing of the rest of the lands. They have taken the lower ground, which is useful for wintering stock, and so upset the balance of the farm. That might happen all over the country. The suggestion has been made that what would be needed is a Court or Committee to decide between the relative merits of forestry and agriculture. May the Lord defend us from any more Courts or Committees! I think we have enough. That would mean creating a new department, with very little to do; but it illustrates, I think, the point I have been trying to make, that agriculture and forestry should balance both dependently and interdependently, and that great care must be taken in both cases.
I think, too, that not enough actual survey work for prospective plantations has yet been done for anyone to speak within reasonable estimates of suitable areas. There is a great deal of loose talk of some "thousands of acres" being available for afforestation, much of which I feel sure would be a failure if planted. Take as an example the estate of Borgie, in the North of Sutherland which I presented to the nation at the time of the last war. That land was not suitable for afforestation. They thought it was and they planted

879
trees, but after twenty-four years the average height of those trees is about six feet. That points to the necessity of being careful not to take bad land and plant it. At that time it was thought suitable. It is quite possible that by modern methods new ways may be found of making trees grow —for example, by ploughing up the land—but they tried that at Borgie and it was not successful. I should say that one of the first things to be done is to make a careful survey of the land in each district before we can come to a reliable estimate of plantable ground.
I will not reiterate all the reasons I gave in the last debate in October with regard to the necessity for Scottish control over Scottish problems. That has been gone into time after time. Before I sit down, however, there is one other point that I think should be brought before the attention of your Lordships. Whom have we to thank for the millions of trees now being cut down for essential war-work in this war? Is it the Forestry Commission, or is it the owners of private estates all over the country? What is not generally realized as it should be is that the bulk of the timber being cut at the present time is on private estates and not on the estates of the Forestry Commission. As in the last war, it is the private owner who is supplying the needs of the nation at the present time. It is through the efforts of the private owner that this country has been saved from defeat in two major wars, for without the timber he produced it is very doubtful if the nation could have carried on. I hope that point will be realized not only by the Commission but by the nation. What private owners want to know is whether there is a market for their timber once they have produced it. That is the main thing and that has been the serious fault of forestry in the past— having no market. It was cheaper to take pit-props from Scandinavia to the Scottish coalfields than to take them from our own forests. Is history to repeat itself or can we be sure of a good market for the private owner in the future? I know that the Forestry Commission Report makes every sort of suggestion and offer to the private owner, but it does not seem to me to produce concrete proposals for marketing the timber which any individual may desire to produce. May I say this, however: I do consider the Report of the Forestry Commission a masterly and
880
extraordinary piece of work whether one agrees or not with everything it says, and I think Sir Roy Robinson and his associates should be congratulated on having produced after so much labour such a complete, learned and interesting work, dealing as it does, technically and otherwise, with every aspect of forestry in this country.
Now we come to the final point of my Motion—perhaps the most important point. What is His Majesty's Government going to do about this Report? They are obviously not going to pigeon-hole it. They have had the whole question before them for some time now, and it really seems that your Lordships might expect to-day, or very soon, to get some concrete and definite statement of their views in regard to post-war policy. I hope that we are not going to be put off in the same way as we have been put off over the question of post-war civil aviation. There is not the same excuse in this case. With regard to post-war civil aviation, we have been told, every time, that we cannot have definite statements made to us because other nations have to be consulted, and not only other nations but the Empire as a whole. My noble friend Lord Londonderry has brought up a Motion on the subject again and again, and I understand that he is renewing his attack very shortly. But here is a purely domestic matter inside this country. It is a matter that can be settled by ourselves alone, and there is, therefore, no cause for continued delay by the Government in giving a definite decision. I hope that it is not the case that the Government—or shall I say the Cabinet?—are quarrelling amongst themselves about the particular thing that is going to be done. Your Lordships are entitled, I think, to know soon exactly what the post-war forestry position is going to be. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD,THE EARL OF MANSFIELD, who had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government whether, in framing the future policy for forestry, they will consider the advisability of instituting a scheme of adequate planting loans without which the replanting of felled areas by private woodland owners is bound to be retarded, and would also move for Papers, said: My Lords, with the permission of your Lordships I would suggest that the Motion standing in my name be considered jointly with the one

881
so ably introduced by the noble Duke, and as my Motion is in no way competitive with his, but rather, is supplementary to it, before coming to the terms of my own Motion perhaps your Lordships will permit me a few more general observations following up what the noble Duke has said. I would venture to disagree with the noble Duke very mildly upon the question of the amount of support that exists in Scotland for an entirely separate Forestry Commission. I do not think that there is very great feeling for such a separate Commission, and the fact that at the recent annual general meeting of the Royal Scottish Forestry Association in Edinburgh, out of an attendance of 250 to 300 members—landowners, practical foresters, factors, retired members of the Colonial Forestry Service and others—only three could be found to support a separate Commission, shows, I think, that the idea does not find very great favour with the forestry world in Scotland as a whole.
Having said that, I would say also, with great emphasis, that Scotland does demand virtual autonomy in the form of a branch or section of the Commission which shall run Scottish Forestry affairs. It has been suggested, and the suggestion has been agreed to by representatives from both countries, that the ideal thing would be to have a Commission of, say, ten members with an independent Chairman, which should meet occasionally in London or Edinburgh for the purpose of considering what one might call grand policy, that half the members of the Commission should be Scotsmen who, with perhaps two or three co-opted members, should meet under the Chairmanship of the independent Chairman at more frequent intervals in Scotland, and, except in the greatest matters of national policy, should be entirely independent in their actions. I have used the words "independent Chairman" because, despite all the great qualities shown by Sir Roy Robinson, I think that it would be undesirable to assume that the Chairman of the Forestry Commission should always have been a civil servant. There is a danger that such a one would be more concerned with interior administration than with the actual working policy of woodlands in which he would probably have little experience. There is also a doubt whether he would have the strong qualities of character of Sir Roy Robinson
882
to enable him to stand up to the Treasury and to other persons who are apt to harm the future of forestry by niggardly insistence upon pecuniary detail. I would suggest that return to the earlier practice of having an independent Chairman would be preferable, without, of course, laying down as an axiom that a civil servant should never again occupy the position of Chairman.
With those preliminary observations I should like to come to the main terms of my Motion. I do not think that the Forestry Commission, or the general public, have realized sufficiently that the main obstacle in the path of the private owner, when it is a question either of replanting devastated areas of his woodlands or of extending that area to suitable ground not already afforested, is chiefly the question of the initial cost per acre of planting. I can speak only for central Scotland, but up to the present war our normal costs of planting were approximately £12 per acre for soft woods, and probably something like £5 more per acre for hard woods. Although it is very difficult to say what the costs will have risen to by the end of the war, it would, I think, be rash to assume that they are likely to be much less than double. In fact, one of the great colliery companies of Scotland is proposing to afforest after the war a large area of ground, of no particular agricultural value, which is already its property, to the extent of no less than 2,000 acres. And, despite the magnitude of this acreage, which naturally tends to reduce the initial cost, the factor of that company informs me that he expects the cost of planting per acre to be between £27 and £28. Some people think that this figure is grossly excessive, and in the estimates which I am about to lay before your Lordships I propose to take the very low figure of £20 per acre, in order to make my figures as small as possible, though I do not myself believe that £20 will be anything like enough, save in very exceptional circumstances.
In considering this question of initial cost, one must look at it from the points of view of two different types of woodland owner—the small or medium man and the large proprietor. Let us consider the more difficult case first, the case of the comparatively small owner who may find himself under the necessity of replant-

883
ing anything between 100 and 500 acres. Such an owner is not likely to have much fluid capital. He certainly is unlikely to have any surplus income, and, if he is to replant even 200 acres at only £20 per acre, that means£4,000; and to find £4,000, even if the sum spread over a number of years, is often impossible for him. The Forestry Commission proposed in their Report—and few people seem inclined to object to it—that owners shall be compelled in the national interest to replant. What, therefore, is going to be the position of the email owner who is very anxious to replant, and who may even desire to extend his woodlands, but who is not financially in a position to do so? Even though his woods may be in a high state of efficient management, he will find himself liable to have them taken away permanently by the Forestry Commission, That, I submit, is extremely unfair to the small owner, who has provided a very high proportion of the woods which, as the noble Duke has so rightly said, have been made available by private owners in the last two wars.
Looked at from the point of view of the large owner, the position is still by no means satisfactory, although the difficulty due to financial stringency may not be quite so apparent at first sight. Such an owner may have anything from 500 to 5,000 or more acres to replant, to say nothing of the extension of planting which is going to be necessary on a very large scale if the ambitious but quite justifiable programme of the Forestry Commission is going to be entirely successful. The man who has 2,000 acres to replant, even at the low figure of £20 an acre, will have to find £40,000, and the man with 5,000 acres will have to find £100,000. There are few proprietors who can, without grave difficulty, make these sums available for the replanting or for the extension of woodlands.
But, it may be argued, what about the sums which have been received for the sale of the woods? It by no means follows that in this war very large sums have been received. Woods have been cut compulsorily, although seldom, if ever, have the Forestry Commission needed to apply compulsion; and, quite rightly, the maximum price of timber has been controlled, and it has been controlled at a figure which cannot be described as in any way excessive. Furthermore,
884
although the point has not yet been cleared up, the Treasury officals, by an arbitrary mental process understandable only by a Treasury official, have decreed that in the event of the receipts from timber sales in any one year exceeding a certain figure, they are to be liable to Excess Profits Tax on a ratio which is, to say the least of it, entirely unfair and demonstrably false. Furthermore, there is the point that in a certain number of cases estates may have been mortgaged, and the owners may have taken advantage of the sale of timber to repay the mortgage, which economically would be a very sound thing to do.
There is a further point. Many properties—in fact, I imagine, all properties— have found it impossible to maintain the normal state of repairs and improvement during the war. Even if a licence can be obtained to carry out these repairs or improvements, it is usually impossible to get either the materials or the labour. The result is that many properties have accumulated on paper a surplus of money which ought to be devoted after the war to catching up with these arrears of maintenance; but these accumulated sums are, unfortunately, regarded by the right honourable Member for Woolwich as income, and are being swept into his metaphorically capacious maw. For the purpose of carrying on the war that is no doubt all very well, but it means that in many cases the repairs on agricultural properties will have to be subsidized after the war, to make up for this, from the proceeds of the timber which is sold. For all these reasons even the large properties arc not likely to be able to find without very great difficulty, and in many cases at all, the money necessary to finance the replanting of their felled woodlands.
We know that it is necessary in the national interest, however, that the area of woodlands in this country should be very greatly extended. Such extension cannot come quickly unless private owners co-operate with the Forestry Commission, but the private owner cannot co-operate unless he is going to have his task rendered easier by adequate financial assistance. I propose to lay before your Lordships my own scheme. It is not a new one, for I drew it up in my mind some five years ago. It has at least the practical merit that it proposes to extract from the taxpayer very

885
much less money—if indeed any money at all—than is the case under the proposals of the Forestry Commission.
In brief, my suggestion is that the Forestry Commission should make available to the private owner, for replanting or for extending this planted areas, a planting loan at the rate of not less than £10 per acre for conifers and soft woods and £15 per acre for hard woods. These loans would carry no interest as long as the loan was in existence, but interest would be recovered with the capital when the timber was eventually felled. In addition to this, a planting grant at the rate of 5s. per acre per annum should be made available over the first twenty years of the life of every such plantation. That would be an additional loan of £5 per acre. At the end of the life of the wood, which in the case of conifers would probably be some eighty years, the proceeds of the sale would be divided as follows: firstly, the woodland owner would recover his net planting costs—that is to say, his gross planting costs less the planting loan which he had been advanced. Secondly, he would recover interest on his capital over that period at, say, 4 per cent., although that figure could, of course, be varied in any way found desirable. Thereafter the Forestry Commission should recover the original amount of their loan, interest upon it at whatever might be the Treasury rate over that period on an average, and, next, the maintenance grant that they had advanced. Any surplus that remained thereafter from the sale of the mature timber would be divided between the owner and the Commission in some proportion to be agreed upon, and which I tentatively suggest should be 80 per cent. to the owner and 20 per cent. to the Commission.
At once a question arises: Suppose at the end of that time the wood was not sold at a profit but at a loss, who is to bear the loss? The answer undoubtedly is the Government, because the Forestry Commission at the behest of the Government are urging, nay compelling, woodland owners to reafforest and to extend their woodlands in the national interest. If then, when the wood is mature, it is sold at a loss, it means that it has been an uneconomic production, which no sane owner would have entered upon in his own interest. He would have done it only for
886
reasons of national security, and he is therefore entitled to be recouped for any losses that he has sustained. Furthermore, as the marketing of the timber obviously would be subject to some form of Government control, it is for the Government of the day to take steps to put such market on an economic basis, and thereby avoid any loss. One criticism that was made on this point was that you could not expect the Commission or the Government to enter upon an obligation which would render them liable to a loss of unknown magnitude. That argument falls immediately to the ground because I propose in as few sentences as may be to make very clear to your Lordships that the loss which the Government would sustain would be of an extremely limited character.
Let us assume the very worst, that the wood was eventually marketed so that no single penny of the Government advance was recoverable. And let us assume that a figure of 4,000,000 acres, which I think is considerably beyond possibilities, has been planted in the form of replanting or extension by private owners, at an average grant of, let us say, £10 per acre. The gross grant would be £40,000,000. In addition to that there would be another £20,000,000 for the maintenance grants—a total of £60,000,000. £60,000,000 spread out over the eighty years which I have assumed to be the normal life of a conifer plantation amounts to an annual loss of not more than three-quarters of a million a year, and I think I am correct in saying that for many years prior to the present war we were subsidizing sugar beet alone to the tune of ten times that amount. That loss therefore is a maximum theoretical loss, and one which in practice it would be quite impossible to achieve.
Unless some form of assistance of the nature that I have indicated to your Lordships is provided, I am afraid that it will not be possible for the great reafforestation and extension schemes to take effect. It is bound to be hampered and hamstrung, and the scheme that I have put forward, even at its very worst, would be considerably less expensive, I think, than the proposals of the Commission themselves. The Commission suggest, as all your Lordships are aware who have studied their Report, that a grant of some 25 per cent. of approved expenditure per

887
annum should be repaid to the owner. Let us consider what would be the cost in the case of the 4,000,000 acres to which I have referred. A grant of 25 per cent. on an expenditure of £40,000,000 would mean that you would have £10,000,000 sunk to begin with. You would then have a quarter of the maintenance expenditure on top of that, and you would also have an indeterminate figure, which at the moment neither I nor the Commission could give, of the other maintenance losses of the rest of the woodlands. These figures would be likely to amount at least to as much as the gross loss which I suggest would be possible, and as those advances are in the nature of a complete and irrecoverable subsidy I suggest that, from the taxpayer's point of view, my scheme would be infinitely more advantageous.
In conclusion I join with the noble Duke in expressing my admiration for the Forestry Commission's Report. I entirely agree as to the urgent necessity of reestablishing our woodlands and of extending their area. There is undoubtedly a very large amount of ground which would be better under trees than under sheep, or in some cases under nothing at all. At the same time I agree that justifiable criticisms can be levelled against the Forestry Commission for certain unwise choice of ground that they have made in the past. If forestry is given its proper place in our national economy it can become an important minor industry in England, and in Scotland it can become a major industry. Forestry to Scotland is infinitely more important than it is to England, and if our forests are extended so that we can get that desideratum of small crofters, alternative employment for a part of the year, I am convinced that forestry may well be much more beneficial to the future of the Highlands than the hydro-electric schemes which your Lordships have so recently been discussing. There is much more that might be said, but I have already been obliged to inflict myself on your Lordships considerably longer than I usually do, or than I like to do.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I think the House ought to be extremely grateful to the noble Duke for bringing forward this Motion, and I personally am very grateful to him for having consented to its postponement from the date for
888
which it was originally put down. I believed that for various reasons it would be a more helpful debate if it was held this week rather than last week, and I hope that I was right Certainly so far as I am concerned it is going to be very helpful that it takes place to-day and not a week ago. In 1916 there was very considerable concern over the difficulty of importing timber in war-time and the consequent inroads upon our woodlands in this country. A Committee was set up which was charged with the duty of reporting upon the position and making recommendations for the future. That Committee was under the chairmanship of the late Sir Francis Acland. It made a Report which was published, I think, in 1917, and as a result of that Committee's recommendations the Forestry Commission was set up in 1919.
To-day we are considering a Report by the Forestry Commissioners which has been made, unfortunately, in circumstances which are very similar indeed to those in which the Acland Committee reported—a time of national danger when great inroads are being made on our private woodlands, and when there are difficulties in the way of imports owing to the submarine warfare. There are, however, two important differences which I should mention. The first is that our woodlands have not had time to recover from the serious inroads made on them during the war of 1914–18. The second is that we have had very nearly twentyfive years' experience of State forestry under the Forestry Commission. During that time very considerable knowledge has been gained about the administration of forestry, and very great advances have been made in sylviculture and on the technical side of the management of woodlands.
These advances are due in a very large measure to the present Chairman of the Foresty Commission, Sir Roy Robinson, who has been connected with the Forestry Commission ever since its inception, and whose reputation as a sylviculturist stands as high as that of anyone in the world. Personally, having been in close contact with him, I must confess I have a great admiration for his knowledge and ability. Why the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, should complain of his having been a civil servant I do not know. His connexion with the Civil Service, as far as I know— and I have not been able to verify it—

889
consists of having been a temporary civil servant for five years, subsequent to which he has been with the Forestry Commission all the time. I am not certain that a great many of us, even in your Lordships' House, could not be branded as having been at one time or another during our lives temporary civil servants. I am not sure that my present position in the Ministry of Agriculture, though it is not paid, might not be called that of a temporary civil servant.
Underlying the proposals which the Forestry Commission have put forward there are two main considerations. The first is the question of security of the nation, and the second is the proper utilization of the land of this country, not only the woodland, but those lands, of which there may be considerable acreages, which are preferably used as woodlands but are not so used now. Twice in a generation the position of timber has been one of the many major problems in the defence of this country, and if we are not going to learn by two wars what is necessary, then we shall never learn anything. Furthermore, much of the woodland in this country is not so productive as it ought to be. I do not want your Lordships to gather from that remark that I am blaming the private landowner. I appreciate, as the whole Forestry Commissioners appreciate, the fact upon which the noble Duke laid stress—namely, that both during the last war and during the present war the major part of the home-grown timber has come from private woodlands. Even during this war only an almost negligible quantity has been provided from State woodlands. Those woodland owners have kept their woodlands going through times when they have had absolutely no encouragement from His Majesty's Government, and many of them have kept their woodlands going in a state of productivity. They deserve the greatest credit from the nation for their patriotism, especially as they have agreed without a murmur to grave inroads being made on their woodlands during two wars.
The general proposals of the Forestry Commission are that there should be a target of 5,000,000 acres of effective woodland in this country, and that that target should be reached over a period of fifty years. There is, of course, quite rightly, a suggestion in the Report that that may
890
be subject to periodical revision when forestry is discussed either in your Lordships' House or in another place; but I would make a reservation in that regard, and that is that, forestry being a longterm proposition, undue change is extremely undesirable and is liable to upset the whole organization. The reason for taking that target of 5,000,000 acres is that it is estimated that 5,000,000 acres of woodland, in full bearing, would provide approximately one-third of the whole requirements of timber in this country in normal circumstances. It is further estimated that in a time of national emergency—still assuming that that land is in full bearing from the timber point of view—accelerated felling might well be able to provide the whole requirements of the country over a period of three or four years. I am not taking into account the inroads now being made in the woodlands in existence in this country to-day. It is therefore chosen to aim at 5,000,000 acres rather as a security measure, and also in the belief that there are 5,000,000 acres of land which can usefully be kept under trees in this country. As to the 5,000,000 acres suggested, 2,000,000 could be obtained from existing woodlands—that is, either by replanting felled woodland areas or in actual growing woods to-day.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Private?
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Existing woodlands. The estimated total acreage of existing woodlands is 3.1 million acres, and 2,000,000 of these, it is estimated, will be suitable for effective afforestation, leaving approximately one-third—this is a guess more than anything else—of the existing woodlands, amenity woodlands or small woodlands, which would not be suitable for afforestation such as is suggested in the Report. This leaves 3,000,000 acres of bare land which will have to be acquired and afforested by the Forestry Commission. As to these 3,000,000 acres to be acquired by the Forestry Commission, that is to be spread over fifty years. In the first decade, which is the important period from the point of view both of the Forestry Commission and the country, it is planned that 500,000 acres of bare land should be planted by the Forestry Commission, and 500,000 of existing woodlands should be replanted either by the Forestry Commission or by private owners —making a total in the first ten years of 1,000,000 acres. That is under the

891
"desirable" scheme put forward by the Forestry Commission, which is the one they wish to see put in force.
Fear has been expressed both by the two noble Lords who have already spoken, and by others, that land which is suitable for agriculture will be taken for forestry, and a number of cases have been brought forward purporting to show that land has been so taken in the past. First of all, I should like to say—this is in answer to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield —that most careful consideration is always given by the Forestry Commission before any land is acquired, and on quite a number of occasions the Forestry Commission have refused to consider acquiring estates which have been offered them because they thought the land was too good for forestry purposes. There are also arrangements with the two Departments of Agriculture, the Ministry of Agriculture here and the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, by which they are kept informed of all the proposals of the Forestry Commission for acquisition. Indeed, I might say that on the initiative of the Forestry Commission themselves in quite recent months the method by which there is liaison between the Forestry Commission and the Agricultural Departments has been improved—I trust satisfactorily.
I think that perhaps it is not an unfair criticism to say that in the years before the war the Ministry of Agriculture were not very interested in what the Forestry Commission acquired or did not acquire, and it is also, I think, rather a fair criticism to say that many of the people who state that land which has been taken for the Forestry Commission should have been kept for agriculture are being wise in the light of recent events and recent knowledge rather than of knowledge which was in anybody's mind at the time the land was acquired. Perhaps the greatest argument in favour of the Forestry Commission lies in the prices they have paid for the land they have acquired in the past. The acreage is considerable. The area acquired since the Forestry Commission commenced is 438,000 acres which have been bought and 216,000 acres which have been either leased or feud. The average net cost of the plantable land which has been purchased by the Forestry Commission amounts to £2 7s. 7d. an acre and the
892
average net rental of the leased or feud land has been 1s. 11d. an acre. I do not think that even before the war those who have knowledge of agricultural values would have thought that those figures indicated any great agricultural value.
I might say, furthermore, that I have seen particulars of a number of cases where public complaints have been made about land secured by the Forestry Commission which is said to be of agricultural value. In every case that land has been acquired very cheaply, and some of it has subsequently proved useful for agricultural purposes under war-time conditions. In every case of acquisition by the Forestry Commission of land which is of agricultural value, they have let it for agricultural purposes, or used it for forest workers holdings or, occasionally, for forestry nurseries. In one particular case that was brought to my notice I was told that the land ought never to go back to forestry. It was a case of land in Devonshire near Hal will Forest. This is an area of 4,400 odd acres. It was acquired in thirty-four separate parcels over a rather long period of time. The land was either rough moorland and uneconomic or derelict or semi-derelict enclosed land. All of this land which was lettable has been let. Since the war began the war agricultural committees have by arrangements taken from the Forestry Commission a matter of 532 acres. Since the Forestry Commission have had that land they have spent a considerable amount of money on draining, fencing, killing vermin and the like. Even so, the war agricultural committees were not prepared to pay a rent of more than 4s. 7½d. an acre which I think must be an indication of the value that they put on that land. Incidentally, I might mention that in that area the purchase price varies from 40s. an acre to £4 an acre.
That deals, I hope, effectively with the Commission and their acquisition of land suitable for agriculture. But there still is the problem of finding 3,000,000 acres over fifty years or 500,000 acres in the first ten years. There are 16,000,000 acres of rough grazing in this country and I think it is not unlikely that, with careful consideration, land will be found which can usefully be put to forestry and withdrawn from rough grazing. I might, in that connexion, draw your Lordships' attention to employment under forestry

893
conditions as compared with rough grazing. There are some extremely interesting and illuminating facts and figures given on page 41 of the Commissioners' Report, but I will not go into them in detail. I might also indicate to your Lordships that, low though the price has been at which we have acquired what after all is a very considerable acreage of land, the Forestry Commission have never as yet had to use the compulsory powers which Parliament conferred on them.
May I row turn for a moment to the question of private woodlands, which was really much the most difficult problem that the Forestry Commissioners had to deal with when considering this Report? First of all, we had no knowledge as to whether any private owner, after the war, will be in a financial position to do anything in the way of replanting. That lies with the Government. Added to the ordinary financial difficulties with which the private owner will be faced, is another point: this is that the Forestry Commissioners feel very strongly that there must be, after the war, a continuation of felling licences in order to conserve such stocks of standing timber as may still be left in this country. That may easily cripple the private landowner to some extent in any replanting programme he wants to carry out, but we do consider that it is absolutely essential in the national interest that such stocks of timber as may be left to us after the war should be conserved as far as possible. There is also the problem which naturally arises, that the timber trade is apprehensive of the continuation of felling licences, in that that continuation might well cut into such little trade as there may be left to them after the war. I may say that conversations of the most amicable nature are going on with the timber trade now, and they are being extremely helpful.
But the main scheme, so far as private woodlands is concerned, is dedication. The scheme proposed involves an owner in saying whether he is prepared and able to carry on his woodlands as woodlands in the national interest. If he is unable to do so the alternative will be acquisition by the Forestry Commission—that is to say, acquisition by the State. I would like to clear up a small point regarding that word "acquisition." I think a number of people have an idea that acquisition
894
means purchase. It does not necessarily mean purchase. It may mean lease or feu, and there is no suggestion that it should be a compulsory purchase with all the severance that that may mean to any estate. I hope that the idea that we have got to buy will not be allowed to be thought of as a necessary part of our acquisition. That is not the intention of the Forestry Commission.
Underlying that question of dedication and control of the forestry, both private and public, in this country, is the principle of the proper utilization of our wood-lands so as to ensure that they should be as productive as possible. Small wood-lands are an extremely difficult problem to deal with, but I do not think that need loom quite as large in the minds of those who are perhaps rather critical of the Commission's recommendations as it seems to do. First of all, many of the small woodlands will come in the million acres or thereabouts of woodlands which we do not contemplate will come into the scheme. If there is an owner with a fair acreage of woodland in small blocks there is no reason why we should not take the whole area. I know one owner who has eight hundred acres of woodland, but although no single block is bigger than ten acres that estate would be very suitable for dedication. Where there are small woodlands near an area where there are larger woodlands and they can fit in with the management of those woodlands, there seems to me no reason why these small woodlands should not be dedicated if the owner so wishes. So a good many of what we call small woodlands would come into the dedication scheme without any difficulty.
In all this work, and particularly in regard to dedication and our relations with the private woodland owners, the Forestry Commission desire very much indeed to work in harmony with the forestry organizations and the land organizations, and of course with the individual forest and land owner The suggestions we put forward have already in fact been the subject of consideration at a meeting of forestry and land-owning organizations, a meeting which I understand was extremely harmonious and hopeful. One hopes that that spirit will continue. There is, however, one point about which I personally, at the time when we were discussing the details of the Report, felt very strongly. Dedication proposals mean con-

895
trolling the land owner's operations on his own land—I think the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, touched on this point— and I have always felt as a principle that control which may involve an individual in expense controlled by the State should on the other hand involve the State in some obligation to ensure that that owner gets some return on the money he is compelled to spend. Unfortunately forestry is a very long-term process, and it would be extremely difficult to arrive at any guaranteed price to be paid one hundred years hence which would have any value or promote any confidence in anybody, let alone the woodland owner. A great deal may happen in one hundred years. We even hope at the present moment that a great deal may happen in a few months. It is impossible to look one hundred years ahead, but it is the belief of the Forestry Commission that the trend of prices must be favourable to the man who grows timber. Many countries are depleting their timber resources and scarcity is bound to lead to a gradual rise in price.
In regard to finance we came to the conclusion that in view of the uncertain situation there should be a percentage grant of the actual cost of the woodland until such time as it was self-supporting The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has already put before the Forestry Commission his scheme for grants. The scheme has not been with us long enough to be considered in detail. What the Forestry Commission desire is that such financial assistance should be given to the woodland owner as will enable him to re-afforest his own woodland, and encourage him to do so, within the main lines of the scheme and on proper conditions of a reasonable nature such as Parliament would agree to. Any scheme that will achieve that financial assistance will be suitable. We are not tied to one particular form of financial assistance.
I would like to touch on one other point before I finish, and that is the question of amenity. That has been a bone of contention between the Forestry Commission and a great number of people at different times. Perhaps I can say as a Forestry Commissioner of not very long standing that I know there have been difficulties in the past which might possibly have been avoided, but to-day our relations with the forestry organizations, with the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, the National Trust
896
and local bodies are very satisfactory. I can assure your Lordships that the Forestry Commission desire nothing more than to meet the requirements of the nation so far as amenity is concerned. I may mention that there have been long negotiations with the National Trust about Eskdale. Those negotiations have now ended successfully, and I am informed that within the last few days Professor Trevelyan has agreed to be Chairman of a Committee to start a national park in the forest area in that part of the country. There are, of course, still people who prefer to see what they call picturesque woodlands, and complain when woods are cut down and reafforested on proper forestry lines. There are people who, when they see a cornfield full of poppies, say "How lovely," whereas in the eye of the expert that means a very bad field of corn. To the expert a so-called picturesque wood may be a very terrible thing which ought to be producing more than it is. I need not say more on that point.
The expansion of activity proposed means a considerable expansion of organization within the Forestry Commission. I do not propose to start out upon the thorny path of whether there should be a separate Forestry Commission for Scotland. It would appear from the two speeches to which we have already listened that there is some difference of opinion on that point even in Scotland itself. But it is proposed that there should be a considerable measure of devolution. It is proposed that there should be two staffs, one for private woodlands and one for State woodlands; that those staffs should be interchangeable, and that they should be united at a high executive level. There are various other provisions which I hope will prove satisfactory. I have detained your Lordships long enough, and I know there are a number of other speakers. I have not enlarged on a number of rather important but still subsidiary points, such as national parks, forestry workers' holdings and scale of employment, but those matters are dealt with in detail in the Report if your Lordships like to read about them. I do not intend either to enter upon the other thorny path of the constitutional position. The Forestry Commission, as is made perfectly clear in their Report, are happy in their present position outside any Government Department.

897
May I conclude by putting before your Lordships very briefly the five essential conditions which the Forestry Commission have included in their Report as being necessary if forestry in this country is to be successful? The first of these is the recognition by the Government of the importance of timber production at home; the second is continuity of national policy, including finance; the third is an ad hoc forestry authority; the fourth is a unified forest service—the Forestry Commissioners feel that is very important—and the fifth is adequate services for research, education and information. I know that I have left out a lot that is of importance, and I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for my shortcomings. I would say once again that I hope—and I would emphasize this—that the Forestry Commission, whatever its future may be, and whatever the Government may decide, will get from those who are interested in forestry, both forest owners and land owners, sympathy and help, because we are prepared to meet anybody who is helpful so far as we possibly can.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, I should like to take this occasion to say how grateful I am to the noble Duke who has initiated the Motion for bringing this subject before your Lord ships. It is a subject that is very important, and one that has, in the past, been overmuch neglected. I should also like to express on my own behalf, and I think, too, on behalf of the other noble Lords on these Benches, great appreciation of the Report of the Forestry Commission. It is a magnificent piece of work. It goes very thoroughly into the subject, and even if we do not agree with every point of it we do support the feelings which have moved the Forestry Commissioners to make such a Report. I hope that it will have the necessary attention of His Majesty's Government and others.
I will not go into detailed questions relating to the economic side of this matter. It seems to me that anyone who has studied this Report must recognize very clearly the essential necessity of reafforestation after the war. To me, I must confess, it was staggering to find that only 4 per cent, of the timber used was home-grown. This programme proposes, I understand, to produce nearly one-third of our timber requirements. From the
898
economic point of view it would seem to be essential to produce this timber for our use and to enable us to establish markets and trade after the war. Obviously, we should not have to import so much timber and we should be able to import other things instead. Quite apart from the economic side, the overwhelming argument for reafforestation seems to me to be bound up with security reasons. These I do not think I need to emphasize. In the last war we cut down right and left everywhere. We have no conception of how much timber has been felled in this war, but one thing is perfectly clear: that at the end of the war our position as regards timber for the future will be desperate and will need desperate measures to counteract it. That is obvious. I do not wish to labour those points, for it is easy to realize, on the economic side, that the demand for timber will grow greater after the war, and that from the point of view of national security it is essential to grow more timber.
There are just one or two other points to which I should like to draw your Lord-ships' attention. If, as the Report suggests, a great deal of land is going to be acquired for afforestation—in fact, I gather it will be about 3,000,000 acres, and that is a very large area—I would earnestly suggest to His Majesty's Government that it should be acquired by a National Land Commission and that it should not be completely taken over by the Forestry Commission, as they wish. I suggest that any land, whether it is required for agricultural purposes, for roads or in connexion with some scheme, as well as for forestry, should be taken over by a National Land Commission, and then either leased out to the Forestry Commission or dealt with by whatever arrangement the Government prefer. But let us look for a moment at the contrary position. If this is not done we may well find ourselves in the position of having one Government Department competing against another Department for different pieces of land. I am confident that even the most ardent advocates of the merits of private competition would hardly desire such a state of affairs to exist. I suggest that this competition for sites of land between different Departments can only be obviated by having a National Land Commission vested with complete control to

899
allocate various portions of land to forestry or agriculture or anything else, as might be deemed desirable.
Another great point which we should bear in mind, I consider, is the necessity for continuity of policy. As the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has suggested, forestry is a very long-term matter, and for that reason we cannot be faced to our benefit with the position which developed after the last war, nor can we allow Geddes' axes or any other axes, in some moment of financial panic, to fell thousands of saplings which could have been used to reafforest our country. In other words, whatever is embarked on as a long-term scheme must be continually provided for by the necessary funds and the necessary support. For that reason I would suggest that it would be better to have forestry put under some Minister who would be responsible for it. It seems to me that there would be more chance of the cause of forestry being advocated properly in the Cabinet if there were a Minister of Cabinet rank who would support a forestry programme, would be prepared to answer questions, and would be responsible to Parliament. I do not venture to discuss whether it is desirable that the Minister should be the Minister of Forestry, the Minister of Agriculture or someone else, but I think it would be a great advantage to have a responsible Minister. I do not, however, agree with the suggestion that the Minister should be the Lord President of the Council. I think this calls for someone who will interest himself in this very vital problem.
I now come to what is, I think, perhaps the most controversial portion of the Report—namely, the portion relating to private woodlands. I want to avoid the controversy on the subject of Scotland versus England and whether or not there should be a separate Commission for Scotland. I do not pretend to know the position in Scotland, and moreover, I have always found that if Scotsmen want their own way they usually get it. One might as well, therefore, save one's breath. With regard to private woodlands, I listened with great attention to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. His scheme seemed to me very ingenious and very logically worked out; but, if I may venture humbly to make a tentative suggestion,
900
it seemed to me also that, like the scheme in the Report, it had one drawback, in that it was loaded very much in favour of the private owner of woods. I agree with the noble Duke who proposed this Motion that we owe a great debt to the private owners of woodlands. In the past, the great forests of this country have been produced entirely by private owners, and in two wars our timber supplies have been secured to us as a result of their forethought and enterprise. That is admitted, but I do not think that that is an argument against the proposals of the Forestry Commission.
In the past, all the timber has been in the hands of private owners, while the Forestry Commission is a relatively new growth which has not yet had a proper chance of development. After this war it is exceedingly doubtful whether there will be many, if any, private owners who will have the money to develop or replant woods in the way which will be necessary. If they can do so, I should be very much in favour of it, but, if not, I do not see why the State should subsidize the owners of woodlands for replanting and not reap a profit out of it. If the private owner is going to receive his 25 per cent., I think that the State ought to reap a 25 per cent, profit when the woodlands are eventually felled. I should like to study the scheme of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, with more care before going into details with regard to it, but it seems to me that under that scheme it is the private owner whose interests are secured. He is paid first, and only if there is any residue does the State, which has financed the business, get the balance. We do not know what that balance may be in a hundred years' time. It seems to me that the very necessity of this amount of 25 per cent, being given to the owner is an argument for the State taking over most of the woods which cannot be managed economically by private individuals. I do agree, however, that free advice and help should be given to all owners of woods and forests who need it. Any owner who wishes to plant on a big scale should have the experience of Government research given to him without any cost to himself, so that he can replant to the best advantage and so that his sylviculture may be the best possible.
There is one other big problem which has to be considered. Quite apart from

901
the economic advantage of reafforestation, which is very necessary, and apart from reasons of security, there is one other reason which should compel us to undertake a programme on the scale outlined, or on an even larger scale, and that is the reason of climate. It does not seem to me that that has received enough attention. We do not have to go so far as the United States and Mexico to find examples of where the indiscriminate cutting down of trees has turned fertile land literally into desert; we have merely to look at some of the islands on the west coast of Ireland, islands which in the days of Queen Elizabeth were fertile and covered with trees and good soil, but which, through the indiscriminate cutting down of trees, are now literally barren pieces of rock, where nothing grows but a few tufts in odd crevices and a few ferns. I do not say that there is any danger of this country becoming a barren rock, but I do suggest that, unless we do something to counteract the extreme amount of felling which is going on during this war, our climate will be considerably altered. That is a point to which I hope that those who sponsor the policy and programme of the Forestry Commission will give some consideration.
I should also like to say a word on the question of amenity. I was very glad to see in the Report of the Commissioners the proposal for national parks. I think that that will make a great difference to the people of this country. I agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, said about the poppies in the corn. I agree that many ornamental woods are not the best timber-bearing. But I think that a great deal can be done outside the national parks with regard to the layout of woods, so that they shall not only provide windbreaks but at the same time improve the appearance of the countryside. We do not want to go over completely to growing soft woods; we must remember that the hard-wood trees—the big oaks and so on of this country—are the trees which have made our countryside one of the most beautiful in the world. I should like the Government to try to take some steps to preserve the ornamental trees which we still have in this country. There are parts of the countryside where every second or third tree is covered with ivy. It requires very little labour to cut the roots now, and otherwise in time the ivy will strangle the tree. I think that some
902
propaganda by the B.B.C. and in the Press might induce many farmers and owners to cut the ivy, and in that way many thousands of beautiful trees will be saved. I should like to end by expressing my great appreciation of the Report and my hope that His Majesty's Government will adopt the full and desirable plan, and not the intermediate one, because this is a question of very great national importance.
LORD TRENT: My Lords, the unenviable position of the owners of woodlands in this country, to which the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has referred, is in no way due to the Forestry Commission; in my opinion it is due to the fact that the Government did not adopt, at the beginning of the war, the course which was recommended by progressive woodland owners, which was to pay an adequate sum of money for the timber as it was cut and to make it an obligation on the owner to reserve for replanting a certain amount of the money received. That is done in a great many countries. At the present time owners in this country are at a very great disadvantage; they are trying to compete on straight sales of timber. I have been told by progressive forest owners in Scandinavia that they started to make their forestry really profitable only when they had not only sales of timber but sales of pulp and charcoal.
I was very astonished a few months ago when, in a debate in this House, the noble Lord, the Minister of War Transport, referring to producer gas engines, said that they were unsatisfactory and uneconomic compared with petrol engines. I have been in a forest where every car and every lorry was run on charcoal from the estate, and that was not a small forest but a forest of over 70,000 acres of growing timber, in which, in the winter, with the temperature below zero, there were over a thousand men working and 600 horses employed. I do not know how many lorries and cars they had, but they were experimenting in this way. It seems to me that after the war this country will have to adopt a different attitude from that taken up in the past, when we wanted the best of everything more or less irrespective of what it cost. After the war we shall have to make do with what we have and with what we can produce in this country; and I hope that the Government will pay attention to the

903
question of using producer gas from charcoal, because I am certain that it will help our forestry tremendously.
One reason why I support the noble Duke who proposed this Motion this afternoon is that I thoroughly agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, said, that forestty holds out enormous possibilities for the Highlands of Scotland—far greater than for places further south. I do not believe there is any body in the world who could have drawn up a better report than the Forestry Commission have done, but in my opinion it is not broad enough. Forestry is a much bigger thing than this. I hope your Lordships will not think I am trying to be rude in any way, but this is the sort of report that a board of directors would be inclined to put out, with its forecast of the return on capital in fifty years. Forestry is a way of life; the people who live all their lives in woods are magnificent people. I believe that on the West coast of the Highlands of Scotland you can do much in time—and it will take a long time. They are talking of fifty years, when the rotation of a tree in this country is eighty years and with many trees over a hundred years.
I quite agree that for technical purposes it is desirable to have one body for the whole of Britain. You have the example of the Royal College of Forestry in Sweden, to which people go from all over the world to study, and it would be silly to have two technical colleges here. But, bearing in mind the great contribution that forestry could make to the prosperity of Scotland, I hope it could be put under a progressive Minister like the present Secretary of State for Scotland, who is taking a great interest in all developments for the benefit of Scotland. I remember talking to one of the best known and best informed men up on the West coast at a time when a carbide factory had been under discussion, and I said to him, "Why don't you get a pulp factory in Fort William, which would serve the whole of the West coast? "There was a tremendous lot of timber in Mull then which the owners could not sell at all. I should add that I have not got these facts confirmed by the Forestry Commission, but I have no doubt that Lord Radnor will correct me if I am wrong. My West coast authority said, "Well,
904
there is a scheme for a pulp factory on the West coast when the Forestry Commission agree. But it is proposed to put it at Fort Augustus, which would not be any good for the landlords on the West coast." I can assure your Lordships that very often even at Christmas we get some fine mild weather, and it is perfectly possible to tow big rafts of timber round to some central point of the West coast, where you can get your timber pulped. In this Report the Commission say that the timber should be grown for purposes of emergency as near as possible to the place where the timber will be used, and broadly speaking that is in the south of the country. It did not strike me that it was going to be very helpful to the timber grower in Scotland if, to prepare for the next war, the bulk of our timber is grown in Norfolk near where the munition factories will be placed.
There was just one other point that I wanted to raise. The Commission has now existed for about twenty-five years, and I think it is fair to say that the feeling between the farmers and the Commission, at any rate in Scotland, to put it mildly, does not grow any better. It is probably worse now than it was twenty-five years ago. The last time I was in Sweden, I was informed that just about the time when the Forestry Commission was born, a new forestry law was passed in that country the essence of which was to try to help landowners, large or small, or companies, to produce good timber, and to do it by providing a market, and not by confiscating their land if they did not do it, but by fining them. In each county there is a small committee of three, the chairman appointed by the Crown, one member appointed by the county agricultural committee, and one by the county council, which has an expert forester in attendance. By this means, during the time when relations have been deteriorating in this country between the representatives of forestry and the representatives of agriculture, they have been able to persuade the farmers, from the results that they have obtained in improved prices and better crops, that forestry is not the enemy of agriculture, but, properly worked, is complementary to agriculture. That, I think, is of very great advantage, particularly in places where you have a number of men who only work on the crofts for a certain number of

905
months in a year, and who want profitable employment for the rest of the year.
I hope that in the remarks that I have made I have not been unfair to the Forestry Commissioners, because it is only just to them to say that they have given us our only national park. It is a very mixed bag that we have got out of this thing. There are some very fine points, but I hope your Lordships will agree with me that when you come to deal with forestry for the nation we want the head of it to be a Minister with a wide national outlook, and not one who will look at it merely from a technical point of view with the aim of making forestry a paying concern as quickly as possible. I have very great pleasure in supporting the noble Duke in the view that the head of the new body, whatever it is called, should be the Secretary of State for Scotland, with the reservation that I should like to have the same technical staff for the whole of Great Britain.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: My Lords, I do not propose to follow the noble Duke very far in his opening remarks, because the subject has been debated recently in this House, the ground has been covered to-day, and there is so much to be said about forestry itself. The views and anxiety expressed as to future Ministerial and Parliamentary responsibility for the direction of forestry show that there are great differences of opinion, and I hope the Government will be able to come to a decision which will meet both the wishes of the Departments and the needs of Scotland in particular, by which country a very large contribution is bound to be made in future. I hope also that in coming to their decision the Government will see that there is in the Cabinet in future someone who will have responsibility for making sure that forestry has its full scope and place in the life of the nation and is not neglected as formerly. It certainly did seem to be a weakness in prewar days that there was no Minister in the Government to whom recommendations on behalf of forestry could be made throughout the period when it was going through such a difficult time. I hope also that, as far as possible, the previous policy of one authority, one service, and one policy will be continued and brought into line, whatever is laid down in the future. The noble Earl, Lord Radnor,
906
has gone far to assure people in private forestry that the authority in future will have separate branches or departments which will be able to attend to both the needs of the State and of private forestry. All those who have admired in the past the ability and the work for forestry and for the Forestry Commission of the present Chairman will welcome and endorse the tributes which have been paid to him for his great achievement in compiling this Report on post-war forestry.
There seems to be agreement on all sides of the House as to the great importance of making provision for the growing of timber on a far larger scale after the war. As has been shown, there will be an exceedingly small quantity of timber left, and it will be required both for security and for commercial purposes. I should like to follow the noble Lord, Lord Trent, in what he has said about certain uses of timber, and make reference to the extraordinarily wide range of uses of timber and its by products in Germany during the last few years as a result of the ingenuity and inventions of scientists—food, sugar, clothing, explosives, wood gas for transport, lubrication, proteins said to be enough for the whole German Army, and a great deal besides. I am quite sure that this sort of thing could be done just as well in this country if we were pressed to do it and when the opportunity arises after the war. I believe that in the United States, where the facilities are greater, they are making just as great strides. Here, unfortunately, so far nothing very much seems to have been done in these directions. Possibly the Ministry of Supply would have a smaller feeling of shame for all the wood they are at present obliged to waste after felling if they were able to put it to better use.
The Report of the Commission has still to be completed in regard to private woodlands. There are a great number of points for consideration which really deserve more publicity than they ever secure. I should like to mention a few of them, but I wish this task was in abler hands than mine. It is difficult to make the subject interesting. Also, coming from the freshness of the woods in the country, one perhaps finds the atmosphere of this House to-day rather heavy. I should like to speak for a few moments on behalf of a very large number of owners of woodlands, large

907
and small, especially the owners of smaller woodlands, because their task is infinitely greater, and also for the head foresters, working foresters, and all those in the timber-growing industry in Great Britain who want an opportunity to continue to grow timber, to do it better than they have done in the past, and who feel there is a real danger of the production of timber in privately-owned woods being pushed on one side. Reference has been made by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, to a recent conference between the Forestry Commissioners and representatives of private woodland owners. It is fair to say that on that occasion the atmosphere and the spirit were very friendly, and that a number of assurances were given—or definitions and explanations of certain paragraphs in the Report —which go a considerable way towards removing a number of the criticisms and some of the anxiety we originally felt about the Report. It must be remembered that in 1939 the area of private woodlands was six times that of the Forestry Commission's woodlands. Therefore it is still very important that these woodlands should be properly tended and should grow good timber.
The dedication scheme has been mentioned. Its terms may not be entirely welcome to everyone, but they are very much intended to be on the lines of what the forestry societies have been advocating for many years—namely, that there should be an opportunity to grow timber, and that it is necessary we should put our land to good use and manage our timber better than in the past. Views have been expressed that private forestry has failed in the past, and the impression has sometimes been spread that large subsidies have therefore been wasted. It is necessary to show that such impressions are unjustified and incorrect. If this is not done a bias will remain against private forestry which will be very harmful to it, especially when Parliament is considering what financial assistance should be given in future. When these criticisms are made, you very rarely hear anything said about the handicaps under which private forestry is carried on, or the uneconomic aspects, which a careful perusal of the Report will show are acknowledged. It has been the accepted policy of this country to rely on imports for supplies of
908
timber and there has been no encouragement or support for prices in peacetime. Therefore, as private forestry has admittedly not had a fair opportunity, it cannot justifiably be condemned. It is shown in the Report that a hundred years ago when the nation needed timber the land-owners were active in growing it.
I think the owners of small woodlands will be disappointed that the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, could not give more encouragement to them to-day, but I hope that during the course of discussions it will be shown that they will have a place in the forestry of the future. The importance of their woodlands has been acknowledged, yet for the contribution which they have made during this war not very much is offered to them that we can see so far. The Forestry Commission show that they are ready to take over and manage any of the woodlands selected by them, but by pointing out that there are approximately 1,000,000 acres of small woodlands which they are doubtful about coming into the scheme, they also have shown pretty clearly that they regard the future of those woodlands as uneconomic and not a proposition which the Commission would like to take on themselves It is clear therefore that the small woodlands are more a matter for those who live beside them than for a State body.
In discussing the previous uneconomic aspect one must have regard to the question of thinnings. Noble Lords who grow timber will be aware that in the growing of soft woods we must, after a period and at regular intervals, remove the thinnings from the young plantations, and unless this can be done profitably and unless there is an outlet for those thinnings, they have to remain in the woods very much to the detriment of these plantations and the final crop. The Forestry Commission acknowledge that a market must exist in the future for these thinnings. I hope Parliament will insist upon some very definite line about this and also about transport charges, especially from the more remote areas. These are the examples which alone show that the proper management of soft woods has been quite impossible in prewar years. In view of this any criticism of previous management of woodlands must be brought to nothing.
In case it is believed by anyone that large subsidies were paid before the war

909
for the growing of timber in private wood-lands, I think it ought to be realized that the total sum paid in planting grants was £336,ooo, not annually but during all the years between the two wars. Your Lordships can compare this with the hundreds of millions given for food production during the war and with the very large sums given annually before the war. You can compare it also with the £12,000,000 spent on forestry before the last war, including £1,500,000 for overhead charges. This £336,000 only works out at 2s. 2½d. per acre for all the woodlands and all the timber which the Government have had at their disposal during the war. I would like to point out what a tremendous bargain it has been to the nation to have all this timber at such a small expenditure to the country. The nation has recouped itself over and over again in different ways, because the strictly controlled prices for timber are far below what would have had to be paid for imported timber, and there also has been a great saving in the cost of shipping. There are also in Death Duties and taxation other means by which the Government have recouped themselves from woodlands or the profits on timber. I think at least one-third of the total sum provided for the production of timber in the whole of the private woodlands of this country has been paid in taxation. Thus it will be seen that in war-time a large proportion of the profit is taken by the nation and in peace-time they leave the growers of timber in the lurch.
Looked at from another point of view, the Forestry Commission claim that at best and if all goes well, and there is no taxation to pay, they hope to show a profit of 3 per cent, or a little more during the course of these operations. Yet their operations consist largely of the mass planting of vast areas and that should be done very much more cheaply than the work which we have to carry out in the case of very large numbers of small woods. In my neighbourhood blocks of 10,000 acres or larger are planted by the Forestry Commission, whereas in my case I have 400 woods of an average acreage of 20 acres each and a small number of larger sizes. That is typical of private woodlands. We have a very much more difficult and more expensive task than the Forestry Commission in dealing with small plantations of every type of timber because we have to grow the timber in
910
all kinds of places, on steep hillsides, on banks, in ravines and on any ground not suitable for farming. If the Forestry Commission had to undertake the cultivation of small woods on the scale that we have to do, I venture to suggest that their expenses would be higher per acre than they are now. From the figures given in the Report they estimate in their case afforestation expenses of even £40 an acre for the future. If your Lordships look back to the past, to the £2 per acre offered to private woodland owners, you will see that that sum would not go very far towards the cost of planting the area which the Forestry Commission have been successful in doing before this war began.
I think it might also be said that private forestry cannot really be treated quite like a normal commercial enterprise. Our job is to make the best use of the land to grow timber for the nation and for local purposes, to provide shelter and also to beautify the area. The profitmotive has not been the only reason for our forestry. At the same time we cannot be expected to carry on in the same way in the future at a serious loss, and I do not think Parliament will wish to withhold from timber producers the amount of assistance which they may find it necessary to give to farm producers in order to enable them to pay good wages to their men and to sell their goods.
There arc one or two other points I would like to mention. Some people are under the impression that it is an advantage always to timber producers to be able to sell their timber in large quantities during the war. I do not think it is generally realized to what an extent it is a disadvantage. When anyone has a large area of woodland and is obliged to sell in a space of three or four years an enormous proportion of the woods, it means that capital assets in timber are rapidly reduced and taxation has to be paid on the revenue from them. The timber felled includes a very large amount of immature timber. This means that a very definite capital loss falls on the owner who is obliged to sell it and that there is a very much increased cost of re-establishing that woodland as compared with the cost when it was planted perhaps thirty or forty years ago. There is really a responsibility on the Government to assist in the re-establishment of these woodlands which have been taken long before maturity.

911
I would like to make it clear that any form of assistance will be to the advantage of the nation and the taxpayer; that it will be a good investment, and not simply an expense on the part of the nation and the taxpayers. I feel that there is a debt to the growers in view of what I have said, and that any grant made to them can reasonably be regarded as in the nature partly of a repayment, inasmuch as the Government have taken a definite proportion of the profit in that timber. In any case I think that any grant should be regarded partly as a recompense for services rendered of an uneconomic nature, and partly as an insurance against loss. I do not want to say much about the actual method of assistance except that it is dependent on a high standard of forestry and good management. What I have said also shows that it will not be something given for nothing, but that it will have to be earned. It does mean a certain amount of control, which can be of a helpful nature, as it has been in foreign countries. I hope that under wise administration it will be helpful in this country, too. It means that 75 per cent, of the loss on re-establishment of wood-lands is borne by the growers. That means a big expenditure during the first ten or twenty years, and there may be another twenty-five or thirty years during which there will be no sufficient profit to recoup the owner for the original expenditure. Therefore it means that many owners will have difficulty in finding money for re-afforestation. I hope facilities to obtain money will be given at a moderate rate of interest, such as 3 per cent., but it appears that it may be available on terms not quite as favourable as those for the Forestry Commission. As one interested I do not wish to say what should be the form and the amount of assistance, but I feel confident that if a thorough examination is made of the cost of re-afforestation now and of the question whether it is an advantage to make a grant; I believe Parliament will respond by making available what is necessary to establish a thriving industry, which in many ways will be an asset to the nation.
There are many other points in the Report which deserve attention, but with which one cannot deal to-day, such as education, advisory services and the
912
regional committees which it is suggested should be of an advisory character. We think these committees ought to have some executive functions as well. They can help the Forestry Commission and Parliament in looking after the woodlands, particularly the small woodlands, and seeing that they get fair play. I hope that this subject will not in any sense be made an issue between private enterprise and nationalization. It should be treated on its merits, and I hope there will be encouragement for private forestry and State forestry side by side. Each can make a big contribution. If you ask private woodland owners to grow timber after the war and make it possible, you will find a tremendous response. I hope that the interest now being shown in forestry will continue and that your Lord-ships will endeavour to see that forestry receives the attention it deserves.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: My Lords, I do not intend to keep your Lordships any length of time, but I would like to make the remark that those of us from Scotland who have listened to this debate realize that re-afforestation is a vital and important policy. Those who live in the landward areas are much interested—and more than interested, concerned—to carry out a forestry policy. We realize that we have been set a very big task which must be spread over a number of years, and we realize from what has been said this afternoon that it will require very careful organization and a great deal of study and efficiency to reach this big target of afforestation. Some of us have come to the conclusion that in order to reach the target we must have a separate body to administer a proper afforestation scheme. It is said in the Report that we should have one authority, but although the Royal Forestry Society have supported the Report I do not think the decision come to is really representative. A great many land-owners are opposed to the idea of one authority and in favour of two. Some people have gone so far as to say that the second authority should be a completely independent Scottish Forestry Commission. I do not go so far as that. I feel that we should aim at a Scottish Forestry authority under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
In the same way as the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for education and planning schemes, I think he should be responsible to Parliament for

913
our afforestation schemes. I do not quite agree with my noble friend Lord Trent about having only one technical authority. I think that we should have two technical authorities. If we have two Ministers for afforestation, one in England and one in Scotland, then there should be a technical authority in England and a technical authority in Scotland. In the matter of agriculture we have our own technical authority, and I think, therefore, that we should have the same thing in the matter of afforestation. It seems to me that it would cause confusion if the Secretary of State for Scotland, whenever in dealing with forestry matters he had occasion to refer to a technical authority, should have to refer to some nonParliamentary body in England.
Many of us in Scotland feel that it is essential to have an afforestation authority of our own, for we are convinced that when the war is over the Houses of Parliament will be simply overwhelmed with work connected with the United Kingdom, with the Empire, with foreign countries and with the peace terms, and it seems inconceivable to us that matters like forestry administration could have time devoted to them by a Parliament so busily occupied with those other great issues. We feel that there must be some decentralization, some devolution in this matter, and we think that the right way to proceed would be for the Treasury or Parliament to allocate block grants to the Scottish Forestry authority in the same way as block grants have been allocated in other matters. We suggest that they should be allocated, and that the Scottish Forestry authority should be left to expend the money as and when they think right and best for the development of forestry in Scotland. I feel that it would be extremely unwise that we should be placed in the position of having to keep on submitting and referring questions to people in Whitehall; that would cause a block in the bottleneck at Whitehall. After all, if once we have approved an afforestation policy of 5,000,000 trees to be carried out over a period of years, and have agreed on the amount of money to be expended, when the money is allocated to Scotland it becomes a purely Scottish domestic question and concerns nobody else. Therefore, I feel that we should have two Ministries.
I know that it says in the Report that we should be treated nationally. I know
914
that the object of having one Minister is to treat us nationally. We are treated nationally in regard to our religion, our law and justice, agriculture and education; why not therefore in the matter of afforestation too? I cannot see any argument against it. It has been argued that if you have one authority it would attract brains. I can assure your Lordships that the quality of the brains would be all right in Scotland. Out of eight speakers here to-day five come from Scotland. That shows the interest which we take in this subject. Then it is said that one authority would save wastage. If we had one department in Scotland you may be very sure that we should attend to the matter of wastage all right and sec that there was none. I feel very strongly, and there are many who feel strongly with me, that this scheme requires two authorities because the people of Scotland are not content to play the part of a dump-barge behind the stern of a steam tug.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, like many of your Lordships who have spoken to-day I felt very encouraged when I read this Report of the Forestry Commissioners and their proposals. I feel that this suggestion of dedication is probably a partial solution of the problem that exists. But I feel, also, that we have run into very great danger because if this dedication scheme is worked out more or less in the way in which it is envisaged it will carry with it certain obligations on the part of both parties and will inevitably, and, I think, quite correctly, mean supervision of the woodlands. As I see it it is right that that should be so, but I have fears about the method which may be adopted for supervising the management of woodland properties. By this time, we have all become more or less accustomed to war-time restrictions and regulations, and we do not, perhaps, think so much about them as we did. But we have had experience of the terrible complications and complexities that our administrative system has developed to carry out its business, and I should venture to suggest that in this matter which we are now discussing we might hope to see some simpler method of procedure, that we should try to aim at some method of guidance and over-all control, abandon-

915
ing, so far as possible, our present complex and intricate machinery.
In saying this I do not mean to criticize or in any way to "crab" the action of the machinery suggested by the Forestry Commission. But I think a very important point to watch on the financial side of the matter as regards private woodlands is that the problem is not really properly dealt with by way of grants in aid of planting. I always have been of opinion that a great difficulty confronting woodland owners in this country between the two wars was connected with the price which it was possible to get even for well-grown English timber. I feel that a right solution of this trouble would be to have a long-term policy providing for stabilization of that price at something like a level which is productive. It seems to me that we could hope, with that aid, to reach a continuous cycle of production in each separate property and so get an annual income which, if on a continuous and regular basis, would meet outgoings and cover cost of planting from year to year. I feel that it would be an advantage if we could rely on that after the war, because accelerated fellings, the fellings of immature timber, have upset the natural cycle, and I think it is right and proper that some contribution should be made in order to allow owners to catch up and get back into their cycle again. It is rather like the war insurance contribution in a way. I think that owners of woodlands have suffered, I will not say from depredation, for that is perhaps a rather exaggerated term, but they have been put out of their stride in the management of woodland properties and it needs something to put them back.
Furthermore, we have the very difficult problem arising owing to the large areas which have been felled and which are now left unplanted. A great deal of that land is going to scrub and bracken and rubbish, because it is difficult to fence it. It is impossible to get wire and young trees for planting more than a very small proportion of what has now been cut, and that will mean extra expenditure per acre for immediate post-war necessities. I should like to urge that more attention should now be paid to replanting areas which have been cut. I feel that at this stage of the war it would hardly be proper to suggest that wire netting, labour and materials should be devoted to that pur-
916
pose, but the position will give rise to a great deal of difficulty which we shall appreciate when we come to replant after the war and find a large acreage seriously overgrown with scrub, which will cost a great deal to clear. Nevertheless, I feel that this Report does show promise that the Forestry Commission at least hope that the forestry policy of the Government will be a serious and active one, and I feel that it is a good sign if this House is generally in agreement with what is proposed and will support the spirit of it, although no doubt before legal form is given to it many changes will be made.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, I think that we have had a most interesting debate. We might discuss this question for much longer still; it is a very much bigger question than may appear from the noble Duke's Motion. There are, after all, two principal parties concerned, and they are both very important: the State, with its State-owned forests, and the private woodland owner, with his private forests. Up to date it must be agreed that the private woodland owner has carried the burden. Now, I am sorry to say, he has had to carry the burden of two wars, with very little aid from anyone else, and with very little encouragement from anyone else, and least encouragement of all from the Government of the day. That being so, we must realize that facts are facts, and that the private landowner, although he has done his best for his country, will not be any better off for it at the end of the war, but will have lost, above all things, a factor which I have not heard referred to to-day: he will have lost his possibility of continuous yield, which is the only method by which, with a long-term investment like a forest, the owner can hope to recover an annual income. In losing that he has probably lost, unless he is a rich man, the possibility of carrying on his estate as a forest estate; and it is on this point that I am going to express a certain anxiety.
We have to-day the great advantage of a representative of the Forestry Commission sitting in this House, and I think I am right in quoting my noble friend Lord Radnor as saying that acquisition does not necessarily mean purchase. I have in mind the landowner who is at his wits' end to know what to do with his land, for financial or other reasons, and at the same time who does not want to split

917
his estate up into bits. In my part of the world, and indeed over the greater part of England, as distinct from England and Wales, woods are not large, and woodland owners do not control large areas. I suppose those who control more than a thousand acres are quite a small number. If those woodlands are forcibly acquired—and I will come back to the question of forcible acquisition in a moment—it affects in many cases the entire administration of the estate. You may have an agent dealing with a thousand acres of woodlands as well as with farms and so on, and he may have enough to do and enough to justify a good salary; take away the woodlands, and the overheads at once become too heavy. You may be farming yourself, and during the summer-time you may use the labour that works in the forests all through the winter and autumn in hoeing and manual work of that kind on the farm; do away with the woodlands, and that secondary use for your staff has gone. To my mind, the most important thing which we have to consider is how to retain the composite estate which includes private woodlands as one of its principal sections.
As I have already said, my noble friend Lord Radnor has explained, to my great satisfaction, that acquisition of woodlands by the Forestry Commission does not necessarily imply their purchase. I had hoped to hear him add "or their lease for 999 years." Perhaps I may add that. But what powers are the Government to take, based on the recommendations in this Report? Are they going to take powers forcibly to acquire land which in their opinion is not being treated properly from the forestry point of view, or are they going to do what they will do by sheer persuasion, without the use of force? It is useless to say that they have had these compulsory powers up to now but have never used them. That is no answer; they may at any moment use them, and at any rate the powers are there for them to use. That does not satisfy me, and I think that this question of compulsion towards dedication, especially as regards the smaller properties, is one which will have to be most carefully considered. I am not yet satisfied that we have a satisfactory way of dealing with it in the Forestry Commission's Report.
There is only one other thing that I want to say, although we might talk for hours on this subject. I am sure it must
918
be right that a considerable sum of money should be found for whoever is to do the planting immediately after this war. The picture which the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, drew of the deterioration of land where the trees have been cut and which is going back into brambles and so on is all too true, and this will add enormously to the expense of dealing with it, so that we must not put off dealing with it any longer than is strictly necessary. Therefore, even at the risk of its seeming not quite the thing to do in war-time, I would first of all ask the Government to consider whether they could not at once make available loans at low rates of interest. Whether they could go so far as actually to pay out the proposed subsidies I doubt, but I think that some people would be able to get on if the capital was found for them at a reasonable rate of interest. However, that is not a very big point; the biggest point of all is to ensure that when the war is over plenty of capital is in the hands of those who are going to do the planting.
My noble friend Lord Radnor has explained to us that, when the Forestry Commission propose that 25 per cent. of the annual costs should be recoverable from the Government, they include in those costs the initial planting. If that is correct—oddly enough it is not made very clear in the Forestry Commission's Report, or not clear to me, at any rate— it makes a vast difference. Whether it is adequate or not, or whether this is the way to do it or not, I do not much care at the moment to discuss, but obviously we must have that capital available immediately after the war. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who I am sorry to see has gone, wrote a letter to The Times the other day in which, in spite of the Bench which he occupies in this House and his predilections, he advocated a certain amount of capital being put at the disposal of industrialists at the end of the war. Your Lordships may have seen his letter on the subject in The Times. If it is necessary to think about that for industry, it is equally necessary, I submit, to think about it for forestry. We need have no hesitation in saying to the Government, "We are in an awkward place, because you have disrupted our woods and we have got less than we should otherwise have got for them. At the same time you have taken away our

919
labour, and in consequence our woods are in a mess. Now you take powers to yourselves to take over these woods because they are in a mess. That does not seem just."
VISCOUNT COWDRAY: My Lords, I would like to add my tribute to the Forestry Commissioners for producing such a valuable and interesting Report. Indeed I feel that the information contained therein will in itself help considerably those woodland owners who wish to maintain their woods efficiently and on scientific lines. If, later on, I criticize some aspects of the Report, I should like to make it quite clear that I welcome the Report as a whole and I hope that the majority of its recommendations will come into force. The Report very naturally emphasizes the lack of planting in the prewar days, the harsh but necessary exploitation during the war, and the need at the end of the war, firstly, of conserving the few trees which may be left, and, secondly, of setting out to build a new store of timber. Whilst there are obvious objections to the continuation of felling licences, which I need not go into, I think that the case for their continuation is overwhelmingly strong, and I would only put in a plea that due regard be paid to the need for timber for estate purposes.
Of the five million acres suggested by the Commissioners they visualize that two million will be found from the three million acres of existing woodland, and that the balance will have to be obtained from rough pastures and the like, and I have noticed that this is a matter of some controversy. For myself I think that on balance there is a good case for planting up a small proportion of sheep pastures so long as the large areas of uneconomic scrub or useless underwood, which exist particularly in the south, are first dealt with. There is of course a great temptation to plant bare land first because the cost of clearing the scrub is often considerable. But if all our limited land is to be utilized to the best advantage this extra expense must be faced. Whilst they suggest that the greater portion of the new planting will have to be undertaken by the State, the Commissioners acknowledge in generous fashion the value of the contribution of private woodlands, and recommend that private enterprise in woodlands should be
920
encouraged. I have no quarrel with any of these recommendations, and further I fully agree that it is essential that a certain degree of State control should be exercised over private woodlands, and, correspondingly, that it is natural and right that the owner of private woodlands, in carrying out the requirements of the State, should receive some financial assistance for so doing.
But the methods by which the Commissioners propose to carry out their policy regarding private woodlands with their scheme of dedication is, I venture to suggest, both cumbersome and unpractical, particularly in regard to the method—not the amount but the method—of granting financial assistance. Moreover, their sweeping dismissal of any idea of helping the small woodland owner, except with technical advice, is to my mind quite indefensible and, as Colonel Ropner points out in his Minority Report, quite inconsistent. If your Lordships will permit, I cannot do better than quote Colonel Ropner's own words:
"It is surely both inconsistent and unfair to the owners of 'small woods' to state, on the one hand, that their woods are uneconomic and of so little use to the nation that they can, in no circumstances, either receive financial assistance or be taken over by the State, but on the other hand to assert that 'small woods' will 'contain a reserve of timber which it is highly desirable to conserve,' and that they must therefore be subject to the provisions of a licensing system which will prevent owners from disposing of property the value of which has arisen from their unaided efforts."
So far as I can see, the Commissioners give no adequate reason for their desertion of the small woodland owner and I suggest that the real reason is that to give assistance to him would not fit conveniently into the cumbersome scheme of dedication which they have devised.
I do not wish to discuss the amount of the proposed financial assistance except to say in passing that it seems somewhat inadequate; but I submit that there are two serious objections to the proposed method whereby the financial assistance is to be in the form of a percentage of the annual deficit instead of, as heretofore, by grants on an acreage basis. The first objection is that to arrive at the annual deficit will require most elaborate accounting. To keep accounts for all the woods of any one estate would be a comparatively simple matter, and I agree that accounts in this limited form ought to

921
be kept, but, as I understand it, certain amenity or small woods will necessarily be excluded from the scheme of dedication, and thus it appears that separate accounts are to be kept for different woodlands on the same estate. This immediately involves an elaborate system of costing, which most estate office staffs are not adequate to deal with. Moreover, an accurate allocation of costs or receipts as between the woods which are dedicated and the woods which are not—when they are often side by side—would sometimes prove difficult, and would certainly be open to abuse.
My second objection to the proposed method of financial assistance is in regard to the few woods that can be regarded as profitable woods at the end of the war. These will consist chiefly of young plantations planted in the years between the two wars, and too small to be of use to the nation during the present emergency. But no doubt there will also be a few lots of older timber that have been lucky enough to escape the ravages of the war. And I would also include in this category the chestnut coppice such as is grown on a large scale in Sussex on a ten to twelve years' rotation, which is a very valuable asset both to the nation and to its owners. I presume that the Commissioners propose to include at least the young plantations already in existence in their scheme of dedication, and certainly I think that some degree of State control ought to be exercised over these. But what the Commissioners seem to leave in the air is as to whether the receipts and expenses of these profitable woods are to be included in the calculation of the annual deficit. Probably they do intend that they should be so included; but if they are it seems to me that the financial assistance they propose would immediately become unjust. For those woodland owners who have not planted at all in the years prior to the war would get the full benefit of the proposed financial assistance, whereas those woodland owners who, patriotically or instinctively, had made large plantations before the war will not receive the full benefit of the assistance because such revenue as they may have coming in from those older woods will be set off against the annual deficit.
I have endeavoured to show the objections to the scheme of dedication, and all those objections, it seems to me, could
922
be overcome if the existing system of grants, suitably increased, and State control, suitably strengthened, were retained. An annual maintenance grant also on an acreage basis would be helpful, and no doubt the amount of this grant would be taken into account in arriving at the amount of the original planting grant. I agree with the Commissioners that it would not be practicable to give a guaranteed price for mature timber because of the very long time before maturity is reached, but I thoroughly welcome their suggestion of a guaranteed price for thinnings. As an alternative to continuing the system of grants, the system of loans so ably advocated by my noble friend Lord Mansfield would have none of the objections I see in the scheme of dedication. Perhaps an option might be given for a grant or loan as has been done under the Housing Acts. I submit that the existing system of planting grants or a new system of loans, together with maintenance grants and a guaranteed price for thinnings, whilst being fair and acceptable to woodland owners, would achieve far better than the scheme of dedication the very worthy objectives of the Forestry Commission, with which we are all agreed. The required degree of State control over private woodlands would be in no way more difficult. The elaborate costings, that would be quite out of proportion to the overheads that most estates can afford to carry, would be avoided, and the case of the small woodland owners could be treated on its merits instead of being summarily dismissed simply because it did not fit into the main scheme.
THE MINISTER OF ECONOMIC WARFARE (THE EARL OF SELBORNE): My Lords, we are under a debt of gratitude to the noble Duke for having brought forward this subject to-day and for having introduced it in such an interesting and able speech. As on so many other subjects, your Lordships' House contains some of the greatest experts in the country on this particular problem, and it has been a great advantage to us to have the benefit of their advice this afternoon. When I spoke recently in your Lordships' House, in answer to my noble friend Lord Mansfield, I pointed out that the very valuable Report of the Forestry Commission did not commit His Majesty's Government in any way at all, that that Report was now under the Government's consideration, and that we are in the course

923
of listening to representations made by those who have the right to be heard on this subject. If I may say so, nobody has a greater right to be heard on this matter than your Lordships' House, and therefore I confess I was a little bit surprised to hear the noble Duke, the Duke of Sutherland, demand that we should produce a forestry policy to-day. I do not think that could have been done without a grave discourtesy to your Lordships' House. I am sure that the debate we have had will be of great assistance to the Government in devising a permanent forestry policy for submission to Parliament. I would remind your Lordships also that there are other Committees whose reports we must await before a policy on forestry can be framed; I refer to the reports of the Hill Sheep Committees.
There is no division of opinion that a vigorous forestry policy will be necessary after the war. After the experience we have gone through in our lifetime nobody surely can be guilty of the folly of thinking, as some people thought in the last war, that this is a war to end wars. We cannot guarantee that there will be no more war in the world. So long as that danger exists, as it must exist, it is necessary for us who live on an island, and who are dependent on our coal measures for so much of our national strength, to provide sufficient forestry areas to keep the coal mines and the industries which are needed to wage war adequately supplied with timber, without imposing a strain upon our shipping, which will always be hard pressed in time of war. Therefore there can be no doubt, and there is no doubt, about the necessity of a vigorous forestry policy. I was glad to hear the noble Duke, the Duke of Buc-cleuch, and my noble friend Lord Trent point out that a vigorous forestry policy —as indeed the Forestry Commission themselves explain—means not merely the planting of acres, but also the fostering of those ancillary industries which will give a market for the products of forestry. What my noble friend Lord Trent said in this connexion was very much to the point. I do not myself believe that it will be possible to have a flourishing forestry industry in England, Scotland, and Wales unless we also take steps to see that there is a regular market at reasonable prices for the products and by-pro-
924
ducts of that industry, especially for the thinnings.
The Report of the Commission, however, raises a number of important subsidiary issues, subordinate though they be to the main theme of the necessity for a great expansion of our forestry acreage. First there is the question of the rate at which forestry should be developed after the war. That, of course, is a matter in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is very closely concerned, and I know that he is giving it his most careful and sympathetic consideration. Then there is the question of what is to be the constitution of the body responsible for forestry. Should it be, as it is to-day and as the Report recommends, one body, or should it be, as some of our Scottish friends advocate, two bodies? I notice that our Scottish friends are not entirely agreed on this matter. The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, if I understood him correctly, suggested that it would be better to have one body as at present, but that half its members should be Scotsmen, on the ground that half or more than half of the suitable acreage is in Scotland. He did not suggest, as far as I could make out, that half the cost of the forestry programme should be borne by Scotland. I gather that he considered that that privilege, as in so many other cases, was the privilege of English taxpayers.
Then there is the question of what the relationship of the forestry authority should be to His Majesty's Government and Parliament, whether in fact there should be any modification of the present somewhat detached relationship. In today's debate I think everyone in your Lordships' House who has spoken has expressed the opinion that the Forestry Commission should be brought into closer relation with a Minister of the Crown.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: Not all, I did not mention it.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I apologize if I have made a mistake, but I think the great majority of noble Lords expressed that opinion, and that seems to me to be an important matter. Then there is the further question of what the powers, coercive or persuasive, of the forestry authority should be in relation to the private owner. That, of course, is bound up intimately with the constitution of the

925
authority and its relationship to the Government. On all these matters His Majesty's Government will have to make up their mind and will proceed to make up their mind directly those who are entitled to be heard have had an opportunity of laying their views before the Government. Thereafter the Government will submit their proposals to Parliament. I do not think I can promise that that will take place immediately, but I can promise that it will take place without any avoidable delay.
I would like to endorse the tributes that have been paid in the Report and in this debate to the private owners of woodlands. I think it is really important that the public should not have a false impression about that matter. As one noble Lord said, there does seem to be an idea abroad in certain quarters that private forestry has failed. Private forestry has only failed in the sense that the State utterly neglected it during the nineteenth century. But State forestry was much more neglected, and if it had not been for the private wood owners we should be without the timber that we are felling and using to-day. Practically the whole supply of the timber felled in this war and the last war has come from the private wood owners. Therefore I think we should be making a great mistake if we did not recognize the service that section of the community has rendered to the nation and try to make it easier for them to carry out their function in the future than in the past.
I do not believe you can carry on private forestry unless the private forester is given conditions under which he can make forestry pay. As has been pointed out, you have got to assure him of a market for his products. That, after all, is true of agriculture and it is true of other industries. If you want to promote an industry in this country—whether it be motor cars or optical glass or any other industry—for reasons of national security, you must take steps by one means or another to assure those who are engaged in that industry a reasonably secure and profitable market for the produce of their industry. The same is true of forestry. If the conditions under which forestry can be made to pay can be given by the State I believe the private woodland owner will be as capable of carrying it out as he is capable of running
926
agriculture or any other business. I think the figures that the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, gave, that in the interval between the two wars the State has paid nearly five times in overhead charges for State forestry what it has paid in grants for private forestry, are figures that should be noted by the public.
I should like to close by repeating that the Government and Parliament are indebted to the Commission for the very able and interesting Report which they have produced and in which Sir Roy Robinson, who by the way is not a civil servant at all, has played such a very notable part. We shall continue to give this Report our very careful consideration, and we shall be greatly assisted in that task by the comments we have received from your Lordships this afternoon.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords, before withdrawing my Motion I would like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, very much for the interesting statement he has made on behalf of the Government. I do hope he will impress on His Majesty's Government the necessity for deciding soon upon a post-war forestry policy. That is all the more necessary now that the war seems likely to come to an end sooner than was at one time anticipated. I hope that in saying that I am not indulging in an undue complacency. I do hope therefore that the Government will come to a decision and let us know what that decision is as soon as possible. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, there are very few remarks I should like to make beyond stating that I have no intention of pressing my Motion. I said not that the Chairman of the Forestry Commission was a civil servant but that I do not consider as a rule that the Civil Service is a suitable breeding ground for chairmen. The fact that Sir Roy Robinson has been very successful is in my submission not due to his having been a civil servant but despite that. I wish to express my complete agreement with what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Cowdray, particularly about keeping accounts, and I would like to say that the bias which the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, suggested was merely a suggestion, as borne out by the noble Earl's reply, that it is not fair to expect the woodland

927
owner to replant and extend his woodlands more or less under compulsion unless he can be assured that it is not done at a loss. I thank the noble Earl for his very sympathetic reply.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION BY VISCOUNT CRANBORNE.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE) (Lord Cecil): My Lords, I beg the leave of the House to make a personal explanation. I feel that such an explanation is due from me to your Lordships. It seems that there may be some misunderstanding with regard to some words of mine in the debate yesterday on Lord Davies's Motion on the Bermuda Conference. I used the following words in the course of my reply: "Jews are to be associated with it," that is to say, with the Inter-Governmental Committee for Refugees. My words must not of course be held to anticipate a decision which must be reserved to the Committee itself. The association and its precise nature are obviously, matters for the Committee itself to determine. His Majesty's Government cannot commit the other members of the Executive Committee, although, of course, it arises from the very nature of that Committee that it will exclude from its consideration no aspect of the refugee problem and no responsible representations that might be made to it. I thought it proper to make this explanation to your Lordships.

PERTH ROYAL INFIRMARY.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD THE EARL OF MANSFIELD asked His Majesty's Government whether they are aware that a licence to build an isolation extension to the maternity ward at Perth Royal Infirmary has been refused to the directors of the infirmary; and whether this decision can be reversed, in view of the urgent need for this accommodation for potentially infectious and other difficult cases.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the question which I have put on the Paper is one which, although of only local importance, is of great importance locally. The maternity department at Perth Royal Infirmary has in the course of the last few years almost
928
doubled its clientele, and it is badly in need of extension although we cannot expect to get that extension until after the war. It is, however, a matter of the most extreme urgency that we should get an isolation ward for potentially infectious or other difficult maternity cases. I use the words "potentially infectious" because once a case is actually infectious it can be removed to the fever hospital, but if the period of doubt lasts several days the position is very difficult, particularly in cases of eclampsia in which complete rest should be given. At present the directors of the Royal Infirmary have no such accommodation and are unable to provide it. They have been refused a licence to build the necessary accommodation, although bricks and cement can be obtained locally and very little extra material would be needed. They have the added grievance that a day nursery set up in Perth shortly after the war is now being greatly extended, in order doubtless to enable mothers to deposit their children there and go to war work. As, however, the amount of such work in Perth is very limited that does not seem necessary, and efforts might be much better employed in building an isolation ward. That is not merely the opinion of the directors of the infirmary but of the medical staff, the gynaecologists, the medical officers of health for both the city and the county, of the Town Council of Perth and of the County Council. I hope therefore that I may be given a favourable reply.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, the extension of the maternity ward has been discussed between representatives of the infirmary, the local authorities and the Department of Health for Scotland. To provide a speedier alternative to building and to conserve labour and materials the Department offered to place certain existing beds at the directors' disposal. This offer remains open and the Department hope shortly to be able to discuss with the local authorities other proposals for meeting the shortage of maternity beds in this area.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. It is difficult to ask any supplementary in view of the end of that reply, but may I ask if it is realized that unless accommodation is provided neither the directors of the Royal Infirmary nor the local authorities concerned can take any responsibility for what may occur?
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I will report the noble Earl's remarks to the proper quarter, but the reply at the moment is that no immediate building can take place because of shortage of labour.

UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE (DETERMINATION OF NEED AND ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 1943.
Draft Special Order, dated 29th July, 1943, made by the Minister of Labour and National Service under Sections 38 and 52 of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

SUPPLEMENTARY PENSIONS (DETERMINATION OF NEED AND ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 1943.
Draft Special Order, dated 29th July, 1943, made by the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland, acting in conjunction under Part II of the Old Age and Widows' Pensions' Act, 1940:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Third Report by the Select Committee made, and to be printed.
House adjourned.