Sitting of 9 February 1944

Preamble
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  NOTTINGHAMSHIRE AND DERBYSHIRE TRACTION BILL (By Order).
  Second Reading deferred till the first Sitting Day after 20th February.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  PRISONERS OF WAR (JAPANESE TREATMENT)
  Major-General Sir Alfred Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has approached the Government of Soviet Russia with a view to the enlistment of their good offices regarding prisoners of war in Japan.
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what neutral representatives are now allowed to visit prisoners of war in Japanese hands; under what circumstances they are permitted to make inquiries and give reports; whether the good offices of the Government of the U.S.S.R. have been sought in this respect; and the approximate number of prisoners of war who are receiving reasonable treatment.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): As I stated in the House on 28th January the Japanese Government have hitherto withheld permission for any neutral inspection of any prisoners of war camps in the southern area, where some nine-tenths of our prisoners are held, but they have allowed visits by neutral inspectors (though on a scale which we cannot regard as adequate) to camps in the northern area, where the remainder are interned. The inspectors are representatives of the Protecting Power or of the International Red Cross Committee. They can only make inquiries and give reports with the full knowledge and approval of the Japanese authorities. The approximate number of
  1740
  prisoners of war from the British Commonwealth who are in Japanese hands is estimated to be 140,000. As regards reasonable treatment, I regret that on the information at present in the Government's possession I cannot go beyond what I said in the earlier statement. The good offices of the Soviet Government have been sought, and have been forthcoming in connection with the despatch of prisoner of war correspondence and also the forwarding of relief supplies through their territory.
  Sir A. Knox: Will my right hon. Friend assure us that he will continue to take every possible step to help our people out there?
  Mr. Eden: I can gladly give that assurance. I only wish we could do more.
  Mr. Sorensen: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information to show that our prisoners of war in the Southern part are now being transferred to the Northern part?
  Mr. Eden: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.
  Mr. Shinwell: When the right hon. Gentleman said the Russian Government's good offices were forthcoming, did that mean they were doing everything possible in the matter?
  Mr. Eden: I have described what they have done in respect of transmitting correspondence and forwarding relief supplies. Of course, our representations have to go through the Protecting Power.
  Captain Gammans: Could not the Russian Government be asked to be Protecting Power so far as these prisoners are concerned?
  Mr. Leach: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the total of 140,000, includes civilian prisoners and, if so, what are the respective numbers?
  Mr. Eden: I cannot give the detailed figures without notice. If the hon. Member will put down a Question I will give him an answer.

  WAR REFUGEES (RELIEF MEASURES)
  Mr. Lipsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention

  1741
  has been drawn to the decision of President Roosevelt to appoint a War Refugee Board to frame plans and inaugurate measures for the rescue, maintenance and relief of the victims of enemy oppression and the establishment of havens of temporary refuge; and will he consider the advisability of setting up a similar board in this country to co-operate with the one in U.S.A.
  Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. I am informed that President Roosevelt has established a War Refugee Board, consisting of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of War. The object of the Board, stated in the President's Executive Order, is to take all measures to rescue the victims of enemy oppression who are in imminent danger of death and otherwise afford such victims all possible relief and assistance consistent with the successful prosecution of the war. This is an aid in the pursuit of which, within the same unavoidable limitations, His Majesty's Government have for some considerable time past been closely co-operating with the Government of the United States, and I am happy to take this opportunity of re-affirming His Majesty's Government's earnest desire and practical intention of associating themselves with the United States Government and with the War Refugee Board, in particular in endeavouring to carry out the aims which the President has set before it. In this country the primary responsibility for refugee questions rests with the Foreign Office which acts in close co-operation with the other Departments concerned, particularly the Home Office and the Colonial Office. As the House has already been informed, a Cabinet Committee on Refugees was set up some time ago and comprises the Ministers in charge of the Departments principally concerned. It is not considered necessary to set up any additional organisation, and in so far as international action is concerned, it is to be noted that the President's Executive Order speaks of using existing international organisations, in particular U.N.R.R.A. and the inter-Governmental Refugee Committee. This is also the policy which His Majesty's Government is fully determined to follow.
  Mr. Lipson: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the machinery for this purpose, which has been set up by the Government, is, in his opinion, really as
  1742
  effective as that created by the President of the United States, in view of the fact that this American Board has a director with special responsibilities in the matter, who is able to get into touch wth the diplomatic representatives of foreign countries?
  Mr. Eden: We think so but, of course, each country has its own particular method.
  Miss Rathbone: Can the right hon. Gentleman claim that a strictly private Cabinet Committee is at all equivalent to this American Board, with its carefully defined position, its frequent access to the President and its executive director? Will he not consider appointing somebody analogous to that board?
  Mr. Eden: I have considered it. The hon. Lady knows our machinery perhaps better than anyone, and knows that this War Cabinet Committee has a responsibility to the Foreign Office. We think that, on the whole, that is the best way.

  EUROPEAN ADVISORY COMMISSION
  Mr. Ivor Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how often the European Advisory Commission has met.
  Mr. Eden: The Commission has had three formal meetings but that does not, of course, comprise the whole scope of its activities.

  ITALY (KING VICTOR EMMANUEL)
  Mr. Ivor Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he has studied the unanimous demand of the recent Congress of Democratic Parties at Bari for the abdication of King Victor Emmanuel III; and whether he will represent to the King of Italy the desirability, in the interests of his country, of abdicating in favour of his grandson, pending an ultimate decision by the Italian people between the republican and monarchial form of government.
  Mr. Eden: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the Question, the hon. Member's suggestion is not one which I am prepared to consider while the battle for Rome is still raging in Italy.
  Mr. Thomas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the continued refusal of the King to abdicate is hindering the mobilisation of Italian forces on the British side?
  Mr. Quintin Hogg: Would it not be a good thing if some of our co-belligerents did a little more fighting and a little less talking?
  Mr. Emmott: Does my right hon. Friend realise that his answer will give great satisfaction to all those, whether in England or in Italy, who understand what true democracy is?
  Mr. Thomas: As my supplementary question may have been forgotten owing to the impetuosity of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) may I repeat it? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the continued refusal of the King to abdicate is hindering the mobilisation of Italian forces on the British side?
  Mr. Eden: I have stated quite plainly what is our policy, and I have nothing to add to it.
  Mr. A. Bevan: How many more British and American lives are to be lost to keep the King of Italy on his throne?

  GREECE (SENIOR BRITISH LIAISON OFFICER)
  Mr. A. Bevanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to inform the House of the name of the chief of the Liaison Commission to Greece.
  Mr. Eden: No, Sir; to publish the name of the senior British liaison officer in Greece would not be in the public interest.
  Mr. Bevan: Is it not a fact that the reason why this officer was removed from his position was in consequence of pressure from Royalist circles in Greece and that the name of a recent liaison officer was not disclosed for security reasons, when, in fact, the Germans had been aware of his identity for more than nine months?
  Mr. Eden: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary is, "No, Sir," and the answer to the second part is that we do not wish to make public the name of this officer, or any other officer at present in Greece, because he and they are carrying out im-
  1744
  portant and difficult negotiations which we hope and believe, will result in uniting the guerrilla bands. Therefore, I say, most emphatically, that I am not prepared to give the names of any officers or to say where they are.
  Mr. Bevan: I do not accept the assurances given in the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's reply and when we have a Debate I will give evidence to the contrary. We do not accept that answer at all.

  PERSIAN OIL (PIPE LINE PROJECT)
  Captain Gammansasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any statement to make on the terms under which the U.S.A. Government will construct a pipe-line from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean; and if, in particular, it means that the U.S.A. will acquire sovereignty over the territory occupied by the pipe-line and the employer will enjoy extra territorial privileges.
  Mr. Eden: I have no statement to make on this subject at present. So far as my information goes, this project is at present in a very preliminary stage, and before it is developed it will no doubt be for the United States Government to approach the other Governments concerned.
  Mr. Shinwell: Although this project is only in its preliminary stages, ought not the British Government to be consulted in a matter which so profoundly concerns the interests of this country and the Commonwealth?
  Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. I am expecting a report from His Majesty's Ambassador in Washington on the subject.
  Mr. Colegate: Would not my right hon. Friend consider making a statement as soon as possible on the work of the Foreign Oil Concessions Committee of the United States? There are a great many rumours.
  Mr. Eden: It is not for me to make a statement of that kind.
  Mr. Molson: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it will be necessary to get the concurrence of the British Government before the pipe-line is laid?
  Mr. Eden: This project, as I have said, is in its early stages. It is quite obvious

  1745
  that before it comes to fruition, consultations will be necessary with all the Governments concerned.
  Mr. Shinwell: As this is an extremely important matter may I ask a further question? If consultations have taken place between our Ambassador in the United States and representatives of the Governments concerned, will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House as to what has happened?
  Mr. Eden: As soon as I have received the report from the Ambassador I will consider what further statement I can make. I can assure the House that this matter is in its preliminary stages. Obviously, many negotiations of all sorts and kinds have to take place before the scheme comes to fruition.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    R.A.F. Regiment (Duties)
    Major C. S. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will define the duties of the R.A.F. Regiment; and what percentage of these troops are at present employed in theatres of operations.
    The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): The duties of the R.A.F. Regiment include the defence of airfields and vulnerable points against air attack and the early occupation and local protection against ground and air attack of forward airfields in theatres of active land operations. They are all employed in this country or other theatres of operations.
    Major Taylor: In view of the fact that this regiment was formed at a time when we were expecting air attacks on our aerodromes, could not these first-class, fully trained troops now be employed in a more offensive rôle?
    Sir A. Sinclair: They certainly will be. It was always in our mind from the very first that they would be employed in an offensive rôle.

    Review "Target" (Circulation)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for Air why "Target," the R.A.F. review of current affairs, bears a notification that its contents are not to be com-
    1746
    municated directly or indirectly to the Press or other unauthorised persons, since it contains nothing whose publication would infringe security; and if he will remove this restriction.
    Sir A. Sinclair: This review is produced for the purpose of assisting discussion groups in the Royal Air Force and it is considered that restricted circulation best promotes the end in view. In case hon. Members should wish to acquaint themselves with the contents of the review I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library.
    Mr. Driberg: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask him to explain why it is considered that the restricted circulation promotes the desired end?
    Sir A. Sinclair: Because we want to encourage absolutely free discussion, not led by articles in newspapers and without any fear of repercussions from outside.

    W.A.A.F. Technical Officers (Pay)
    General Sir George Jeffreysasked the Secretary of State for Air whether signals technical officers receive trade pay: whether, women who substitute men in this work receive the normal two-thirds of such pay; and whether he is satisfied that all W.A.A.F.'s engaged as signals technical officers do so benefit.
    Sir A. Sinclair: Officers of the technical branch of the Royal Air Force, including those employed on signals duties, receive rates of pay which recognise technical qualifications of a high standard. W.A.A.F. officers employed on specialist Radar duties are already in the technical branch and receive two-thirds of the corresponding R.A.F. rates of pay. The question whether other categories of W.A.A.F. signals officers who hold the requisite high qualifications should also be appointed or transferred to the technical branch is under consideration.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: If these women are doing the same kind of work as efficiently as men how comes it that they are receiving only two-thirds of the rate of pay?
    Sir A. Sinclair: That is the normal practice in all Services.

    Air Crews (Pay)
    Mr. E. P. Smithasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that the pay of a sergeant-pilot is 13s. 6d. per day and that of other members of an air crew 12s. per day; and whether, in view of the equal risk and often equal responsibility of all air-crew members, he will consider raising the pay to 13s. 6d. per day all round.
    Sir A. Sinclair: I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies given to the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Frankel) on 23rd June last and to the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Stewart) on 13th July last, of which I am sending him copies.
    Mr. Smith: Is it not a fact that the terms quoted in the Question are really too favourable, and that for the first two years of an air gunner's career he receives only 8s. and not 12s. 6d.?
    Sir A. Sinclair: The facts are that the responsibilities, and the technical qualifications, and the length of training required for the different categories of air crews, vary materially, and we have made every effort to make the rates of pay as fair as possible between these categories.

    BRITISH OVERSEAS AIRWAYS CORPORATION (AIR MAILS)
    Captain Peter Macdonaldasked the Secretary of State for Air whether it is the intention of the Government that in post-war civil aviation the carriage of the mail shall be alone entrusted to British Overseas Airways Corporation.
    Sir A. Sinclair: The British Overseas Airways Corporation assumed the rights and obligations of Imperial Airways under a contract dated July, 1938, which for 15 years, assured them of the carriage of all mails on routes covered by the Empire Air Mail Scheme. I cannot, of course, say what modification of this contract or what arrangements may eventually be necessary on these and other routes as the result of international discussions.

    NORTHERN RHODESIA (COPPER PRODUCTION)
    Sir Herbert Williamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is
    1748
    in a position to make any statement as to the effect of the reduced imports of copper on the position in Northern Rhodesia.
    Mr. Edmund Harveyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the decision of the Government to reduce the purchase of copper from the Northern Rhodesia mines by 20 to 25 per cent., he can make a statement as to the economic effect of this measure, both as regards the public revenue of Northern Rhodesia and the employment of African labour; and what steps are being taken to obviate unemployment amongst the African mineworkers.
    Mr. E. P. Smithasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the proposal to reduce the output of Rhodesian copper; and if he has any statement to make on the position.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Emrys-Evans): I have been asked to reply. As stated in the recent announcement by the Government of Northern Rhodesia, the effect of the cut in purchases by His Majesty's Government on employment is to be discussed by the Government with the managements of the companies, the Mine Workers' Union and the staff associations. Pending the result of these discussions, my right hon. and gallant Friend is not in a position to state exactly what the effect will be, but there is no reason to anticipate unemployment. With regard to the effect of the cut on the finances of the Northern Rhodesia Government, it will necessarily lead to a reduction in revenue in 1945, but how large this will be it is not possible to say at the present stage.
    Sir H. Williams: Is this due to the fact that there is enough copper in the world?
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: I understand that there is another Question on the Paper on that subject addressed to the Ministry of Supply.
    Mr. Harvey: Will there be in these discussions any representative of the African mineworkers, who are not represented in the Mine Workers' Union?
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: No, they will be represented by the Government of Northern Rhodesia.
    Earl Winterton: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a large number of white miners whose sole employment has always been copper mining? What does he propose to do about the serious state of unemployment which will arise, unless there is some alternative employment prepared for them?
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: I think there is no shortage of employment in Southern Africa as a whole.
    Earl Winterton: Is my hon. Friend prepared to receive representations on the part of the Mine Workers' Union of Northern Rhodesia?
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: I will discuss that with my right hon. and gallant Friend.
    Mr. Harvey: As the African workers will suffer more than anyone else from unemployment, surely they ought to be represented.
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: There is no shortage of employment in Northern Rhodesia and that is not likely to arise.

    EAST AFRICA (HOUSING)
    Captain Peter Macdonaldasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what assistance the Government is giving to housing in East Africa.
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: In Kenya, legislation has just been passed establishing a housing fund from which Government money may be advanced by grant and loan to local authorities. The major part of the funds required will be met from the Colonial Development and Welfare Vote and housing schemes for Africans are now being prepared which will involve expenditure of the order of £500,000. In addition the Kenya Government has been making good use of local materials during the war to carry out small schemes for the housing of its own employees. In Zanzibar, a grant of £6,000 for an experimental scheme for housing improvement in the native town has recently been approved under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act. The other East African Governments are fully alive to the importance of improving housing conditions and plans are being worked out for the post-war period when materials and labour again become more readily available.
    Mr. Sorensen: How many houses is it anticipated will be built in the next five years?
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: I must ask for notice of that question.

    WEST AFRICA (JUVENILE DELINQUENCY)
    Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has now received the Report of Mr. Alexander Patterson on his inquiry into the system of probation and on the treatment of juvenile delinquency in West Africa; and, if so, what action is being taken in consequence of such Report.
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: My right hon. and gallant Friend has not yet received any report from Mr. Alexander Paterson who has just completed his mission in West Africa and will shortly be returning to this country.

    BRITISH GUIANA CONSTITUTION ORDER
    Sir H. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the British Guiana Constitution Order (S.R. & O. No. 1792 of 1943), which was approved at the Privy Council on 11th March, 1943, was not placed in the Library until 1st February, 1944.
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: The draft of the Order in question had lain on the Table for 21 Sitting Days before it was passed: and there did not appear to be any necessity to place in the Library a copy of the Order as passed. In response, however, to a request made on the 1st of December last by the hon. Member for Dewsbury a copy was placed in the Library a few days later.
    Sir H. Williams: If a copy is not placed in the Library, how are Members to know what action the Privy Council has taken?
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: I understood that it laid on the Table.
    Sir H. Williams: The lying on the Table is merely in draft, and after 21 Sitting Days His Majesty can confirm it, but we ought to be informed that he has confirmed it as soon as he has done so.
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: I will bring the point to the notice of my right hon. and gallant Friend.

    AFRICAN COLONIES (LABOUR ADMINISTRATION)
    Mr. Dobbieasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many trade unions have been registered in Nigeria, the Gold Coast and Sierra Leone; and how many in Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika and Nyasaland.
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: According to the latest information available the figures are: Nigeria, 89; Gold Coast, 5; Sierra Leone, 11; Kenya, 2; Uganda, 1; Tanganyika, 2; Nyasaland, nil.
    Mr. Riley: Do these trade unions cater for African workers only, or for both Africans and Europeans?
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: I understand for Africans.
    Mr. J. J. Lawson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the men who have been sent out for this purpose are doing a very good job of work?
    Mr. Dobbieasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many British trade unionists have been sent as labour officers to the West African Colonies; and what is the strength of the personnel of the labour departments in the West African Colonies and East African Colonies respectively.
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: Four experienced British trade unionists have been appointed as labour officers in the West African Colonies. As regards the second part of the Question, the latest annual estimates available provided for an establishment in labour departments, excluding clerical and minor grade staff, of 38 in the East African dependencies and 25 in the West African dependeicies.
    Mr. Turton: Is my hon. Friend aware that these men are doing a very good job of work?

  JAMAICA

    Local Government Reorganisation (Report)
    Mr. Rileyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Mr. L. C. Hill who was sent out to Jamaica to advise on the reorganisation of the local government has now completed his work; whether his report has reached the
    1752
    Colonial Office; and whether a copy will be placed in the Library.
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: Mr. Hill has completed his investigations and his report is in the hands of the Jamaica Government. As soon as copies are received from the Governor the report will be placed in the Library of the House. It is hoped that the report will be submitted to the Legislative Council in May, and Mr. Hill, who is at present in this country, will be returning to Jamaica shortly to assist in putting into operation those recommendations in the report which are approved.

    Bauxite Deposits
    Mr. Rileyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any consideration is being given to the possibility of developing the working of bauxite deposits in Jamaica; and whether Government action is contemplated or whether such development is being left to private enterprise.
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: It has been decided that the Jamaica bauxite deposits, not being immediately available, could not make a contribution to war needs. The question of the post-war development of these deposits is under consideration and I am not yet in a position to make any statement.
    Mr. Riley: Is not the Minister aware that already there is a movement by American companies to consider the exploitation of bauxite in Jamaica, and is the Colonial Office watching what is taking place?
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: Yes, Sir. The Colonial Office is watching.

    UGANDA (SECONDARY SCHOOLS)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the nature of the arrangements in Uganda for the purchase of secondary schools by the Government; what complaints he has had in respect of this; what missionary schools are involved; and what is the total accommodation in Uganda secondary schools for boys and girls, respectively.
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: In 1943 the Government of Uganda assumed financial responsibility for capital and recurrent

    1753
    expenditure on certain secondary schools, in so far as the receipts from fees, etc., are insufficient; and in return secured representation, jointly with the respective Mission authorities, on the governing bodies of these schools, whose Chairmen are nominated by the Mission concerned. It would be quite incorrect to describe these arrangements as purchase by the Government.
    According to the latest reports fears that the system was designed to take away the control of the schools from the denominational bodies concerned have been dispelled. Eight secondary schools have so far been included in the scheme. Precise information as to accommodation is not available. The numbers enrolled at the beginning of 1943 were:—Africans, boys 1,931, girls 150; Indians, boys 313, girls 46.
    Mr. Sorensen: What action has been taken to provide fuller accommodation for girls, seeing that there is such a disparity between the places for boys and girls in the secondary schools?
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: I cannot say without notice.
    Mr. McEntee: In using the word "secondary," does the hon. Gentleman include technical schools?
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: I cannot answer that without notice.
    Dr. Edith Summerskill: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us why there is this apparent discrimination between boys and girls in the Colonies?
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: I do not think there is any discrimination at all.

    GOLD COAST (COCOA CONTROL SCHEME)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how far the proposals placed before him by the Gold Coast cocoa farmers have been, or are likely to be, accepted and operated; and to what extent producers now deal direct with His Majesty's Government without intermediaries.
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: I presume that the hon. Member is referring to requests by
    1754
    the Gold Coast and Ashanti Farmers Union Ltd. to be allotted a buying agent's quota, under the West African cocoa control scheme. The Union is not qualified under the scheme to receive such a quota, and it has been informed that in the circumstances an exception cannot be made in its case. It remains open to the Union, however, to dispose of cocoa at the full control price to any of the recognised buying agents. The only producers who can sell direct to the West African Produce Control Board are the Co-operative Societies, who are among the Board's buying agents.
    Mr. Sorensen: Are the Gold Coast cocoa farmers satisfied with this arrangement, and has anything further transpired since the farmers approached the Secretary of State on his visit some time ago?
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: I cannot give a reply to that.
    Viscountess Astor: Would it not be a good idea to send the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) on an Empire tour?

  RAILWAYS

    Wagons (Ownership)
    Mr. Thorneasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport how many railway wagons are owned by private owners; what are the biggest wagons that are now being used; and how many are owned by the various railway companies.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): There are approximately 600,000 privately owned railway wagons, of which about 20,000 are of special types. The remaining 580,000 were requisitioned at the beginning of the war. The railway companies own about 660,000. There are some specially constructed wagons which can carry loads of 50 tons or more, but the largest wagons used for normal traffic carry 20 tons.
    Mr. Thorne: Have the Government considered the advisability of pooling all the wagons so that there will be better facilities for transport all over the country?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Apart from the 20,000 I spoke of, which would be more nuisance

    1755
    than they are worth, they are completely pooled.

    Inter-station Omnibus Service, London
    Mr. Bullasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport the number of termini served by the London Passenger Transport Board's special omnibuses run for the benefit of Service men who have to go from one station to another; and if he is satisfied that the arrangements which have been made are adequate.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: The London inter-station omnibuses for Service men run from 6.30 p.m. to 1 a.m. between five of the main line terminals. According to the information which I have received the service is, in general, adequate for the purpose which it is designed to serve.
    Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Is my hon. Friend aware that when trains come in during the night or are considerably late the buses to which he refers are not available; and is he aware that there is still grave dissatisfaction?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: There is no regular half-hourly service after 1 a.m., but there are some services during the hours 1 to 6.
    Mr. A. Bevan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a great deal of inconvenience is now being caused to Service men in London and to the population generally, and that the transport services are quite inadequate?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: If my hon. Friend will find more labour and vehicles we shall be delighted to give a better service.

    The number of vehicles licensed to operate on alternative fuels on 31st December, 1943, was:

    Public Service Vehicles.

    Goods Vehicles.

    Private Cars.

    Motor Cycles and Invalid Chairs, etc.

    TOTALS.

    Producer Gas

    …

    913

    910

    650

    4

    2,477

    Coal Gas (including compressed gas)

    …

    50

    630

    729

    29

    1,438

    Electricity

    …

    —

    7,522

    91

    13

    7,626

    Steam

    …

    11

    1,030

    4

    101

    1,146

    Methane

    …

    —

    94

    15

    —

    109

    Butane

    …

    —

    4

    8

    —

    12

    Creosote

    …

    1,477

    289

    30

    —

    1,796

    Other Fuels

    …

    1

    3

    1

    11

    16

    TOTALS

    …

    2,452

    10,482

    1,528

    158

    14,620

    ROAD VEHICLES (ALTERNATIVE FUELS)
    Mr. Alfred Edwardsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he has any recent statistics relating to the number of private motor-cars, commercial lorries and omnibuses running on substitute fuels in the United Kingdom; the annual consumption of the various substitute fuels; whether progress is being made in the design and manufacture of producer-gas apparatus; and whether his Department is paying attention to the development of this means of propulsion in connection with postwar transportation plans.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: As the answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's Question includes the figures of vehicles licensed to run on a variety of alternative fuels, I will, with his permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I regret that I have no information about the quantities of fuel which these vehicles consume. I am glad to assure my Hon. Friend that satisfactory progress has been made, and is still being made, in the design and manufacture of producer gas units under the Government scheme, and that experience of lasting value is being gained.
    Mr. Edwards: Is the Minister satisfied that producer-gas devices are suitable for omnibuses, and has he considered the complaints of the effect of fumes on passengers?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: That is another question, but I have considered the complaints that have been made.
    Following is the information referred to:

    ACCIDENTS (AUTOMATIC TRAIN CONTROL)
    Mr. Charletonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport if he will state the number of accidents that have occurred on British railways which his inspectors have reported might have been avoided if some form of automatic train control had been in operation; and how many lives were lost in those accidents since the committee which his Department appointed to re-examine the problem of automatic train control issued their unanimous Report in 1930.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: During the 13 years from 1931 to 1943, there were 23 accidents, the reports on which showed that some form of automatic train control might have prevented or mitigated the effects of the accident. In these accidents, 104 lives were lost.
    Mr. Charleton: Having regard to the evidence which was given at the recent inquest following the accident at Ilford in which a very respected Member of this House lost his life, will the Minister consider the desirability of bringing this railway into line with the Great Western Railway in the matter of automatic train control?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: As my hon. Friend is aware, when the war began, the L.M.S. and the L.N.E.R. were experimenting with the Hudd system. The Southern Railway, having experimented with automatic train control, adopted the system of coloured-light signals, which they preferred. I will consider what my hon. Friend has said, however, and see whether anything can be done.
    Mr. Charleton: Is the Minister aware that the officials of the Southern Railway agreed to automatic train control in 1930?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, but they changed their minds.

    OMNIBUS SERVICES, SOUTH WALES
    Mr. Ness Edwardsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport, if he is aware that, despite his assurances that the omnibus services to the Penallta Colliery, South Wales, would now be adequate, some 80 tons of coal were again lost on Wednesday, 26th
    1758
    January, by reason of the failure of the service; and if he will take some further action to remedy this position.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I am aware that on 26th January, one omnibus arrived at Penallta Colliery about an hour late, because the driver overslept. Disciplinary measures have been taken.
    Mr. Edwards: Is the Minister aware that on the two following days there were further breakdowns, with a serious effect on the output of this colliery, and will he take adequate steps to deal with it?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I understand that this is the only breakdown that has occurred for a considerable time. If my hon. Friend will let me have details I will look into it again.
    Mr. Edwards: Is the Minister aware that a Question was put to him the week before last, and that a number of cases have been reported since 29th December?
    Mr. Thorne: Is there any reason why these drivers should not have alarm clocks?

    FORTH-CLYDE SHIP CANAL PROJECT
    Major Lloydasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport if he is in a position to state when the departmental committee considering the question of a Forth-Clyde ship canal will conclude its deliberations; and will its Report be published.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I understand that the departmental group who are considering the question of a Forth-Clyde ship canal are now awaiting information which may not be received before the end of February, or even later. I cannot, therefore, predict when their deliberations are likely to end. Since certain questions of national security may be involved, my Noble Friend thinks it wiser to make no decision about the publication of the report, until it has been received.
    Major Lloyd: Is the Minister aware that there will be a definite demand for publication of this Report when the time comes?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir. Of course, consideration has been given to the point that the case of both sides must be made public, and I fully agree, but there are

    1759
    matters which cannot be made public and my Noble Friend thinks it better to wait until we see the Report.

    ROAD SIGNPOSTS (RESTORATION)
    Major Morrisonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport, if, in order to assist drivers, both civilian and military, he will reinstate signposts in inland areas of England.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir. I am doing everything in my power to ensure that the signposts shall be restored as soon as possible in all parts of the country.

    ROADSIDE ADVERTISEMENTS
    Captain Gammansasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport if, in his plans for post-war road policy, he is prepared to seek the necessary powers to prohibit road advertisements.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I am glad to assure my hon. and gallant Friend that I will take an early opportunity of considering his proposals in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning.
    Sir H. Williams: Will the Minister make sure that no Member of Parliament ever has his picture put up on the hoardings?
    Sir Irving Albery: Will the Minister draw the attention of local authorities to the fact that they do not at present exercise their powers?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir.

    TRANS-ATLANTIC PASSAGES
    Mr. Robertsonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport how many passages to the U.S.A. and Canada were authorised during the year ended 31st December 1943.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: My hon. Friend will realise that my Ministry is not responsible for authorising passages to Canada and the United States. I am, however, obtaining information about the number of passengers who travelled to these countries in 1943, and I will write to him as soon as I can.

    POSTAL AND TELEGRAPH CENSORSHIP
    Sir Leonard Lyleasked the Minister of Information whether he can give an assurance that it is a standing instruction of the Postal and Telegraph Censorship that no private letter is copied and circulated for the information of permanent and temporary civil servants unless it is essential for those civil servants to see the material in the interests of the Defence of the Realm.
    The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): If, as I assume, my hon. Friend includes the efficient prosecution of the war in the term "Defence of the Realm" I can give him the assurance for which he asks. The instructions as to what information shall be reported to any Government Department are kept under constant review, and the principal object of that review is to ensure that the contents of a letter are not reported unless it is essential for the carrying out of the duties of that Department directly relating to the prosecution of the war.

    ARMED FORCES (AIR LETTERS)
    Major Nieldasked the Postmaster-General if he will consider reducing the charges for sending air letters and air-graphs to and from members of the Forces serving overseas.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Robert Grimston): Any reduction in the charge of 6d. for an air letter posted in this country would I fear increase the mail loads beyond the limits of the aircraft capacity available. The number of air letters sent from the Forces overseas is controlled by a rationing system, and it has therefore been possible to fix the charge at 3d. I think the charge of 3d. for airgraphs to and from the Forces overseas is reasonable, having regard to the actual costs of operating the service.
    Major Nield: Would my hon. Friend estimate the additional cost of reducing air letters from 6d. to, say, 3d.?
    Mr. Grimston: I could not do that without notice.

  ROYAL NAVY

    Discharged Men (Civilian Suits)
    Mr. Evelyn Walkdenasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he

    1761
    proposes to make any changes in the arrangements for issuing civilian clothing of non-austerity design to demobilised sailors: why men who refuse to accept the mass-produced suit as now offered from stores are given in lieu of cash a voucher which is only negotiable at Messrs. Montague Burton, Limited; and if he will immediately put an end to this practice.
    The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): With regard to the first part of the Question, the arrangements which shall apply to the issue of civilian clothing to sailors when they come to be demobilised are at present under consideration by the Admiralty in conjunction with the War Office and Air Ministry and other Departments concerned. The second part of the Question appears to arise from a misconception of the practice on discharge from the Service during wartime. Sailors discharged from the Navy are not offered a suit from Government stores; they are offered the choice of a voucher exchangeable for a suit at any branch of Messrs. Montague Burton, Ltd., and if they do not wish to accept this they are given a cash payment which is the same as that allowed to the other two Services and represents the wholesale price of a comparable suit. The third part of the Question does not arise.
    Mr. Walkden: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why, and when, such a monopoly was arranged, and who authorised it, and why sailors should be treated differently from members of the other Fighting Services?
    Mr. Alexander: I am not aware that they are treated differently in principle at all. The number of men so demobilised is comparatively small in war-time, and I think that the contracts Department, because of the smallness of it, gave the contract to one firm; but the whole matter is being reviewed.
    Mr. Walkden: When was it authorised?
    Sir H. Williams: Does the First Lord not think that this decision is most unfair to the co-operative societies?
    Mr. Alfred Edwards: Would the First Lord also consider the point of view of my constituents, 3,000 of whom are engaged in manufacturing 50s. suits?

    Pay and Allowances
    Mr. Astorasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what are the assumptions on which the rates of pay and allowances of naval officers are based.
    Mr. Alexander: The basis of the pay code including allowances and pensions for naval officers is that the Navy should provide a career comparable financially with that of the other Services of the Crown and the professions generally.
    Mr. Astor: When these rates of pay are fixed, is there any assumption that the officers or their wives have private means?
    Mr. Alexander: No, Sir——
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not ask that question. It was struck out of his original Question, and he must not repeat it in a supplementary question.

    HOUSEHOLD RIDDLES (SUPPLY)
    Mr. Tinkerasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the serious position regarding riddles for householders; and whether consideration has been given, in the interests of fuel efficiency, to the releasing of materials for the making of riddles.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): The Government Departments concerned provide ample material for riddles. Output is only restricted by the labour involved in making them up.

    BRITISH EMPIRE (CONSTITUTION)
    Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that Russia will be entitled by its recent decision on devolution to 16 separate nation representation at any conference of a world peace organisation to be set up after the conclusion of present hostilities, His Majesty's Government will consider granting similar status to parts of the British Empire, including Scotland and Wales, where the population is much larger than in some of the 16 separate Russian units now established.
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): It is still too early to say what the precise effect of the recent changes in the constitution of the U.S.S.R. will be.

    1763
    But in any event changes in our own constitutional arrangements will, I feel sure, spring from the needs and character of our own people, rather than from any comparison with the constitutions or population of other States.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a feeling in some quarters that His Majesty's Government are not keeping step with the march of events in diplomatic circles?
    Mr. Stephen: Is he also aware that the need for Home Rule for Scotland has been fully established? Why do the Government delay its introduction?
    Mr. Attlee: That is a question which should have been put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Mr. Granville: Is it not a fact that the Dominions had separate representation at the last Peace Conference and is this one of the questions likely to be discussed between Dominion Prime Ministers in their meeting in the summer?
    Mr. Atlee: That is an entirely different question, and perhaps my hon. Friend will put it on the Paper.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Deputy Prime Minister not aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland is in favour of Home Rule for Scotland, but is being held back by the Deputy Prime Minister and others?
    Mr. Attlee: I am not aware of that.

    PRODUCTION FIRMS (GOVERN- MENT ASSISTANCE)
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Production (1) the number of firms who have received capital assistance from public funds; the number who are managing agency schemes and the number who are running shadow factories; and will he publish a White Paper giving the names of the firms and the amount of public funds advanced to each concern;
    (2) the total amount of public funds that have been or are proposed to be expended in capital assistance schemes and the total amount on agency or shadow factories; and what policy is it intended to apply to this public expenditure in the post-war period;
    1764
    (3) what safeguards have been introduced to see that the capital assistance given to firms is used to the best advantage of the nation; is he satisfied with the efficiency of the firms who have received assistance; and how many directors have been nominated by the Government.
    The Minister of Production (Mr. Lyttelton): These questions raise a number of detailed points, and the answer is in consequence somewhat long and contains a number of figures. I will therefore, with his permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    In round figures the number of firms that have received capital assistance is 5,500: the number managing agency schemes or shadow factories is 175. It would not be in the public interest to publish the names of the firms concerned and the amounts advanced to each. The total of approved expenditure from public funds from the beginning of the rearmament period is about £380,000,000 on capital assistance schemes and about £250,000,000 on agency schemes and shadow factories. It is too soon to say what policy is to be applied in respect of this expenditure in the post-war period especially as the measures taken will vary according to the circumstances of individual cases. I may say, however, that active consideration is at present being given to this and other connected post-war problems by the Departments concerned.
    The selection of the firms, the details of the schemes proposed and the scope and nature of the extensions is subject to special scrutiny by each of the Departments concerned before such schemes are authorised. The actual operation of the schemes is at all times closely watched by technical experts. My colleagues and I are satisfied that generally the firms assisted have operated and continue to operate at a proper standard of efficiency. There have, however, been a few cases to the contrary and steps have been taken to remedy the situation under the powers conferred on the competent authorities by Defence (General) Regulations. About 35 persons have been nominated for various reasons as directors of 11 companies by the Government. This figure does not include directors appointed by negotiation to the boards of privately owned

    1765
    companies. Compulsory powers under Defence Regulations have only been used in the case of one firm.

  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

    Copper Imports
    Sir H. Williamsasked the Minister of Supply whether the reduction of imports of copper from Rhodesia has been accompanied by an equal reduction of imports from other sources of supply.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Peat): The proposed reduction of Northern Rhodesian copper production will not begin to take effect until April, and will not enter fully into effect until June. It will not materially affect imports into the United Kingdom until some months thereafter. The question of the adjustment of production in and importation from other sources of supply is being taken up through the appropriate Combined Board machinery.
    Sir H. Williams: Has a reduction of imports from a part of the British Empire been made sooner than a reduction from foreign countries?
    Mr. Peat: Negotiations for reduction in respect of parts of the British Empire have been started before the negotiations with other countries.
    Sir H. Williams: Do I understand, therefore, that preference is being given to foreigners over Empire countries?
    Mr. Graham White: Have costs of production entered into account in this reduction? Was not Rhodesia one of the cheapest?
    Mr. Peat: There is very little difference in the cost of production. In fact, Rhodesia is not the cheapest.

    Officer's Pension Rights
    Mr. W. J. Brownasked the Minister of Supply whether he is now able to make a statement on the question of granting pension rights to Mr. E. W. Russell, who has completed 53 years in the Civil Service, and is now employed by his Department.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Sandys): For the reasons which have already been
    1766
    explained to the hon. Member, Mr. Russell is not eligible for the grant of a pension.
    Mr. Brown: Arising out of that most unsatisfactory reply, will the Parliamentary Secretary represent to his chief that he should raise this matter with the Cabinet, with a view to getting a decision in this kind of case?
    Mr. Sandys: I have noticed that the hon. Member has been putting down Questions about similar cases to a number of Government Departments. If he wishes to challenge the general practice which is adopted throughout the Civil Service, he should address his Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Brown: If the Parliamentary Secretary will allow me to conduct my business in my own way, I will be glad if he will see that no other member of the staff of the Ministry of Supply is treated in this way.
    Mr. Sandys: The hon. Member has written to the Chancellor and has had an extremely full statement about this particular case. So far as this case is concerned it has been dealt with in accordance with the normal practice adopted throughout the Civil Service. If he wishes to raise a question of general principle he should, as I say, address it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Shinwell: For the benefit of other hon. Members, can we be informed why a civil servant with 53 years' service does not receive a pension?
    Mr. Sandys: The hon. Member is calling in question the general principle and practice adopted throughout the Civil Service.
    Mr. Brown: Why should not a Minister of State accept some responsibility for conditions existing in his Department, and, if he finds them unsatisfactory, make appropriate representations to the Cabinet if that be necessary? Can I have an answer to that question?
    Mr. Sandys: It is perfectly well known to the House that there are well established regulations which apply to the Civil Service as a whole. The hon. Member is surely aware that one Department cannot draw up a separate set of rules of its own.
    Mr. Brown: I am suggesting that all Departments should deal with their own affairs.

    Penicillin
    Mr. Robertsonasked the Minister of Supply (1) what new buildings he has authorised to be erected for the production of penicillin; and will he state their extent, cost, completion dates, occupiers and owners;
    (2) what existing buildings he has authorised to be used for the production of penicillin; and for whom were the premises requisitioned.
    Mr. Peat: It is regretted that it is not in the public interest to publish the information asked for.
    Mr. Robertson: On a point of Order. Members are sent here to serve this country and their constituents, and surely there can be nothing against the public interest in this Question.
    Mr. A. Bevan: Ministers hide behind that formula all the time.
    At the end of Questions—
    Mr. A. Bevan: On a point of Order, I wish to raise a matter, Sir, which affects the protection of Members against the Government at Question Time. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply, in refusing to answer Questions 51 and 52, pleaded the public interest. If you will turn to the Order Paper, I think you will find it difficult to understand how the public interest can be at all affected by a reply to these two Questions. Is it not a fact that you, Sir, are our protector in this matter, and that the Government have, on many occasions, abused this formula to conceal from Members information to which they are undoubtedly entitled? May I respectfully submit that, in this instance, it is not the public interest which is involved, but the protection of certain monopolies, to which the Ministry of Supply are giving certain favours, in this regard as in others? I ask for your protection, Sir, in such a case.
    Mr. Speaker: Any Minister can refuse to answer Questions. The responsibility is his. I cannot direct the Minister to give an answer on this matter, though the House may be dissatisfied with the Minister.
    Mr. Bevan: Does it not go slightly further than that? It would be perfectly
    1768
    proper for the Government, over a whole range of issues, to adopt this formula and we would be in no position to say whether they were telling the truth or not. Is there not an obligation also imposed on you, Mr. Speaker, to see to it that Question Time, which is the privilege of hon. Members, is not eaten into by the abuse of another privilege?
    Sir Percy Harris: Is not the real remedy for the hon. Member to raise the question on the Adjournment?
    Mr. Silverman: While it is, no doubt, perfectly true that a Minister may refuse to answer Questions at all, is it not equally true that, if he does choose to give an answer, the answer he gives ought to be a truthful answer? The Minister ought not to rely upon a formula of this kind in order to cover up unwillingness, on other grounds, to give information at all.
    Mr. Bevan: Is it not a fact that a Minister cannot, in his refusal to answer a Question, injure the public interest? Is not the Minister charged with a special responsibility, not only of protecting the Members of the House, but of protecting the Government from injuring the public interest by an abuse of privilege?
    Mr. Speaker: I am afraid it is impossible for me to go into all the various reasons. I have to accept the Minister's words just like any other hon. Member. If Members are dissatisfied they have, as the right hon. Baronet the Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) has said, the opportunity of raising the matter on the Adjournment. That is the answer to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Peat: I take full responsibility for the answer which was given to-day. You, Mr. Speaker, are not in a position to know what answer is going to be made to a Question and I cannot control the Questions that are asked—
    Mr. Maxton: Does the hon. Gentleman want to?
    Mr. Peat: No, I do not want to, but in the case of the two Questions under review, if they had been answered in detail, the answer would have given full information as to the position and the scope of the production and development of penicillin in this country.
    Mr. Bevan: Why not?
    Mr. Peat: I believe that penicillin, at this moment, is as vital to us as the most secret weapon we are producing, and if I gave this information, it would lay our production of penicillin open to air attack, because if this Question had been answered, it would have given the location——
    Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. Is there any Question before the House?
    Mr. Speaker: There is a point of Order before the House. I have allowed the Minister to make his explanation. If hon. Members are not satisfied they have their remedy.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Feeding Stuffs (Wood and Straw Products)
    Mr. Wootton-Daviesasked the Minister of Food whether he has yet considered the Report on the utilisation of sawdust in Canada which has been sent to him; and what action has been taken to develop food products from wood and straw in this country.
    The Minister of Food (Colonel Llewellin): A number of projects for manufacturing from wood and straw materials suitable for animal food have been carefully considered by my Department in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Agricultural Research Council. None has yet been found to be sufficiently promising to warrant development on an industrial scale which would make heavy calls on plant, fuel and man-power.
    Mr. Wootton-Davies: Does the Minister ever read the journal issued by the Ministry of Agriculture? If he does he will find a very different tale.
    Mr. MacLaren: Would the right hon. Gentleman request his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture to cause green spectacles to be put on cows, so that they could be fed on wood shavings?

    West African Palm Oil
    Mr. Wootton-Daviesasked the Minister of Food what was the average price of West African palm oil to the consumer in June, 1939, and in December, 1943.
    Colonel Llewellin: The figures art £12 10s. a ton and £42 5s. a ton respectively.
    Mr. Wootton-Davies: Will the Minister explain how this increase of some 350 per cent. takes place, and what extra the native in West Africa is getting and whether his Ministry is making any profit on this material?
    Colonel Llewellin: No, we are now buying these materials from a large number of countries in the world. The price varies between different places and we even them out so as not to have a loss for the Exchequer.

    Onions (Price)
    General Sir George Jeffreysasked the Minister of Food if his attention has been called to the fact that the growers maximum net price for onions is 25s. per cwt. and that the retailer is allowed a profit of 31s. 8d. per cwt. for selling them; and whether he can give the reasons for this disparity of remuneration.
    Colonel Llewellin: The retailer's margin under the Maximum Price Order applicable to 1943 home-grown onions was 10s. 8d. per cwt. That Order remained in force until 20th December when marketing of this crop was virtually completed. On 21st December the maximum retail price was increased to cover the cost of onions imported by my Department. Under the new Order the retailer's margin on imported onions is 10s. 2d. per cwt.
    Mr. Thorne: Are any Spanish onions being imported?
    Colonel Llewellin: Yes, Sir.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Does not the Minister think that even a profit of 10s. 2d. is an unreasonably high one?
    Colonel Llewellin: No, I do not think so.

    Poultry Sales (Control)
    Mr. Evelyn Walkdenasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the effect of the cancellation of the Sales Prohibition of Stock Birds Order as compared with the successful operation of the Order in December and January last; and as it is now clearly established that hotel and restaurant caterers are again paying excessive prices to obtain these alleged stock birds, will he take steps to restore the essential features of this necessary control.
    Colonel Llewellin: The Orders controlling the sale of stock poultry during December and January were intended to cover the Christmas trade only. A new Order is being made by the Agricultural Departments which will, it is hoped, give improved control over the sale of stock poultry throughout the year. If my hon. Friend will let me have the particulars on which he bases the allegation in the last part of the Question, I will gladly have them investigated.
    Mr. Walkden: Are the Minister's officials not aware that retailers cannot now obtain poultry for their customers because of the activities of catering buyers in the country who are deliberately breaking the law, and does he not regard this matter as extremely urgent?
    Colonel Llewellin: If we can get any particulars of any case in which people are deliberately breaking the law, proceedings will immediately be taken.
    Mr. Walkden: The Ministry's people in the country know all about it.
    Mr. Silverman: How is it that the Minister's Department is in complete ignorance about what everyone else in the country is very well aware of?
    Colonel Llewellin: If the hon. Member is aware of any case and will let me know, I will certainly investigate it, and if necessary proceedings will be taken.

    Oranges
    Dr. Littleasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the desire among the people of Northern Ireland that they should receive their share of the marmalade oranges which have become available; and whether he will see that they receive their quota.
    Colonel Llewellin: There were not sufficient bitter oranges for a general distribution over the whole of the United Kingdom; one area had to be selected for this and my hon. Friend will hear with regret that it was not Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Leach: How did it come about that these oranges which were going to the North of England were later all taken to Scotland?
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Food how many protests he has received from British marmalade manufacturers
    1772
    against his decision to distribute surplus oranges in this country, instead of forwarding them to Eire.
    Colonel Llewellin: None, Sir. Two marmalade makers have objected to the sale of bitter oranges to domestic users, but a committee representing the trade as a whole has dissociated itself from this attitude.
    Mr. Driberg: Can we take it that the two makers' protests are being disregarded by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman?
    Colonel Llewellin: Certainly.
    Viscountess Astor: Does the Minister not think that marmalade is really more desired throughout the country by women and children than beer and wines? Can we have more oranges?

  Potato Prices, Northern Ireland
  Dr. Littleasked the Minister of Food whether he has considered the figures submitted to him by the Artana and Dromara Young Farmers' Club, County Down, as to the cost of producing one acre of maincrop potatoes where the farmer employs tractor and labour, and the cost on a small farm where horses are used and most of the work done by the farmer and his family, showing a profit of 13s. and a loss of £3 7s. per acre, respectively; and whether, to avoid a shortage of potatoes for the current year, he will urgently fix the price for the 1944 crop at a figure which will give the farmer a fair return for his war-time efforts.
  Colonel Llewellin: I have seen the figures to which my hon. Friend refers. The price for Northern Ireland potatoes of the 1944 crop has been fully considered and it has been decided to make no change from the 1943 crop level apart from the reduction in new potato prices and the compensating increase in prices for the months of August and September, 1944, already announced.
  Dr. Little: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend not recognise that it is in the interests of the people that sufficient potatoes should be grown? Can he expect this unless he fixes a price that will meet the cost of production and allow a profit commensuate with the cost of production?
  Colonel Llewellin: I certainly hope that Northern Ireland will continue to grow a large amount of potatoes. The price is the same this year as it was last year and the year before. The acreage, I am glad to say, has gone up each year under that price.

  Fish
  Sir Patrick Hannonasked the Minister of Food whether he has considered representations from the fish friers of Birmingham on the quantities of fish available for the needs of fish friers, who can only secure limited supplies after the wholesale and retail fish distributors have been supplied; and whether he will take steps to secure a reasonable quantity of fish for the fish friers.
  Colonel Llewellin: I have received no representations from fish friers in Birmingham. They draw their supplies from the same sources and on the same basis as fishmongers in that city.
  Sir P. Hannon: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend have inquiries made to find out whether these estimable people, the fish friers of Birmingham, have reasonable supplies of fish?
  Colonel Llewellin: Yes, I have inquired into that matter, and they are receiving the same proportion on the basic figures as the fish merchants in that city.
  Mr. Boothbyasked the Minister of Food whether he is taking any steps to increase the supply of tinned herring and pilchards; and whether he will see that a sufficient quantity of raw matje herring is made available to the public.
  Colonel Llewellin: During the greater part of the year the catch of herring and pilchards is insufficient to meet demand. I am seeing whether anything can be done to make more available to canners at times of heavy landings. In regard to the last part of the Question, demand is low, and I hope landings will be sufficient to meet it.
  Mr. Boothby: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the raw matje herring is the most succulent of all forms of fish, not excluding caviare?
  Colonel Llewellin: I am told that it is extremely succulent, but the demand is low.
  Mr. Driberg: Can the right hon. Gentleman not stimulate the demand by some of his admirable advertisements?
  Commander Locker-Lampson: Can we see this herring in the House of Commons?

  WINES AND SPIRITS (DISTRIBUTION AND SALE)
  Major Lyonsasked the Minister of Food if he has now considered the representations and proposals of the North Midland Regional Price Regulation Committee in connection with the distribution and sale of spirits; and what steps he now proposes to take for the protection of the public.
  Colonel Llewellin: The reply to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir." In reply to the last part, I do not consider that I would be justified, in undertaking the control of the distribution and sale of wines and spirits.
  Major Lyons: Does not the Minister know that for some years this racket has gone on against the public and that his Department has done nothing, on the pretence that they have never heard of it? Will he take steps to stop this underground racket, which operates to the detriment of the genuine buyer?
  Colonel Llewellin: It would mean setting up another large control, taking on a largely increased staff in the Ministry, and issuing a large number of forms to control the distribution of things that are not necessities.
  Major Lyons: Arising out of that could not the whole position be effectively simplified by a maximum price that has the force of law and not merely a price fixed internally by the distillers, which is obeyed by so few people?
  Mr. E. Walkden: Has the Minister not already a price control for wine supplied with meals, and does not that work?
  Colonel Llewellin: There is such an order applying to whisky, gin and beer, at any rate, sold with a meal——
  Mr. Walkden: Not whisky but wine. I ask the Minister to look into his own Order.
  Colonel Llewellin: May I finish—and an arrangement applying to the Algerian wines, imported by the Ministry.
  Viscountess Astor: Who wants the prices reduced?

  SCOTLAND (COUNCIL OF STATE)
  Mr. Boothbyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the fact that it enjoys no constitutional Parliamentary or permanent status, he will take care that in future the Advisory Council of ex-Secretaries of State at the Scottish Office is designated an Advisory Committee to the Secretary of State and not the Council of State for Scotland.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): The designation "Council of State" used to describe the Advisory Council of ex-Secretaries has no formal significance. It is merely a colloquialism, unofficial but apt, and descriptive of a useful and admirable effort at Scots unity of purpose.
  Mr. Boothby: Does my right hon. Friend not think that this is rather a portentous form of colloquialism?
  Mr. Westwood: I think it is a very useful one, which might wisely be followed by other interests.
  Mr. Mathers: Will my right hon. Friend note the source from which this question comes, and bear in mind that this Council of State and its effects are greatly appreciated in Scotland?
  Mr. Westwood: Yes, Sir; the people of Scotland appreciate very much the efforts for Scotland of the Secretary of State and the Council of State.
  Mr. Stephen: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us any of the effects of this advisory council?
  Mr. Westwood: Not during Question Time.

  WEST HAM FAMINE RELIEF COMMITTEE (RESOLUTION)
  Mr. Thorneasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare whether he has considered a resolution from the West Ham Famine Relief Committee; and what reply was sent to the secretary of the committee.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dingle Foot): My Noble Friend the Minister of Economic Warfare has received this resolution. A reply has been sent to the Secretary of the Committee, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

  ARMY CADET UNITS, GLOUCESTERSHIRE
  Mr. Lipsonasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will increase the establishment for Army Cadet units in the county of Gloucester, so that many boys who now desire to join may be allowed to do so.
  The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I understand that the number of Army cadets at present authorised for the county of Gloucestershire has not yet been fully taken up, and that no application has been made for an increase in the number. I do not, therefore, understand how it is that boys willing to join the Army Cadet Force have been unable to do so, and if my hon. Friend will send me particulars I will have the matter investigated.
  Mr. Lipson: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that it has been publicly stated that there are 500 Army Cadets in Gloucester for whom no places can be found?
  Mr. Henderson: I am informed that the ceiling fixed for cadets in Gloucester is 2,750, and that their strength, on the last return, is 2,461.

  RECAPTURED BRITISH PRISONERS, ITALY (DEATH SENTENCE)
  Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fact that five escaped British prisoners of war, since recaptured, have been condemned to death by the Italian police, and what action he has taken in the matter.
  Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. In the course of yesterday a report was circulated by the German News Agency to the effect that six British escaped prisoners of war who have been in hiding in Northern Italy had been recaptured and that five of them had been sentenced to death. On receipt of this report, His Majesty's Government immediately issued a statement in which they made it clear that these men, being prisoners of war, are entitled to the full protection of the Geneva Convention. Article 66 of this Convention provides that, in the event of a sentence of death being passed on a prisoner of war, that sentence shall not be carried out until

  1777
  three months after full particulars of the case have been communicated to the Protecting Power. His Majesty's Government have also made an immediate communication to the Swiss Government, asking for information as to this report and for an assurance from the German Government that the provisions of the Geneva Convention to which I have just referred will in any event be respected.
  Sir J. Lucas: While we all thank my right hon. Friend for the great promptitude with which he has acted, is it not a fact that the police as such have no jurisdiction over prisoners of war except for arrest and temporary detention?
  Mr. Eden: The position is governed by the Geneva Convention, and I think I do well to rest on that.
  Mr. Turton: By what tribunal is it alleged that these men were sentenced?
  Mr. Eden: I am afraid I have no details except such as were issued by the German News Agency itself. That is why I have asked the Swiss Government to give us a report.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he can make a statement on the Business for the remaining days of this week?
Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. We do not any longer wish to take this week, the Second Reading of the Naval Forces (Extension of Service) Bill, which had been announced for the fourth Sitting Day. Instead, we should like to take on the third or fourth Sitting Days, if there is time, the Prize Salvage Bill, a Measure which has come down to us from another place.
Mr. Maxton: Is the House of Commons Disqualification (Temporary Provisions) Bill still coming on?
Mr. Eden: It will be coming on shortly. It is not the Bill to which I have just referred.
Mr. Maxton: The right hon. Gentleman has announced some changes, and I am asking whether he still intends to proceed with that Bill.
Mr. Eden: Yes, on the third Sitting Day.
Mr. Maxton: I want the right hon. Gentleman to understand that it will not pass pro forma.
Mr. Eden: I shall observe that when the time comes.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  EDUCATION BILL
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 8th February].
  [Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS in the Chair]

  EDUCATION BILL

    CLAUSE 4.—(Central Advisory Councils.)
    Amendment proposed: In page 3, line 22, to leave out Sub-section (3) and to insert:
    "(3) Not more than half of the members of each council shall be persons who are directly engaged in the statutory system of public education or in educational institutions not forming of that system."—[Mr. Linstead.]
    Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    Earl Winterton: It will be in the recollection of the Committee that this Question was before the House when the Debate was adjourned, and, while I do not wish to delay the proceedings, I want to say a word or two in support of the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Norwich (Sir G. Shakespeare), to insert:
    "including persons with special knowledge of rural education"
    which you, Mr. Williams, allowed us to consider along with the Amendment now under discussion. Those of us who have given some study to these questions in the past, would be very grateful if the President of the Board of Education could give us an assurance on these points in connection with the constitution of the Council. We do not ask for any bias in favour of rural education, but we do ask that there should be a proper balance between rural education and other forms of education, and, in supporting the point which my hon. Friend makes in his Amendment I would like to mention these facts. To-day, agriculture in this country is the most highly mechanised form of agriculture in the world. We have been told that by the Minister of Agriculture. It therefore follows that it is necessary that the educational system of the country in future should obtain recruits who are fully qualified in the technical sense. I would welcome a statement from the President to the effect that he would keep in mind, as persons who would be fit

    1787
    to serve on this Council, the education officers of the various local authorities. These officers are highly instructed from the rural education point of view, and I think they should be included. I hope this matter will be borne in mind, along with the fact that the increased mechanisation of the agriculture carried on in this country needs special treatment.
    Sir Geoffrey Shakespeare: I had intended yesterday formally to move the Amendment in my name but in order to save the time of the Committee and to secure Clause 4 I gave up that right. The noble Lord, in his remarks, did, in fact imply, without meaning to do so, that I was not interested in this matter. Perhaps the Committee will now allow me to make a few points that I had previously decided to defer. This Amendment was put down to ensure that, on the statutory Council, there should be chosen persons with a wide knowledge of problems in rural areas, not necessarily those who have been on education authorities in rural areas. I am making the point that the greatest criticism of our educational system is the state of education in the rural areas. It is no good trying to apportion the blame. I think all of us are to blame for not seeing that progress was accelerated, but the Board of Education must bear its share, and also the local education authorities. We do know however that there have been extenuating circumstances. We all know that in a sparsely-populated rural area, where the children are scattered all over the area, the problems of reorganisation are much more difficult, and we certainly know how seriously the position is complicated by the dual system, and by the village school in the 4,000 single-school areas. Such a village school as one has in mind, inspired Oliver Goldsmith to song and has driven every one to despair ever since. The handicaps are in matériel but also concern personnel. The normal village school is not even good for the purpose for which it was devised. It is certainly no good for any communal life in the village. Very often there is absence of water and of electric light; often there is one teacher in charge of the whole school. Very often there are only a few handfuls of children, and they have to remain at that school for the rest of their educational days. As regards teachers,
    1788
    the problem is worse, because all self-respecting teachers shun the village school, and one cannot condemn them. There is no career, no promotion before them.
    Mr. Lipson: That statement is rather a reflection upon the teachers in village schools.
    Sir G. Shakespeare: Perhaps that was an over-statement on my part. There are many philanthropic, public-minded teachers who, in spite of all the handicaps, do go into the village schools, but young teachers are, more and more, going into the urban districts, where there is a chance of promotion. If one takes the 70,000 teachers in the rural areas, one finds that 17,000 of them are uncertificated, and, in addition, there are 4,000 supplementary teachers. That is a condemnation of the kind of education that we are forced to give the children in the rural areas. What are we to do about it? May I "shorthand" what I want to say? First, we have to admit that we have failed in the rural areas. There has been a complete failure of our educational system there. To-day we admit that we have made little progress. It is no good talking about further reforms, such as raising the school-leaving age to 15 and setting up young persons colleges. The plain fact is that there is an enormous lee-way to make up. The rural areas are living in the pre-Hadow era. Ever since 1927 reorganisation has been going on in the urban districts all over the country, but there have been few senior schools in the rural areas.
    Mr. Loftus: That statement does not apply to East Suffolk, where we have almost completed reorganisation, and have admirable senior schools.
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: And it has no application to Devonshire, Leicestershire and several other counties.
    Sir G. Shakespeare: I agree, but it is really important, if we are to deal with education in rural areas, that we should face the facts. I make no charge against the counties referred to by the hon. Members who have interrupted me. The county of my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) is one of the best counties in the country, and there are other counties that have made remarkable progress. But my broad state-

    1789
    ment is—and the figures confirm it—that, by and large, throughout the country, reorganisation has not gone forward in the rural areas, with the exception of a few counties which have been very progressive. Consider the London area and the pupils there of 11 years of age and over. According to the latest figures, before the war, of 152,000 children in the London area 120,000 were in reorganised departments. On the other hand, of 279,000 children in the rural areas only 82,000 were in reorganised departments. In the one case progress has been 80 per cent. and in the other case 30 per cent. It is no good saying this county is good or that county is good. The facts are that, in the main, there has been very little reorganisation throughout the rural districts. My first point therefore is that we should admit the failure; my second point is that we should make up the leeway by getting on with reorganisation; and my third point is that we should get rid of the urban bias which, unfortunately, has been shown in too much of our legislation.
    I have said that I thought this Bill was one of the best Bills which I have seen presented to Parliament, but if I were captious enough to criticise it, it would be only on the ground that there does not, even in this Bill, seem to be a recognition of the urgency of providing educational facilities in rural districts. I am not satisfied that it is appreciated that the kind of teaching needed in rural districts is not the same as is required in the urban districts. I am not satisfied that the normal training of teachers that will fit them for an urban community, is adequate for a rural community. The real trouble is that, in the training colleges, teachers get no training in the subjects which should be taught in the rural schools. The bias is an urban bias.
    Anyone going to schools in rural areas, and putting elementary questions on Nature to the children will find how ignorant they are. There is a tremendous opening in the rural areas for teaching children about the actual management and care of animals, the study of Nature, birds and so forth. Some Member of Parliament writing a book about the House of Commons said that from the House one could hear the songs of 21 different birds. It may be a comfort to some hon. Members when a Debate is dull, to know that they can go on to the Terrace
    1790
    and hear one or other of those 21 songsters. I once asked the children of a school how many birds there are which hover. There are, in fact, five birds which hover—and I am not going to ask hon. Members the question—but among these country children there was complete ignorance on the subject. In their training we should see that teachers get an understanding of the realities of life in the country and the needs of the country, the need, above all, for reviving some of the old village crafts which used to be the glory of England a century ago. There is also a complete absence of biological teaching, which should be the basis of good education in the country.
    For these reasons I hope the President of the Board of Education will see to it that the training syllabus in the colleges for teachers will be really suitable for those who intend to live in the rural areas; and I hope that when he constitutes the Advisory Council, he will choose several experts on rural questions, because that would counteract that bias towards urban education which has been one of the difficulties of our educational system in the past.
    Mr. Cove: I rise to support the proposal though I cannot share all the reasons advanced by the hon. Member for Norwich (Sir G. Shakespeare) in favour of it. I am afraid that the hon. Member does not really know the work that is being done in the rural areas. From my experience and slight knowledge of the rural schools of England, I am amazed to find how well they have done under the most difficult circumstances, and I would advise my hon. Friend and, indeed, all hon. Members, to read the publications issued by the Board of Education showing what is being done in the rural schools to meet the necessities of life in the countryside. I have one of the publications here, and the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) would be proud of it, because it relates to his area. I would re-emphasise that teachers in the rural schools of England have done a great job under the most terrible circumstances; but the hon. Member is quite right in saying, and I think the President of the Board of Education would agree, that the first central problem with which he will be faced, is that of the re-organisation of our education system. I think he would also

    1791
    agree that the first problem within that bigger problem will be the re-organisation of the rural areas.
    I do not want to be very controversial, but I would say that if anywhere, we see the ravages, as it were, of the dual system, we see them in the rural areas. I do not want to rouse feeling, but in the dual system lies the real heart of this problem. It does not apply to the Roman Catholics; it applies, in the main, to the Church of England, which has nearly 4,000 schools in single-school areas. The Minister will be faced with that difficult situation. I am supporting this because I really want to give the children and the teachers in the schools in the countryside a better chance to do their job. A letter sent to me last week describes what is typical of hundreds of schools in the villages of England. It says that the lavatories condemned recently by His Majesty's Inspector and the sanitary inspector are the old original pits dug in 1878 when the school was first opened. They are not even earth closets. One fire heats a long, high room. There is no dividing wall between two classes and two teachers. The floorboards are rotten. Ventilation is nil, the walls are running with water, pools of water are on the floor and only near the stove is it dry. As in 1878 loose stones, mud and water lay at least four feet below the road on one side and there is a graveyard on the other. No windows have been mended for five and a half years. That is only one school.
    I have here a survey that was compiled by the National Union of Teachers, and it is a terrible record of the callousness that exists as to conditions in country schools. It says:
    "The contents of the earth closet were emptied into the school ashpit in front of the head teacher's house right on the side of the high road and the fluid draining from the ashpit trickled down into an open ditch along the roadside. During hot weather it was a definite nuisance to all passers-by. All the schools are old. Some of them are very old and worn out, and most of them are definitely behind the times regarding their sanitation."
    I could read pages to the same effect; it is nauseating. I ask the Minister to see that these cesspools are cleared out. Indeed, I hope our friends in the Church of England will help us to clear the countryside of these terrible buildings that exist. Of course, some local authorities are also re-
    1792
    sponsible, but they again are manned very largely by the same people, and I ask all who are interested in the religious teaching of our children throughout the countryside to be interested also in the terrible physical conditions that exist in these schools. If it needs the abolition of the dual system to get rid of these schools then, I say frankly, we ought to do away with the dual system, and I hope that the Minister will direct his attention very earnestly to this problem.
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I do not want to traverse the main ground, but I would like to say that one member or two members on an Advisory Council will make no difference at all. There was a Director of Education on the Consultative Committee in the County of Leicestershire who had been a pioneer in this field of rural senior schools. He was there for 15 years, but that did not make any difference. The reason is that one-third of the children of England are in rural schools and 75 per cent. of those schools have not been reorganised. I spent three years going up and down the country trying to get reorganisation. The school-leaving age was going to be raised the day war broke out.
    Earl Winterton: May I ask my hon. Friend a question? Does he not agree that it would be the business of the agricultural officer of a county to impress upon his colleagues on the Committee that there should be an improvement in respect of those matters?
    Mr. Lindsay: I am sorry the Noble Lord and I disagree on this problem. I think the root of the problem is the Church school. It was not the Board of Education, the Churches, or the landlords, but Dr. Spencer, a selfless man, who gave his whole time to endeavouring to build up new, inspiring schools. The people who stood in the way were the landlords, the Church and, generally speaking, the Board of Education. The reason is that the landlords said the children should have bread, the Church thought they should have religion, and the Board said "text-books." Dr. Spencer gave them open spaces, rural craft, playgrounds and brought in the children all round. You will never improve this position, even if you have three people on the Advisory Council, unless you attend to the question of rates.

    1793
    There is not the money in most cases. The dual system must be attended to and, if necessary, a clean sweep must be made. Therefore, I repeat that it is not a question of putting one man or two men on the Advisory Council. What the Board must do is to encourage a real, practical atmosphere. It must give more generous allowances, make more school estates and introduce ideas of youth service.
    Mr. Burton, of Norwich, has written in his excellent book:
    "After 40 years of secondary and 70 years of elementary education the relations between education and agriculture remain completely haphazard in this country."
    When I left the Board a Committee was started to consider this question, and I am glad to say that the Minister for Agriculture has now developed it to a point where there is to be some general machinery. The real answer to this question is a better relationship between the officers of the Board of Education and the Ministry of Agriculture. There must be a ladder in the countryside as there is in the town, and there has got to be a career in agriculture. Boys who have been to the Northampton Farm Institute say, "This is grand, but where do we go from here? We have not the capital to start with." I repeat that this is not just a simple question of putting two men on an Advisory Council. One-third of the children of England are in rural schools, and in the village in which I am living at the moment they are getting up at five o'clock in the morning, working for someone at sixpence an hour and then trying to work in the village school. I conclude by saying that if we are to face this problem we need a huge reorganisation in the countryside, and the Church of England must pay as much attention to this matter as it is paying to religion in these schools.
    Mr. Loftus: For 24 years I have been a member of the local education authority of East Suffolk, and in all my public life that is the work on which I look back with the greatest satisfaction. As there has been so much allusion to the magnificent work done in East Suffolk I think it would be as well if I explained briefly the general idea of the system on which we work. The schools being in an agricultural area, we insist that five, six or seven acres of ground should be attached to them. Secondly——
    The Chairman (Major Milner): I do not think the hon. Member can go into details of local education. It does not seem to me to arise here.
    Mr. Loftus: I bow to your Ruling. I wanted to point out that East Suffolk had tried to make these senior schools part of the system.
    The Chairman: We appreciate the hon. Member's intention, but the real question being discussed is the constitution of the Council.
    Mr. Loftus: I will not pursue the subject any further, and will merely conclude by saying that I do not think putting one or two members on a Council will be of much use, but that the proper solution of agricultural education is to continue the development of the Hadow Report on the lines of East Suffolk. That is the only method by which you will get a proper linking, of agricultural education with general education.
    Mr. Mack: I think the speech of the hon. Baronet has raised perhaps more controversy than he expected. I, for one, can scarcely support the idea of placing the direction of rural education in the hands of persons with special knowledge merely because they were attached to rural schools. The very fact that this question concerning the conditions in rural schools has been ventilated and the knowledge we now have that about one-third of our children are being educated in these schools, will give hon. Members an opportunity of airing their points of view. Most of us know that rural schools in the past, and possibly at the present day, have not proved desirable, not merely because many of them are ill-ventilated and because many of the children have to walk miles from their homes, sometimes in snow and ice, and ill-shod, so that they arrive in school in poor physical shape to listen to teachers, but because the amenities and the condition of these schools are had. These are matters to which my right hon. Friend would do well to give consideration.
    I am sure he has this matter very seriously at heart. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Sir G. Shakespeare) feels that it is a desirable thing to cram into the elastic minds of young people a great deal of ornithological data, which is the province of frowzy professors, but I sub-

    1795
    mit, with great deference, that it is much more desirable that children in rural areas should know something about John Kett and Wat Tyler, who led the impoverished agricultural labourers of their time in defence of their just rights. That would be much more in line with education.
    If two-thirds of the children of this country are being educated in urban districts, surely, it would be equally desirable that they should have a knowledge of rural conditions in relation to agriculture. That would enable them, if they so desired at a subsequent stage in life, to go into agriculture and give them a knowledge of agricultural conditions in this country. If we become too urbanised and industrialised a great number of these people may wish to seek employment in the country. It would be better if many children in urban districts went back to agriculture as a result of having been educated in the important science of producing food for the country. I hope we shall make a great effort to improve conditions in the rural schools. In my constituency there are good schools in the borough, and there are adjoining areas where the schools are not as desirable as they might be because of the general conditions to which I have alluded. My right hon. Friend would benefit very considerably by the opinions of Members in this connection and I hope that he will pay regard to them.
    Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: I would like to follow up what the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Mack) said and to say that I agree with him that we ought to introduce a knowledge of rural education into the towns, so as to induce some of the townspeople to go into the country. That would be a very good thing; but I would stress the other side, which is, that we should inculcate a knowledge of rural activities into the minds of those who remain in the towns. The rural side of this country and the town side are completely apart—more completely apart than is the case with regard to any other class of industry. We shall not get a successful post-war agricultural policy unless the educational side of it is fully studied in the towns. The towns outnumber the rural areas in regard to the electorate, and that means that the future of the rural side not only in regard to buildings, but education, is
    1796
    practically dependent upon the towns. Townspeople should, from their youth, have a knowledge of the history of rural movements. The hon. Member mentioned outstanding leaders; there are outstanding figures of all kinds in rural life who could also be mentioned. The townspeople ought to have a knowledge of agriculture and what it means if British agriculture is let down, as it has been continually during the past 100 years. They have not been taught anything about it.
    The Chairman: The question of what has or has not been taught in the towns on rural education does not arise. The question is what the constitution of this Council ought to be, and perhaps hon. Members would try to remember that. May I remind hon. Members that we are discussing a number of Amendments as to representation, in addition to the question of the representation of agriculture, I hope they will recognise that we are having only the one discussion.
    Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: I entirely bow to your Ruling, Major Milner. I am only giving an illustration of the importance of having people on the Council who have a knowledge of rural education, and a knowledge of rural education is just as important in the towns as it is in the countryside.
    Mr. Woodburn: I would like to say a few words about the general purpose of the Amendments which raise the question of the council and whether it is to be composed of a number of representatives of various interests who want to get their own particular axes ground in the schools of this country. Behind all lies one fundamental fact. The great majority of the people of this country want their children trained in order to get a good position in society. As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) said, they need a ladder, but the point is where is that ladder reaching? Unless the Council define the purpose of general education that ladder is pointing in the direction of good jobs. People are not being educated for the life that they are going to live; 95 per cent. are being educated for the life they are not going to live. Education must have some connection with life. It cannot be a Cook's tour round bird sanctuaries or the Zoo, or even round the country areas in order to see what kind

    1797
    of grass grows there. That may be good entertainment, but it should be a leisure occupation rather than an educational occupation. The Churches are clear as to the purpose of their education. They know what they want when they ask for religious teaching in the schools. Industrialists know what they want in regard to technical education. The purpose for which the teacher—and this is the handicap of the teacher—is supposed to be teaching the child has not been defined. At the moment the people in this country are taught to despise themselves, and to think that the only justifiable thing in life is to keep out of industry, to get jobs in which they will not have to take off their collars and avoid having dirty faces.
    Unless the status of the people who build the ships or who take the coal out of the mines is raised and made equal with that of anybody else, the purpose of education is going to be frustrated. People will want to become educated in order to get out of real work and of doing anything for the country. The whole attitude of society is implied in this purpose of education. We must devote ourselves, in planning the new society, to seeing that the status of those who create the wealth of the world is of such a dignified nature that people will be proud to be members of the working class and not ashamed of it. The dignity of the person who tills the soil and who builds our machinery is not less than that of the person who works in an office or who teaches. I hope that the Minister will try to define the purpose for which the teacher is educating the children. If it is for the purpose of taking part in the new order which is coming along, we have to define that new order and know the status of the workers of the world in taking their share in that new society.
    Sir George Schuster: I feel in some difficulty owing to the fact that all these Amendments are being discussed together. We have before us an Amendment which raises very generally the composition of the Council, and I myself wanted to move an Amendment to call attention to one particular class of education—adult education—which, I should like to put to the Committee, is at least of equal importance to technical and rural education which have been rather fully debuted. It needs no apology to talk
    1798
    on the general constitution of the Council for a few moments. I regard that as one of the most important features of the Bill. I look upon the Council as a body which will stand between Parliament—which really ought to be watching the development of the whole education policy but has not the time—and the bureaucracy, which tends to get tied up in regulations and administrative matters. From that point of view, the Council has a tremendously important function.
    My right hon. Friend gave us a very satisfactory and wide definition of his conception of the Council and its work. It was, he said, to be concerned with the whole content of education. I would like to ask him—I believe that he, in his own heart, agrees with this—to spread his conception just a little wider than that and to tell us that he believes the Council will have to watch not only the working of our educational system as such, but the working of all the educational influences which play upon the people of this country. Further, I want him to agree that it will be concerned not only with the content of education but with the subjects of education, the people themselves. We want to have on that Council men who are in touch with the nation and the various influences that are at work.
    I would like to give two illustrations in order to bring out the meaning of the point which I am making. We have had reference already—and the Minister said that he was going to say something about it—to broadcasting in education. I hope that attention will be directed not merely to direct educational talks in broadcasting, but to the whole effect of our B.B.C. programmes. For example, one of the interesting phenomena to-day is that a programme like the Brains Trust has such a vast audience and, apparently, such influence on public opinion. It has in fact become an educational influence. My second illustration is this. We had yesterday a very interesting discussion on technical education. I thought myself it was definitely inadequate in one way. There seemed to be in the minds of most Members who spoke a distinction between technical education on the one side as a process that was going to prepare children for their task in life—for earning money—and a liberal education on the other side which was going to give them what I hope we all want to give, a cultural back-

    1799
    ground to their lives and a capacity for establishing true standards of values and to discern what is good. But we have heard nothing about scientific education. Technical education in a narrow sense was all that was talked about and that was contrasted with a literary education.
    I want to represent the point that the teaching of science can be a vehicle for a liberal education just as much as the teaching of history and the classics. And that is relevant to my present point, because it seems to me that the generation of young people we have to-day is tuned into science. There is a chance through science of educating them in the true sense. You can draw them out on that because their interests are alive on it. That therefore is one of the things the Council should watch—what type of education will catch the people's interest and thus provide the medium to give them something of real value. Anyone who listened to Sir Lawrence Bragg in his postscript last Sunday night will realise what I have in mind, and what are the possibilities of scientific education in making people think and giving them all that a liberal education in the classics can give them.
    Turning from that to the question of adult education, I would like to ask your advice, Major Milner, on this point. I want to register the hope that it will be possible to have a proper Debate on adult education. But the Committee has already spent a good deal of time on this Clause and perhaps will not wish to have anything like a full Debate on adult education now. Can you give us an assurance, Sir—and perhaps the Minister will tell us something about it too—that we shall be able to have a full Debate on adult education in connection with Clause 40, under which local authorities are to be asked to submit their schemes for further education? If I could get some assurance on that, I would cut my remaining remarks very short.
    The Chairman: I do not think it is desirable that I should take upon myself to indicate where a particular Debate should take place, and I cannot speak for the Minister, but it may be that there may be opportunity there. It is not possible to have an extensive Debate here; there may be opportunity later.
    Sir G. Schuster: I trust that the Minister will give us an assurance, but at any rate I will cut my remarks as short as possible. I hope that will not be interpreted to measure my interest in the matter, since I think that that is perhaps the most important aspect of education with which we have to deal in the conditions of these days. I put it to the Minister that he has not treated adult education quite worthily in the papers before us. I thought he himself was a little apologetic when, in the Debate on the Second Reading, he said that it was rather lumped together with technical education. Incidentally I want to put it to him, that this is logically a very bad classification. Indeed I am surprised that a high-brow Department like his own should have adopted it. I am reminded of the days when I was learning logic, and a lecturer gave us as an illustration of bad logical classification a certain tradesman in Oxford who called himself "A University, family and pork butcher." I venture to say that the heading "technical and adult education" is about as bad a classification as that. Quite apart from that, we do not know what my right hon. Friend has in mind as to the expenditure to be allocated to adult education. I want to stress particularly the urgency of this subject just now.
    The education of children is of course important, but it is a delayed action business. In the years we have to face after this war we shall be facing a period perhaps more critical than any which this country has been through in its long history. It is of the most vital importance, therefore, to have an enlightened public opinion. We must also remember the large number of people who will be coming back from the Services who will have had their interest awakened by the courses and discussions made available to them in the Services. Not only that. A great many hon. Members will know in their own constituencies the amount of discussion that has been started by wardens and so on at centres in towns. Intellectual interest is everywhere aroused. We must have proper measures taking advantage of that. Further, I would remind my right hon. Friend that under Clause 1 of this Bill the duty is laid upon him to promote the education of the people of England and Wales, not merely

    1801
    of children and adolescents, but of "the people." I would remind him, too, that in the first White Paper, in paragraph 85, the statement was made that without provision for adult education the national system must be incomplete. In paragraph 86 there was recognition of the very great opportunities that would be now available, and paragraph 87 emphasised that there would be room for new methods and new approaches. All that was good and encouraging. But the financial provision in the White Paper was ridiculously low. Now we have an increased financial provision, but we do not know how much is to be allocated to technical education and how much to adult education. All these matters need further discussion. For the present I only want very strongly to emphasise to my right hon. Friend that he should have on these Councils men of the widest vision who will appreciate the importance of adult education, and who will be able to watch and interpret and collate all the evidence there may be about the various educational influences at work in the country. I hope he will give us an assurance to that effect.
    Mr. Price: I think the appointment of two advisers to the Advisory Council to study rural education is a step in the right direction, but I do not think it is going to solve the problem unless it is accompanied by other very important steps. The hon. Baronet who moved this Amendment has given an indication of and figures have been quoted to show the relative backwardness of the rural areas in reorganisation under the Hadow scheme. I think he was a little unduly pessimistic. The county I know best, Gloucestershire, has made important contributions in that direction. I know of rural areas where reorganisation into the junior and senior schools has taken place for some time and is continuing, but I agree with him that this is only the first step, and we have a long way to go yet before we can lay even the foundations of sound rural education.
    The real difficulty in the rural schools is to find out the aptitude of the children for whatever line they are going to take in future life—whether they are adapted to rural life, whether they want to go in for agriculture or the various industries connected with agriculture, or whether they have the mechanical mind which draws them to the towns. As rural educa-
    1802
    tion is to-day we have nothing like the proper apparatus to enable us to make that dissection. A famous public school headmaster, Mr. Sanderson of Oundle, who in his day did a great deal to introduce a new spirit into the education of the great public schools, is said to have made this remark: "All parents are stupid, most masters are stupid, but no boys are stupid." I think he meant that it was the task of the master to find out just where the aptitudes of the pupil lay and to develop them in the right direction.
    The first step is to get the segregation of schools between junior and senior, then to find out in these various classifications just where the interests of the children lie, and then to afford the means—in the case of those with aptitude for rural pursuits, gardening or attention to livestock, and opportunity for those with mechanical minds to go into industry. As the Noble Lord who spoke first on this Amendment pointed out, agriculture today has its mechanical side and is becoming increasingly mechanical. So there is this important contact between industry and agriculture which again must be provided for. Here we have a field of abundant work and research. The appointment of these two advisers on the Advisory Council is a step in the right direction, and I am very glad the hon. Baronet who moved this Amendment called attention to it. It is, however, by no means enough in itself, although it has at least done something to draw the attention of the Minister to this, and along these lines we ought to be able to make progress in rural education.
    Sir Arnold Gridley: I feel I should say a word or two on the Amendment which stands on the Order Paper in my name and refers particularly to the importance of having on these Advisory Councils persons with industrial and commercial experience representing both employers and employees. My hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) uttered a sentence with which I find myself in perfect agreement. We have to raise the status of the fellow who works in overalls higher than that of the man who wears a black coat and a white collar and sits in an office. There is no reason whatever why that should not be done, but it will take education some time to make people realise that the man who

    1803
    works with his hands is more often than not a very much better member of society than the man who writes with a pen. As the Committee know, I have been connected with the engineering industry for the whole of my working life so far, and we attach the greatest importance to getting the right type of young lads coming along as apprentices. In many cases we have our own education officers, highly paid men, who keep in touch with the local education authorities, and it is such men, who have valuable experience from many years of watching the advancement of youths who come out of our secondary schools and local technical institutes, whose experience will be of immense value if it is used on these Advisory Councils. The last speaker referred to Sanderson of Oundle. I was one of those stupid parents who nevertheless was wise enough to send my sons to that school.
    Mr. Price: So was I.
    Sir A. Gridley: There is no doubt about it that the method of selection practised by that great headmaster is one we want to get into the schools much lower down. There is one other and final reason why I want to impress upon the President of the Board of Education that he should give serious attention to this Amendment, and I feel sure that he will. We have now established in industry, for good or ill, production committees. Some of these committees are working excellently, some moderately and some not at all. If we want them to work well we want to raise the standard of education of the men who come into the workshops and become members of these committees. Thereby, the value of these committees will enormously increase.
    Mr. Edmund Harvey: I wish to intervene for only a moment or two, to support the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster), with regard to adult education. It is most difficult to survey the whole field of adult education now, but no doubt we shall have a greater opportunity of dealing with adult education on Clause 40. As regards the composition of the Councils there will be pressure from all sorts of interests and the natural tendency of the Board will be to consider the existing work and the work which is now being planned. Adult educa-
    1804
    tion has been the Cinderella, in many ways, of the Board's work. The amount of money which has been devoted to it in the past has been utterly inadequate. Until recently we had little assurance that there would even be adequate money provided in the future. The vast mass of the citizens of this country are affected by the plans that will be made and the work which will be done in connection with adult education in the next few years, and it is especially important for all those in the Forces whose interest in education has been re-awakened. Therefore, I want an assurance from the President that when the right time comes he will see that the wide interests of adult education are adequately provided for in the formation of his Councils and that it will not be left to one person to take up this matter as a special interest but that it will be one of the major issues considered by the Councils as a whole when they start their great work.
    Major Gates: I want to speak for only a very brief time, Major Milner, because you have already twice made my speech for me. I want to remind the Committee; and particularly the Minister, that we are still discussing the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Lin-stead), which is, I think, the main Amendment to this Clause. Members have expressed different opinions as to how these batches are to be carried out, but I think the whole Committee is agreed on this one main point. All the speeches made yesterday and to-day, whatever Amendment they have been on, have been leading up to the fact that wherever we start we can start at the top with these Advisory Councils. For several months past I have been meeting educationists—and I have the profoundest respect and admiration for them—and I think they will be the first to admit that the Advisory Councils must be as wide and as strong as possible. I hope that when the Minister replies he will give us an assurance that whatever the constitution of the Councils a certain considerable percentage—we have asked for 50—will be persons of wide interests.
    The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): I quite appreciate that other hon. Members wish to take part in the Debate, and there is nothing to prevent them from doing so for a long time

    1805
    ahead. But I must intervene now because we have a great deal of business before us. As regards the problem of the constitution of the Councils, this Bill is so large and has very many Clauses on which these matters can be raised again. For instance, on Clauses 39 and 40 hon. Members will be able to have a long field day should they so desire. Therefore, they may feel that although this problem has had an airing they still have the right for further full consideration.
    My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Major Gates) is quite right in saying that the original discussion was raised on an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead). I will deal with the Amendment in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Norwich (Sir G. Shakespeare), the hon. Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stock-port (Sir A. Gridley). I will also touch upon the question of films and broad-casting. Dealing first with the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney I can sum up my answer to all these Amendments by saying that the Government would rather not be tied to making a definite set proportion on these Councils represent a definite set interest. Therefore, it would not be possible for me to accept the Amendment in the terms moved. But it will be the intention of the Minister in setting up these Councils to try to represent so far as possible not only those whose work is devoted to the world of education but those with whom the world of education wishes to create a proper understanding. That was what I attempted to say yesterday, and I repeat it now. We in the world of education want to hold out a hand to all those who are interested in the children and young people of this country, not forgetting the great mass of the adult population, with which we are now charged. It will be a weighty and responsible task to choose a team suitable to carry out this work but I have received so much advice to-day that I feel my task has been considerably lightened. I can assure the Committee that every point will be weighed.
    We started with the introduction by the hon. Baronet the Member for Norwich, who came with the lark's blithe spirit into our Debates and who wishes
    1806
    all children to have not only that modulation of voice which we associate with that bird, but the soaring characteristics of its flight. I can assure him that we are most anxious to include on these Councils representatives of those who understand the country way of life, which is bound up with the traditions of this island. That is something we wish to cultivate and encourage in our young people. I welcome very much the speeches made by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton), and others, on the rural aspect. There is no doubt that some rural districts are very much behind-hand. But I must answer the hon. Baronet by saying that some of the most remarkable examples of reorganisation in the country are to be found in rural districts and some of the counties. If I were to choose a model for developing agricultural education I should choose some of these counties, though far be it from me to pick out one from the other when all vie with each other in asking me to visit their up to date senior schools.
    I should like to see, when we develop our policy towards farm education, it based upon the experiments already made in the counties in the development of agricultural education. We hear of junior technical schools but we hear practically nothing about junior farm schools. I am here to be shot at and so is the Board. I would remind hon. Members that the Board, which is a suitable target in these Debates, has made considerable effort in the development of country education. We have issued numerous books on the subject, from some of which I have derived some of that wisdom which the Committee now associates with my position. I would ask Members to feel that the Board has not been backward in this matter. There is no doubt that on the Councils which we shall initiate we shall wish to see those who will attempt to meet the points of view and develop the philosophies which have been so wisely stressed to-day. It has been one of my great prides that I have been able to come to an agreement with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture that all education below the higher level, that is, the agricultural colleges, shall come within the purview of the local education authorities. We welcome back this child who has left us for so long. If I have been

    1807
    able to achieve nothing else I should have felt pride, as one who lives from time to time in the country when I am spared by this great metropolis. I hope my right hon. Friend and I will be able, in the next few months, to put before the House and the country, the plan we have in mind for developing rural education.
    Coming to the industrial and commercial side, in regard to which the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport—to include persons with industrial and commercial experience—has been discussed, I am able to say that we have given consideration to the need for representing industry and the employment side of it as well, on these Councils. Industry is waking up. Some of our great concerns are now appointing their own education officers and I must acknowledge with gratitude the attitude being taken by industry towards education as a whole. I have had experience myself, not only of the engineering industry but also of the cotton trade and even other small industries of the country, which indicate that with rare exceptions their attitude now is that their most priceless possession is their young people. I am determined to create further links between the Board and the world of industry, and the constitution of these Councils may be one of the best ways of achieving that.
    As regards adult education, it so happens that whenever I speak I am told that I have spoken on adult education in a minor key. Well, I cannot pull out the stops to-day, for I am reserving some of my thunder for a little later in the Bill, but I can say that adult education is not to be lumped together with anything else, whatever it may be, in the actual Clauses of the Bill itself. Hon. Members will see from Clause 39 (c) that adult education is to have its own compartment and that we are intending that this very wide range of educational activity shall receive the maximum of consideration. The sole reason why I have not spoken at great length on this subject before is that I am very much impressed by the great weight of responsibility that lies on the shoulders of the Minister of Education, the leeway we have to make up and the inadvisability of promising to do everything at once. We shall see to it that there are people who understand
    1808
    these matters on the Council and we shall see to it that, as the Service experiments develop, we educationalists watch them and take full advantage of them.
    There is no doubt that there is a boiling and simmering going on in the world of adult education, in the experiments that are being carried out in the Forces the study of which will be of first-class importance to us in the future. We are revising and looking over the adult education regulations. These slight indications will show the Committee that this matter is very much in the forefront of our minds. I will refrain from fortissimos until later in the proceedings on the Bill. Broadcasting and films were referred to yesterday. We shall demand that all the most modern techniques shall be represented and encouraged in the schools. I thank hon. Members for the manner in which they have put their views before the Government, and I hope we may now make progress in getting through other matters on the Order Paper. In the making up of these Councils, the Government have been very much assisted by the advice that has been offered.
    Major Gates: I am sure my hon. Friend would wish, in view of the assurances that have been given, to withdraw his Amendment.
    The Chairman: In the hon. Member's absence the Amendment will have to be negatived.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment made: In page 3, line 30, after "Council", insert "and."—(Mr. Butler.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. S. O. Davies: Rightly or wrongly, I regard this Clause and the appointment of the Central Advisory Council as being the most important part of the machinery to administer the Bill. If that is so, the personnel of these Advisory Councils will be most important and the composition, personnel and qualifications of the Councils must form a kind of acid test of the spirit and attitude of the Board. We have heard, particularly during the last several months, that great changes in our social and economic structure may take place after the war. I am

    1809
    accepting that with all the hope in the world. If that is so, the Bill, when being administered as an Act of Parliament, will have to fit not only into the structure of society as we know it to-day but should certainly act as a powerful dynamic and creative force in changing that society to meet the needs of our modern life. The Advisory Council, then, must be seized of the clamant need of these changes. Therefore, unless the personnel and their qualifications are such that they will meet the requirements of the time the Bill will very largely fail unless the Minister selects progressively minded people to advise him.
    The war has revealed, among other things, the great drawback that science is un-co-ordinated and isolated from the daily activities and problems that confront our people. At the same time it has given us great promises of scientific possibilities which ought to be exploited later. Will the Minister be aware of these great changes which are pending and which modern life is calling for to-day? Will he be careful enough to see that people are selected who are aware of the need of these great changes and of exploiting the great discoveries which have been made during the war in the world of agriculture, chemistry, physics and other branches of science. Unless the Bill becomes a driving force which will make its contribution in making the necessary changes in the form of our society so that these great discoveries are fully used and implemented into the lives of the people, our Advisory Councils will fail because those responsible for the administration of the Bill will not be aware of the great possibilities awaiting them to-day. The Bill must be a positive force and, if those who are called upon to administer it are not fully seized of the great changes which life is demanding, it will fail. I appeal to the Minister to see to it that progressively minded people, people who are aware of the possibilities of modern life, people who will take possession, as it were, of the great discoveries that have been made are selected so that the Bill will bring about the results that we are all hoping and praying for.
    Mr. Gallacher: I have not spoken on any of the Amendments but I am glad the Minister has resisted these Amendments, which are built up on a basis of utilitarianism. I hope he will
    1810
    select men who, in the spirit of the White Paper and the Bill, view education as something which is an essential part of the make-up of the life of every man and woman in the country. I like the spirit of the Minister in resisting the utilitarianism of this world. I only hope he is strong enough to resist the utilitarianism of the next world.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Ede): On behalf of my right hon Friend I have no hesitation is giving my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr (Mr. Davies) the assurances for which he has asked. I will convey to my right hon. Friend the compliments paid him by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and also the warning he conveyed in the last words of his speech.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Annual Report to Parlia- ment.)
    Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I beg to move, in page 3, line 37, at the end, to add:
    "and such report shall include an account of the matters upon which each of the councils referred to in the preceding Section have advised the Minister and the action of the Minister taken or proposed to be taken thereon or the replies of the Minister thereto and an account of the questions referred by the Minister to each council and the advice of the council thereon."
    The Committee has spent some time in considering the constitution and functions of the Advisory Council. Before the Bill reached the Committee stage many of us entertained considerable doubts as to whether the Minister, and those promoting the Bill, really meant anything serious by the set-up of these Advisory Councils. There was some ground for that in so far as, looking through the Bill, one found that, with the exception of Clause 5, there was no further reference to these Advisory Councils at all, and that in the course of the Second Reading Debate the only references to them were few, scattered and rather minor. But I am glad to see, and so are many others, that the Advisory Councils have become a real live issue. The words of the Minister and the arguments put forward were only intelligible on the basis that the Councils were going to form an integral and a very serious part of the

    1811
    set-up of education. Having arrived at the stage where the Committee is seriously interested in the constitution of the Councils and is satified by the assurance of the Minister that he will do his best to secure representation upon them of every proper aspect of the approach to educational advance, and having got to the stage where we have had delimited the functions of these Advisory Councils, it is now proper that we should turn to the question of what they are going to do.
    Before I approach that I would hark back to the question of their jurisdiction. The Minister assured the Committee yesterday that, on his interpretation of the words of Clause 4, the functions of the two Councils, acting on their own volition, are not limited to the Mere matters of syllabus and curriculum, and that where proper consideration of these matters might involve consideration of administrative questions it was proper that the Council should consider them. That was as far as he would go. It was an advance and allayed some, but not all, of our doubts as to the efficacy of these Councils. It was, however, an advance which we welcomed. I and some of those who are with me on this Amendment are satisfied that the Councils may well find obstacles in their way of functioning as effectively and freely as we would desire and as, judging from the speeches that have been made to-day, most hon. Members would desire them to function. The Minister said that in these matters he stands on his own legs and will not have any dividing line drawn between him and his advisors. That is a perfectly proper attitude to adopt. He stands on his own legs, but I would remind him that the mosaic upon which he stands has been largely tessellated by others.
    We must, in the Bill itself, make sure that the Councils are given an adequate opportunity to function properly. That is why I move the Amendment. It provides that when the Minister makes his annual report to the House, the report shall include four things: first, a statement as to the matters which the Minister has referred to the Councils; second, a report upon the advice tendered to him by the Councils on those matters; third, a report on the matters on which the Councils of their own volition have tendered
    1812
    advice; and, fourth, an account of What the Minister has done in answer to the advice tendered. This is the only way in which the House can ensure that the council is not only properly constituted and has a proper sphere of jurisdiction, but is actually in operation and working. It is the only way in which we can put flesh upon the bones of Clause 4 and in which the House can see that the Councils are what the Minister has promised they shall be, an effective part of the new setup of education. I urge the Amendment on these grounds alone, but there is a further ground which will, I believe, appeal to the Committee. In this Bill we are handing over much wider and more extensive powers to the Minister. Throughout the Bill there are provisions which enable the Minister to act by Order and Regulation. It is right that he should be given these powers, for thus alone can laggard education authorities be kept up to scratch. I do not grudge him the powers. I would even be prepared to give him still further powers. With these powers, however, comes a corresponding duty, a duty which he owes to the House and for which he has to answer to the House. The only way in which the jurisdiction of the Minister over bodies of this kind can be checked is by the Minister telling the House what the Advisory Councils have done, what he has asked them to do, and what he himself has done with regard to their advice.
    Mr. R. Morgan: Is the hon. and learned Member suggesting that the Minister should place his Orders on the Table so that they might be discussed?
    Mr. Hughes: No. I am not now dealing with the Orders and Regulations. That is another facet of the powers given to the Minister. I am dealing with his powers in connection with the functions of the Advisory Council, and I am suggesting that there should be a Parliamentary check over those powers. The only way in what that check can be made is for the Minister's report to be as suggested in the Amendment.
    Mr. Colegate: I am sorry to hear the arguments which have been used on this Amendment. They seem to me to strike at the whole value of these Advisory Councils. If they are to be useful they should work in intimate and in informal contact with the President of the

    1813
    Board. If every transaction that occurs between the President and his Council is to be made the subject of a formal report, it will largely destroy the value of the Council. It will mean that the Minister and his officials will have to set out formally the subjects they want to refer to the Council, and the Council, knowing that its reply is to be printed and presented to the House, will not be able to reply in an informal and probably much more useful way, but will give what will in effect be a political reply. A position will be developed in which the Minister has a double responsibility. He will have a responsibility to this House, and at the same time he will be strictly accountable to the Council whose proceedings will have to be solemnly printed and reported to the House. I have had a good deal of experience in dealing with committees, boards of directors and other bodies. There is a tremendous difference between a formal body, every action of which has to be reported and commented upon, and a body which works informally, quickly and efficiently in the matters with which it has to deal.
    I look for a great advantage to the cause of education from these Advisory Councils, and we want to encourage Ministers to refer questions to them and to get into intimate relations with them so that they, in giving advice on questions remitted to them, can work easily, informally and quickly. If there is to be a shorthand writer present, as there will have to be if the Amendment is carried, to report in detail on what is remitted to the Council and what the Council's opinions are, with probably minority reports and voting on the Council, it will do serious injury to what ought to be one of the most valuable features of the Bill. It will undoubtedly in many cases lead to the Council giving advice on what are not absolutely true grounds. Let us take an example. We all know the enthusiastic spirit which animates the Welsh Members. When a question is discussed by the Council a Welsh member of the Council will feel inclined to give a report on that question, and possibly sign a minority report, which will exhibit to the world the intensive fervour of his Welsh nationalism. The same thing will apply to people connected with rural education or technical education. They will be thinking all the time of their constituents. If a man is put on the Advisory Council and he is considered
    1814
    as representing agriculture or technical education or Welsh interests, he tends to regard his particular interest as his constituents. Therefore he will tend not to give that intimate and sound advice that is usually given in private, but will tend to make his reply, so far as he is concerned, a political or technical demonstration, having regard to the interests which he may be supposed, or regarded, as representing on that Advisory Council.
    The Amendment would do two things; it would make invalid a large amount of the private, intimate and valued advice and counsel that such a Council might give. Secondly, it would tend to derogate from the functions of this House. If we found that this Council was not working rightly and any decision taken was not what we wanted, it would be for us to hammer the question out here in the usual constitutional fashion rather than to rely upon the out-of-date—as it would be—report of long ago happenings. In some cases it would be a considerable time since the discussions, and all the time we should know that the discussions so reported would have been placed on the Table, because they would have to be reported. That is not the kind of advice which the Council would give in the most intimate manner to the Minister.
    Mr. Ede: I hope that the Committee will not feel it necessary to spend very long on this Amendment in view of the statement which I am going to make. We recognise that there is a hiatus here in the Bill. There should be an arrangement whereby the House of Commons knows what the advisory committees have been doing and how they are composed, but we cannot go as far as the words of the Amendment. I do not know, either, that I would go as far in opposition to the Amendment as the hon. Member for the The Wrekin (Mr. Colegate), whose speech seems to have been too much on the other side. Therefore, I am for once in the safe position of pursuing the via media. We are prepared, if the Committee will accept it, to move an Amendment to add, at the end of the Clause, these words:
    "and of the composition and proceedings of the Central Advisory Councils for education."
    That will give to the House a knowledge of the persons who have been appointed and, without going into all the details which my hon. Friend behind me has suggested, would have to be given under

    1815
    the terms of the Amendment now under discussion, would enable the House of Commons to be fully informed of the subjects that had been discussed. If there was a desire for further information, a question could be addressed to my right hon. Friend. After all, we do desire that, on a good many matters, the association between the Board and the Advisory Councils shall be of the informal character indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin, but if we were tied by the very exacting words of the Amendment we might, on occasion, be handicapped in getting that advice which would be most useful to us and to the education system of the country. I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that we have met the spirit of his Amendment in a way which implies that the annual Report shall contain, in addition to a statement of what the Board itself has been doing, a statement of the persons who have been appointed, any variation in the personnel of the Councils during the year and a general report of their proceedings, so that the House shall be able to feel that the Councils have become a really live partner in the central administration of education in this country.
    Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I need hardly say that I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has been able to meet us in the spirit of the Amendment which I moved. Indeed, in one way, and I freely confess it, the concession is better than the Amendment, which was very important, having regard to past experience of the consultative committee, where matters, generally speaking, were very formally put to them and considered at great length. I am glad to think that the Parliamentary Secretary is now envisaging that these Advisory Councils shall not only consider formal matters to be the proper subject of report but shall be consulted informally also. Having received that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: In page 3, line 37, at the end, insert:
    "and of the composition and proceedings of the Central Advisory Councils for edlication."—[Mr. Ede.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Gallacher: Two words of advice to the Minister, who was not in the Committee when the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Colegate) was speaking. The hon. Member gave us a very clear exposure of the Tory mind: one thing in private and another thing in public. I advise the Minister at all costs to keep the Tories off the Advisory Councils.
    Mr. Colegate: I resist that recommendation.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Local education authorities.)
    The Chairman: In regard to this Clause, as interested Members are aware, I am not proposing to call Amendments which relate to the setting up of other education authorities. The appropriate place for those Amendments to be moved is on the First Schedule The first Amendment that I propose to call is that in the name of the Minister, in page 4, line 6, to leave out from "property," to "immediately," in line 7, and to insert "which."
    Mr. Hutchinson: On a point of Order. The announcement which you have just made, Major Milner, is of great importance to hon. Members who have put down Amendments to the Clause. I am sure that it will be the wish of the Committee that the implications of the decision which you have just announced should be fully appreciated. There are, on the Order Paper, a number of Amendments——
    Several Hon. Members: What are we discussing?
    The Chairman: I understand the hon. and learned Member is speaking to a point of Order or asking for information.
    Mr. Hutchinson: The point of Order which I am now putting is of some importance. I was about to say that there are, on the Order Paper, several Amendments which seek to make it possible for local authorities who are neither county councils nor county borough councils to be the local education authorities, within certain areas. I believe that the Committee will wish to be sure that Amendments which have that object will be in Order when we reach the discussion on the Schedule. There are several Amend-

    1817
    ments put down by hon. Members who desire to discuss that question. It would be a misfortune if, when we came to the Schedule, it should turn out that Amendments which have that object for their purpose should prove to be out of Order. My point of Order, therefore, is: May we have an assurance that Amendments of that nature will be in Order?
    The Chairman: I cannot bind myself that particular Amendments will be called, but, without doubt those Amendments which have the intention indicated by the hon. and learned Gentleman will certainly be in Order and there will be a full opportunity for discussion on them, when we come to the Schedule. There is no reason why this question should not be as fully discussed on the Schedule as it would have been on Clause 6, had it been proper to raise it on the Clauses.
    Mr. Loftus: Some of us refrained during the Debate on the White Paper, and on the Second Reading of the Bill, from raising this subject, in the hope that, on the Committee stage, we should be able to put the case for the Part III authorities. I take it that on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," we shall have the opportunity of putting the case shortly?
    The Chairman: No. Obviously, we cannot have two Debates on the same subject. There may be no objection to the matter being mentioned in passing, but the details must wait until the Debate on the Amendments to the First Schedule.
    Mr. Loftus: Some of us understood that we would have an opportunity in Committee to put the general case. Many hundreds of thousands of our constituents feel a keen sense of grievance and perhaps expect us to divide on the Clause.
    The Chairman: I have already indicated that there will be ample opportunity for discussion on the First Schedule.
    Sir Adam Maitland: Without questioning your Ruling, Major Milner, may I submit that in this Clause a very important policy is laid down, that the local education authority for each county shall be the council of the county, and for each county borough the council of that county borough. If that principle is passed, notwithstanding the fact that there are many Amendments on the matter on the Order Paper suggesting that
    1818
    other bodies might be included, those who are submitting these Amendments will be placed in a rather difficult position. This is a very important matter. By the Clause we propose to abolish a very large number of existing local authorities, whose representations should, however, be considered, and who should have an opportunity of being heard in the most general way. This will be a very protracted discussion, and it may be that when we come to the Schedule there will be some pressure or a Guillotine imposed on the consideration of those Amendments. I would like to impress upon you, Major Milner, my hope that, in no circumstances shall we be barred from discussing the principle in the Amendments which are now being postponed.
    The Chairman: The hon. Member has indicated the answer to his own questions. Clause 6 (1) says:
    "subject to the provisions of Part I of the First Schedule.…"
    county councils and county borough councils shall be the local education authorities. Obviously no decision can be taken contrary to the First Schedule, having regard to these opening words of the Clause.
    Mr. Hutchinson Mr. Hutchinson rose——
    The Chairman: Unless there is some new point we must proceed.
    Major Woolley: As the principle behind these Amendments is one of the most contentious principles in the Bill, there should be a reasonable opportunity to debate it at a later stage, but there is in our minds the possibility that if the Bill is somewhat delayed the Government may come along with a Guillotine and we shall lose that opportunity. We want to be satisfied on that point.
    Mr. McEntee: On that point of Order. I hope it will not be forgotten that some of us in the Committee take an entirely contrary point of view, and that if the Guillotine is put into operation, it will hit us just as much as those Members who take the opposite point of view.
    The Chairman: I think hon Members are raising quite hypothetical questions and that it will be better to let The Bill proceed. I may perhaps say that I fully

    1819
    recognise the feeling of hon. Members who have Amendments down, but I have given serious consideration to the matter, and have taken the best advice available, and I assure hon. Members that they would be well advised to leave the matter until the Schedule is reached. There is no reason why they should not then have full opportunity to put their points.
    Sir John Mellor: As the implication of your Ruling, Major Milner, is that the Clause will be the shadow and the Schedule will be the substance, would it not be desirable to postpone discussion of the Clause and discuss it together with the Schedule?
    The Chairman: That is not really a point of Order. As hon. Members know I have complete discretion in this matter but I am anxious to facilitate the wishes of interested Members in every way.
    Mr. Hutchinson: May I put this point arising out of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir A. Maitland)? He has pointed out that the first Sub-section of Clause 6 provides that subject to the provisions of Part I of the First Schedule, certain authorities shall be the local education authorities. I think my hon. Friend is expressing the opinion of many of us that the case for local authorities, other than county councils and county borough councils, will to some extent be prejudiced if we pass to-day a Clause which provides that those two authorities are to be the local education authorities. The point I want to put is this: It does seem to be an illogical thing that we should pass to-day a Sub-section which provides that certain authorities shall be local education authorities, and that, in order to find what authorities shall be the local education authorities, one should then have to look at the Schedule. Would you, Major Milner, be prepared to accept an Amendment to this Sub-section which I handed in to the Table to-day in manuscript form? The effect of it would be that the first Subsection of Clause 6 should be omitted and a new Sub-section inserted which would be in line with the Ruling which you gave earlier to-day. The new Sub-section I suggest would be in these terms:
    "The local education authority for each area shall be the authority mentioned in Part I of the First Schedule of the Bill."
    1820
    If that Amendment were accepted, it would mean that the whole question of which local authorities are to be the local education authorities, would be deferred until the Committee reaches the Schedule, and we could then have a complete discussion on that subject unprejudiced by the fact that we had already passed a Clause which provides that certain authorities are to be the local education authorities.
    The Chairman: I have had an opportunity of considering the proposed Amendment but I regret that I cannot select it. The object, in fact, would be to obtain on this particular Clause, a Debate which ought, in my view, to be taken on the Schedule. All the points of substance which Members wish to make can be taken on the Schedule.
    Sir A. Maitland: I would like to put another suggestion. I am sorry, Major Milner, you could not accept the Amendment which has been suggested. It would have helped those of us who feel strongly on the matter. Unfortunately, if Clause 6 is passed and it should be found later that something which it is wished to put cannot be brought up under the Schedule, the back bench Member is helpless, but the Government could recommit Clause 6. May I ask for an assurance from my right hon. Friend that, if necessary—and I am quite prepared to leave it to his judgment—he will be prepared to recommit Clause 6 if it is found that certain Amendments now on the Paper cannot be put forward?
    The Chairman: I really cannot allow that question. Hon. Members know that there are other stages of the Bill during which Members may raise these matters if necessary.
    Mr. Lipson: Would it be in Order when this Clause is under discussion for Members who object to the principle to say so during the discussion on the Clause, and give their reasons, as if those who object to this principle cannot have this discussion now their only course of action is to vote against the Clause?
    The Chairman: It may be possible for one side to indicate their views and for the other side to indicate their objections in general terms, but certainly not in detail. We must now proceed.
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 4, line 6, to leave out from "property," to "immediately," in line 7, and to insert "which."
    This Amendment runs with a subsequent one on page 4, line 8, after "Act," to insert "was held by the council of any county district solely or mainly."
    The effect would be that the opening words of Sub-section (3) would read:
    "All property which immediately before the date of the commencement of this part of this Act was held by the council of any county or district solely or mainly for the purposes of any functions …"
    etc. The Clause as drafted would have transferred from the county district council to the county council any property which was being used for educational purposes on the date of the transfer of the functions from the county district council to the county council. It is clear that there are a substantial number of properties which are used by the district county council for its functions which are used for other than education functions. There may for instance be a school clinic which during some part of the day is used for that purpose and during another part of the day is a maternity and child welfare clinic used by the county district council in carrying out its functions as maternity and child welfare authority. It would clearly be wrong to transfer in every case such a building. Most schools I imagine, if not all the schools, are used for education functions only, but there are a number of ancillary services which are carried on by county district councils and which are housed in buildings which are also partly used for education purposes.
    The object of this Amendment is to ensure that only those buildings should be transferred which are solely or mainly used for education functions. I cannot imagine there is any objection to the transfer of those which are used solely for education functions, for clearly on the appointed day the power of the county district council to exercise those functions, where a building or other property is required solely for the purpose, will have finished, and the building would be useless to them, and will be required by the county council for carrying on the education service which was previously the duty of the county district council and which has now become the duty of the county council.
    1822
    When we come to buildings which are mainly used it is clear that there will be certain cases of dispute, and these are dealt with in a subsequent Clause of the Bill and the dispute will be settled. But I imagine that in most cases there will be a pretty good indication of the extent to which they are in fact used for education functions, for if they are so used the cost of their upkeep will have been charged against the education accounts of the county district council. It is always done with great care for there is a grant payable by the Board of Education in respect of the expense if they are used for education functions, whereas for some of the other functions no grant is payable. Therefore the county district council has taken great care to see that the appropriate sum is charged against the education vote in its accounts in respect of the functions for which that property is used. I hope the Committee will feel that in this Amendment to the Clause we have shown a desire to meet the reasonable fears which have been expressed on certain occasions by the county district councils and their representatives, and the Amendment now moved, coupled with the other one I have mentioned, will enable them to retain those buildings which are more concerned with the other county district council functions than education and will ensure that the education service in their area shall be efficiently carried on by the county council after the appointed day.
    Mr. Hutchinson: There was an Amendment on the Paper in my name and in the names of some of my hon. Friends which dealt with this matter. Although the Amendment now moved by the Parliamentary Secretary does not quite cover the whole of the same ground, it goes a very long way to meet our point. In those circumstances, I desire to say that we are grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for the manner in which this point has been met. I have said that his Amendment does not quite cover the ground. There are certain cases of property in the hands of the county districts which stand on a rather different footing from the classes of property to which this Amendment refers. In certain cases the county districts have obtained property, sometimes buildings and land, and in some cases sums of money, which have been given to them or left to them by persons who desired to promote the interests of

    1823
    education in that particular district. That class of property is on rather a different footing from the class to which my hon. Friend refers. In those cases, it seems undesirable, and certainly quite out of accord with the intentions of the donors, that this property should be transferred to the county council.
    Mr. Ede: Perhaps it might help if I said that the later Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend—in line 13, to leave out
    "by virtue of this Section be transferred"
    and to insert:
    "save as may be otherwise directed by the Minister under the powers conferred on him by this Act, be transferred by virtue of this Section"—
    is designed to deal with the point that the hon. and learned Member is now raising, and I do not want him, when that Amendment is discussed, to be ruled out on the ground that he has dealt with the point on this Amendment.
    Mr. Hutchinson: In those circumstances I will raise it on the later Amendment.
    Mr. Wakefield: There is an Amendment down in the name of myself and other hon. Members on this point of the transfer of property. Is it your intention, Sir Cyril, to call that Amendment?
    The Temporary Chairman (Sir Cyril Entwistle): No, the point is covered by this Amendment, and the hon. Member's Amendment will not be selected. If he desires to say anything on the point he had better say it now.
    Mr. Wakefield: The Amendment which I and my hon. Friends put down is somewhat different. I would suggest that the Amendment proposed by the Minister does not cover what we had in mind. As I understand it, the effect of paragraph (3) of Clause 6 is to transfer to the county council all educational property held by the authority. That means that schools and property which have been paid for by the authorities now exercising the powers will be transferred to the county council. The Minister has said that, in the case of excepted districts, it is his intention to give them such powers as will enable them to be practically autonomous and to act with dignity. To transfer all the property from an authority which has been carrying on higher
    1824
    education—as is the case in my own constituency, where there is a technical college with no debt, where everything has been paid for by the authority and which is carrying out a first-class job of work—together with secondary schools, all belonging to the local authority, is not in accord with what I and my hon. Friends understood to be the undertaking given by the Minister. If an excepted district is, to all intents and purposes, as I understood, to carry out powers of delegation, and if all the property belonging to that authority is removed from its control, there is reason for the grave anxiety which I know is felt by such authorities. If the position has been misunderstood by my hon. Friends or by the local authorities concerned, I hope that the Minister will explain it. As I see it under this Bill, all property belonging to an authority in such circumstances as exist in my constituency will be transferred from the authority to the county council. That is highly unsatisfactory to any authority which has faithfully and successfully discharged its duties in connection with secondary education.
    Sir A. Maitland: I am not sure whether your reply, Sir Cyril, to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield) referred also to the Amendment in my name and that of the hon. and gallant Member for Darwen (Captain Prescott)—in line 23, at the end, to insert a new Subsection (5)—or is that Amendment to be called?
    The Temporary Chairman: Yes, that is down to be called.
    Mr. Messer: Much of the ground which has been covered by the Parliamentary Secretary deals with matters contained in my Amendment, to line 18. Will you permit me to speak on my Amendment, as well as on this Amendment? That might save time.
    The Temporary Chairman: I am told that it would be preferable if that were done on the next Amendment. When an Amendment is not selected, it does not mean that hon. Members can put all the details of it in the discussion on some other Amendment. It can only be referred to, in so far as it is relevant to the Amendment before the Committee.
    Mr. Messer: Is it intended to call my Amendment?
    The Temporary Chairman: I have indicated to the hon. Member that he can discuss his points on a later Amendment which the Minister is going to move, on line 13.
    Mr. Messer: Do you intend to call my Amendment?
    The Temporary Chairman: No.
    Mr. Lipson: I rise for the purpose of getting the position clarified. There seems to be some mystery about what is to happen to the buildings put up by an authority which has ceased to function under this Bill and whose buildings have passed to some new authority. It would create a very dangerous precedent unless proper safeguards were contained in the financial adjustment when property is to pass from one authority to another. Is the financial adjustment to be based on the same principle as when boundaries are rearranged under the Local Government Act? Will there be some arrangement by which the local ratepayers who have put up schools and maintained them out of their own resources will get adequate compensation? If we can have a plain answer to that, a great deal of concern will be removed. Local authorities realise that under the new proposals they will be much worse off, and they think that the children under their care will not get so good an education. If, in addition, the property is taken without adequate compensation being paid, they will think that that is adding insult to injury with a vengeance.
    Mr. Loftus: I take it that buildings used, wholly or mainly for education, will be taken over by the new authority. I could give an instance where some difficulty may occur. In Lowestoft an area school was built, costing £50,000. I had the honour of opening it. I said on that occasion that I hoped that that lovely building, with seven acres of ground, would be used, especially in summer-time, when school was over, as a kind of social and artistic and recreational resort for local people. When you hand over the use and ownership of the school to a new authority 40 or 50 miles away, will that not prevent these grounds being used by local societies and individuals to improve the amenities of the district?
    Mr. Messer: The local education authority at the present time may use
    1826
    buildings which are not school buildings, but which are borrowed for the purpose, and when the new education authority takes over the property it will need to continue using those buildings for a time. But the local authority which built them might ultimately require them for the purposes for which they were originally intended. It is purely a war-time expedient that they are being used for other purposes. Is there any arrangement whereby such property can revert to the local authority? Some schools which have taken on a new departure have been compelled to use ordinary private houses. Where no building has taken place, those houses will continue to be needed for a specific purpose which was not intended by their original builders.
    Lieut.-Commander Tufnell: I should like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield) in what he said about this Amendment. It is most important that we should get an answer about the taking over of these buildings. It is all very well if an educational authority like Cambridge, which has for so many years been efficient and had its own buildings, is turned over to the county council. Even though the local education authority are an excepted authority, the fact that they have been turned over to the county council, who have financial control, means that the county council are controlling the policy of education in that particular area. It is most important that these authorities should be assured of their position.
    Mr. Mack: There is a possibility of this part of the Measure being extended, particularly in boroughs such as mine, where we have a population of 68,000 and where the educational work is carried on in a most efficient and satisfactory manner. We have before us the prospect of that property being transferred to the county council without any guarantee of the same efficiency afterwards. We are an excepted district under the Schedule, and, apart from the feelings of the executive officers in the educational department of the borough, there is a general feeling throughout the whole town, irrespective of political parties, that the very right and proper pride which they have taken in their educational institutions should be reserved to them. It seems that too much authority is to be placed in the hands of the Minister, and provision

    1827
    should be made for an appeal to Parliament, because if there is to be dissatisfaction in a large number of these non-county boroughs—and the agitation has been made very clear by meetings all over the country—I think the Minister might with wisdom pay due regard, not to a small body of opinion, but to a large and increasing volume. I am not taking a narrow parochial attitude, but there is much to be said for local pride. Time and again hon. Members in this House have expressed pride in their constituencies, and their old customs and traditions, and, as far as education is concerned, where it has been established, and can be assured, that due and proper provision is made to cater not only for primary but for secondary and higher education the Minister might well look into the matter again. He might also have regard to the concern which is likely to be aroused by the transference of these properties. I therefore feel that I can with great justice and sympathy support the point made by the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield).
    Mr. Lewis: I would like to point out that nine-tenths of these difficulties and anxieties arise from the ill-judged proposal to sweep away a number of efficient education authorities and hand over their work to the county councils. I ask the Minister whether he will not consider this point of view seriously, and reconsider this proposal before we come to discuss Part 1 of the present Schedule.
    Mr. Viant: There are other Amendments on the Order Paper dealing with the points that have been advanced. The Part III authorities, who will be affected in the main, naturally have been rather apprehensive as to what is to happen in respect of the property they have been using for educational purposes. Being put out of business, as it were, by this Bill, they become concerned about the property acquired and used for educational purposes. I am rather pleased with the Amendment which has been moved. I believe it is a far better Amendment than others on the Paper, though it may not go all the way and may not exactly meet the local authorities in the way they desire. That remains to be seen, but I would impress upon the Minister that the point made by the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) is a very important one. I know that in my own
    1828
    division property has been acquired and used, not only by the education authority, but by the local authority, for other purposes, and it will need a spirit of arbitration, probably, in order to arrive at an amicable understanding whereby equity may be effected and no feeling of injustice remain. I hope that the following Amendment will enable us to meet that object, and, in ushering in this new Measure, leave no room for any feeling of doubt or injustice.
    Mr. Ede: I think that some of the misgivings expressed in the course of this Debate have been due to the fact that it has not been quite appreciated that the arrangements in the First Schedule of this Bill have been designed to secure the greatest possible flexibility in administration in various parts of the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield), for instance, stressed very much his concern for the future management of the property. We must recognise from the start that only the education authority can have the property vested in it, because only the local education authority has the power to raise a rate to maintain it, or raise a loan for its extension or improvement to such an extent that a loan is required for the purpose. But the First Schedule enables the excepted districts, which is the case to which the hon. Member was referring, to frame their schemes for the future management of the property Therefore, it will be up to the excepted districts, that is, those with over 60,000 in population or 7,000 in school population, to put into their schemes such an arrangement in regard to management as will meet their requirements, and I would point out that nobody, between an excepted district and the Minister, can alter the scheme they have prepared. Therefore, in so far as there is any doubt about management in the case of the big authorities, it is quite clear that they are amply able to look after themselves as the Bill is framed. We should not leave property vested in them, because they have no power to raise money or extend the property if that was required. I think that also answers the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Cambridge (Lieut.-Commander Tufnell).
    The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) asked about financial adjustments. He will see that they are referred

    1829
    to in Clause 89, Sub-section (2) and Sub-section (3) of the Bill, and I should imagine that proceedings under these Sub-sections would follow the precedent which he has named. The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) raised the question of a particular school which had the great advantage of being opened by him under auspices which enabled him to deliver an eloquent speech, the full force of which has not been lost up to the present either on the hon. Member or the audience.
    Mr. Loftus: Deal with the point.
    Mr. Ede: I am going to deal with it, but it was necessary to mention to which hon. Member I was referring before I proceeded to deal with it. He desires, and I am quite sure it is a thing that most enlightened administrators have desired, to see those buildings, and the playing fields and the surround of the school, used for the general amenity of the district in which it is situated. Well, it is true that the school and the playing fields will vest, for the reasons I have just given, in the county council in future, but the school will be under the management of the divisional executive, and I am quite certain that the people of Lowestoft will be just as keen in carrying out the desires of the hon. Member when represented on the divisional executive as they are when represented on the education committee. I can remember days when the hon. Member could hardly have wished to be associated with the Lowestoft education authority, but they are, fortunately, far in the background.
    Mr. Loftus: I will reply to that on the question of the Clause standing part.
    Mr. Ede: That is a pleasure in store. The hon. Members for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) and West Willesden (Mr. Viant) raised points with regard to certain properties which are at present in temporary use for educational purposes, owing to circumstances arising out of the war. It will be hoped that, whoever is the education authority in those areas, will, as soon as possible after the war, replace these temporary premises by proper school accommodation. Under Clause 89, what will then be the fate of the buildings which have temporarily been used for school purposes will come up for consideration, and there is power in that
    1830
    Clause for agreement to be reached between the county district council and the county council, or for the Minister to decide what the appropriate course should be. If we bear in mind that the buildings and property must be vested in the authority, it is clear, I think, that the Amendments I have moved, on behalf of the Minister, do meet the legitimate fears that have been expressed, and I hope the Committee will feel that we have endeavoured to meet the difficulties Which some county district councils feared might face them when the Bill, as originally drafted, came into operation.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The Temporary Chairman: The next three Amendments on the Order Paper are not selected.
    Mr. Ralph Etherton: May I ask your guidance, Sir Cyril, in regard to the Amendment to Clause 6, page 4, line 5, which seeks to insert a proviso? Does that come within your Ruling to leave these matters over?
    The Temporary Chairman: That stage has been passed.
    Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 8, after "Act", insert:
    "was held by the council of any county district solely or mainly."—[Mr. Butler.]
    Mr. Butler: I beg to move, in page 4, line 13, to leave out "by virtue of this section be transferred," and to insert:
    "save as may be otherwise directed by the Minister under the powers conferred on him by this Act be transferred by virtue of this section."
    This Amendment covers the point raised in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Faversham (Sir A. Maitland)—in page 4, line 23, at end, to add:
    "(5) The provisions of subsection (3) of this section shall not apply to any property which was the subject of a gift devise or bequest and which immediately before the date of the commencement of this part of this Act is held by the council of a county district for the purposes of any of the said functions, but the local education authority shall have such facilities for using such property as may be agreed between them and the council of the county district, or as failing such agreement may be determined by the Minister and any such user shall be upon and subject to such terms and conditions as may be so agreed or determined."
    If it were convenient, I think it would be useful if we could consider these two together.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: Is the Minister including also my Amendment: In page 4, line 23, at end, to add:
    "(5) Nothing in this section shall operate to transfer any officers or servants of the council of a county district not employed exclusively for exercising any functions of the council under the said Education Acts and all such officers and servants shall continue to be the servants of such council."
    The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member had better raise his point after the Minister has dealt with the Amendment.
    Mr. Butler: We are dealing with a very complicated Amendment and if I might give a little guidance we have been considering property. I am only intervening for a short while on the question of buildings which may have been given or bequeathed to an authority which exists at present and of property which may be transferred to a county. The purpose of this small Amendment is to enable provision to be made whereby specific gifts and bequests to a former authority may be exempted from transfer to the new local education authority. It reads:
    "save as may be otherwise directed by the Minister under the powers conferred on him by this Act be transferred by virtue of this Section."
    It is, of course, necessary for the Government to make some inquiries in the intervening stages before we reach Clause 89, which is the Clause upon which we wish to move the final Amendment dealing with this matter. I would like to consider the nature of these bequests. If the hon. Member would agree to put his Amendment in here it would save the position, as Clause 89 is linked up with this Clause, and it means that we could then consider the exact details of how we propose to deal with this matter. It is the intention of the Government to meet the desires of the hon. Member for Faversham (Sir A. Maitland) in his Amendment and the desires expressed to us by certain county district councils so that property and particular endowments which were bequeathed or left to them shall be saved by provisions such as he has in mind. If the Committee would accept this form of Amendment we shall save the position on Clause 6 and deal with it on Clause 89.
    Sir A. Maitland: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend and I am quite prepared to accept his assurance that the
    1832
    words he suggests will cover the points which are proposed, but it is only fair that the Committee should know the kind of example which is in my mind in regard to my Amendment. It raises by way of an example the case where a building has been bequeathed to a city, and where the town clerk has called the attention of the local authorities to the fact that the corporation is using the property for educational purposes. In this instance it was being used for higher education and the education authorities paid a rent to the city corporation. The building concerned is one of the most imposing and artistic examples of natural stone that has ever existed in the district. If the donor of this building knew that it was going to be filched from the corporation by the county council he would almost turn in his grave.
    There are wider aspects and I hope my right hon. Friend will have regard to them, but I gather from what he said that he desires to consider the whole question of how he can best retain the present position which is enjoyed by the existing owners. I take it that that is the position my right hon. Friend takes up, and I thank him for his assurance.
    Mr. Hutchinson: I desire to put this further point to my right hon. Friend. There are certain cases where a sum of money has been left or has been given to a local authority for educational purposes. Such sums of money are usually held under the terms of a trust deed which imposes upon the authority the duty of applying the trust funds to certain educational purposes. The point that I desire to put to my right hon. Friend is, will this Amendment cover the case where the property which is held by the local authority consist of a sum of money as well as the case where the property consists of land and buildings?
    Mr. McEntee: There is another aspect that I am somewhat confused about and that is the case where a building has been given to a local authority and where, if the Bill goes through in its present form, that building would become the property of the new authority of the county. It may be that the building itself is not an asset but a liability. It may have been an asset in the past but has become a liability, and if it is passed over as a liability to the county who would be

    1833
    compelled to maintain that liability, would it be the local authority or the county? Would it not be better to give an opportunity for negotiation between the two authorities with, if you like, the Minister finally deciding if agreement were not reached? There are such properties and I think everybody in the House must know of them.
    Mr. Butler: Clause 89 has been inserted in the Bill to deal with adjustments. It has a very convenient wording to cover property. My Amendment on this particular occasion deals with gifts and bequests, and I am glad to feel that the same buildings I have in mind were mentioned by the hon. Member for Faversham and I am grateful to him for withdrawing his Amendment. The hon. and learned Member for Ilford also had gifts in mind. The hon. Gentleman with his legal acumen must be fully aware of the provisions in Section 268 of the Local Government Act, 1933. It permits certain authorities, which are not local education authorities, to accept and administer gifts of property, and a general provision to this effect is inserted in the Section to which I have referred. It is because we have to have regard to that sort of problem that I purposely got the terms of the Amendment put down. It will be the duty of the Government to examine this in some detail in an attempt to meet the cases that both hon. Members put forward, and if they will agree we will leave it at that.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Hutchinson: I beg to move, in page 4, line 16, at the beginning, to insert:
    "Unless a scheme of divisional administration under Part III of the said Schedule shall otherwise provide."
    The Amendment, which stands in my name and that of other hon. Members, has for its purpose the modification of the provisions in the Bill dealing with the transfer of officers. The Bill provides that all officers employed by the council of a county district immediately before the said date shall be transferred to the local education authority. The object of the Amendment is to postpone the transfer of the officers until a later stage, and to provide that the transfer shall take place in accordance with the scheme of the divisional administration. The reason for this can be stated shortly. During the period whilst the schemes of divisional
    1834
    administration are being formulated by the local education authority, it is, in our view, desirable that the officers of the county districts should continue to be officers of their authorities until the provision of the schemes of divisional administration are known. It would be more convenient for the schemes of divisional administration to be formulated if the county districts retained their officers as their servants during the period of discussion and negotiation. Therefore, we are asking, by this Amendment, that the transfer of officers shall not be carried out automatically as soon as the appropriate date is reached, but that the transfer should be effected under the schemes of divisional administration. It would thus be easier and more satisfactory for the negotiations leading to these schemes of divisional administration to be carried out.
    Mr. Silverman: I—and I am sure that I am not alone—have the utmost difficulty in hearing what the hon. and learned Member is saying, and as a great many of us are interested in this matter perhaps he will endeavour to speak up.
    The Deputy-Chairman: It seems to be a proper complaint.
    Mr. Hutchinson: I would like to assure hon. Members opposite that I am very anxious that they should hear everything which I have to say. I was saying that we are asking by this Amendment that the transfer of the officers shall be postponed until the schemes of divisional administration are formulated. I was going on to say that I have seen it suggested in some of the newspapers that the reason why the county districts desire to retain their officers until the schemes of divisional administration came into operation is because they wish to set them against the officers of the local education authority. I desire to say that whoever is responsible for that observation in the newspapers is completely misinformed. They have no desire to do anything of the kind, but they do desire to retain the services and advice of their officers until these negotiations for the divisional schemes of administration have been completed. We are seeking to do that by this Amendment.
    Mr. Ede: One has to bear in mind here what I said with regard to the vesting of

    1835
    property, that only the authority can raise the rate to pay the officers' salaries. If a county district council has in fact lost its education functions, I do not know under what power it would raise the money in order to pay the salary of an officer dealing with education functions. That may appear to be somewhat too legalistic, although I am surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) should object to anybody being legalistic.
    Mr. Silverman: Does not my hon. Friend understand that no lawyer likes to be legalistic?
    Mr. Ede: I will deal with the practical point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson). We are aware of the difficulty that will arise with regard to the transfer of the functions, and, clearly, the local administration will have to be carried on as from 1st April, 1945, by somebody or other. It is, therefore, desirable that the arrangements mentioned in the First Schedule to the Bill shall be in a position to come into force on that day, and in order to secure that we have inserted Clause 99, Sub-section (2) in the Bill which enables the Minister to bring forward the operation of Part II of the Bill in so far as it deals with the setting up of the divisional executive. If we may assume—and it is a very rash assumption on the progress that we have made during the last two days—that this Bill is going to become law by, say, the end of June—I am still hopeful of that—there will clearly be plenty of time in which the divisional executives can exercise their option and can prepare their schemes, with their own officers still in their employ capable of giving them advice direct. That practical point disposes of the necessity for the Amendment.
    I might perhaps add a word with regard to what my hon. and learned Friend said about certain statements that have been made in the Press. I do not think that anyone connected with the Board of Education has ever paid the slightest attention to these statements. We realise that, although there is very strong feeling on this matter on the part of certain education authorities, when this House has reached a decision on the matter, no matter which way it may go, all those who are engaged in local administration will
    1836
    carry out their usual practice of seeing that the decision of this House is made effective. I do not think that in practice the point made by my hon. and learned Friend is likely to arise and I hope therefore this will enable him to feel that this particular Amendment is not necessary.
    Sir Herbert Williams: I gather that the hon. Gentleman's objection to the Amendment was that there would be no one to pay the money, but under Part III, paragraph (2) of the First Schedule where it contemplates the setting up of such bodies, obviously these bodies cannot function unless they have officers and the officers are provided with remuneration. Therefore I cannot see what bearing his reference to the point that no one will have money to pay them can have on the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend.
    Sir Irving Albery: I also cannot understand where the money question comes in.
    Mr. Ede: Replying to the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery) first, this is a question of whose employment a person is in. He can only be in the employment of the local authority which has the power of discharging certain functions. The functions will be transferred on the 1st April, 1945, to the County Council, and from that date they are the only persons who can raise a rate to pay the officer's salary, and the budget prepared by the county district council in its position as Divisional Executive will in fact be raised by the County Council, and the person to be employed under it must be in the employment of the County Council. It is a question very much like the one we had on buildings. As to who manages the duties after the scheme has been prepared is another matter from the question of with whom the functions were originally placed. I do not quite follow the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams). I think it is dealt with by the last part of the answer I have given to the hon. Member for Gravesend. The Divisional Executives will have funds, they derive them from the County Council, and the County Council is the only body which can raise a rate in order to pay the salaries of these people. If the Divisional Executives have any money it is only money that comes from the County Council.
    Sir H. Williams: But whose servants are they? They may be the servants of the Divisional Executive and not necessarily the servants of the County Council, but the County Council will be under an obligation to provide money for the Divisional Executive.
    Mr. Ede: I am advised that they must be in the employment of the County Council. They will be the servants of the County Council, although the directions given to them may come from the Divisional Executive.
    Mr. Silverman: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman ought to accept this Amendment or not. I can see no reason why he should not. I cannot see that any of his purposes would be adversely affected if the Amendment were accepted, leaving a proper interval of time during which any other arrangements that might ultimately be considered are made. I rise because I am utterly incapable of following my hon. Friend's objection on financial grounds. He says there will be nobody who can raise the money, and I do not understand why he says this. All these people are now the servants of some authority—I am not going to argue of which authority they are the servants because it does not matter in the least—serving under a contract of service which gives them a right to have their salary paid by the authority, whose servants they are. It is idle to say that the authority whose servants they are, who is liable to them for the payment of their salary, has no authority under its general rate-raising authority to pay legal debts of which this would be one. If the hon. Gentleman's only objection to accepting the Amendment pressed upon him is the alleged practical difficulty of finding money to pay the salaries of the officers concerned, then I think it is an objection that he may dismiss from his mind with the utmost confidence because there is really nothing in it at all.
    Sir I. Albery: I am a little concerned by the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary because I know the districts which will be affected by this are pinning a lot of faith to the promise which has been held out to them in that direction. If, as I understand, they are to be allowed to frame budgets for the expenditure on education within their districts, it appears to me that has no meaning unless it means that after framing these budgets they are
    1838
    going to lose the responsibility for framing expenditure and for carrying out expenditure which they are going to get through the County Councils. I cannot see any reason why money difficulty arises at all; in fact, it rather appears to me as if a very good case could be made out that these officials should remain the servants of the Divisional Executives.
    Mr. Stephen: If the Divisional Executive wants to dispense with the services of these people, can it do so or must the dismissal be carried through by the County Council?, If the County Council and the Divisional Executive differ about the circumstances of the individual, what will happen?
    Mr. Ede: In answer to the last question, it all depends upon the scheme. The scheme may give the District Executive the power to appoint and dismiss the officer. It may give it to them in the form that the appointment and dismissal may have to be confirmed by the County Council concerned. The point raised by the hon. Member is entirely one for the scheme.
    Mr. Stephen: If we agree to what the hon. Gentleman says, the County Council is the employer of the person concerned, but I take it that the terms of service of this employee of the County Council may be determined by the Divisional Executive, according to the scheme, and it is an extraordinary thing that such employer technically will not have the right of dismissal. It seems there would be a possibility of a great deal of trouble in that connection whatever the scheme.
    Mr. Ede: It is not an uncommon thing in England. For instance, in this case officers include teachers. The whole of the teachers in the employment of the Lancashire County Council, although they are in the employment of that County Council, are in fact appointed, and can be dismissed, by bodies very similar to these Divisional Executives. That is the issue we are really up against on this: it is really a very narrow legal point, and the practical point is the availability of these officers to advise while the scheme is in course of preparation. On that practical point I demonstrated that by the time they pass over to the County Council the scheme will have been completed.
    Mr. Mack: Might I put this point to My hon. Friend. Will he take the example of a first-class education officer for a certain district, who has carried out his functions with efficiency and gained rightly the respect of the Council? He has then to be transferred after 1st April, 1945, with certain safeguards, from the then divisional executive to the county council authority, which might be situated miles away and be composed of people who do not understand the functions of education, and certainly not the borough with which the officer has been associated. He may conceivably find himself in great difficulties with his new masters and despite the safeguards which have been promised he may, in the opinion of the county council authorities, fail to give satisfaction. I can see many difficulties arising from that situation and unless we have a certain amount of clarity I am sure that officers generally, including teaching staffs, who have been treated with that close understanding that comes from association, would be in trouble. One can well understand the reason for it and it would be unfortunate if a first-class education officer or an official found himself transferred and subsequently in difficulties by having a large degree of reasonable independence taken from him.
    Mr. Ede: This Amendment, as explained by its mover, only temporarily postpones this transfer. The question of general principle does not come up on this Amendment. This is merely to ensure that while the scheme is being drafted there is an officer who knows the circumstances of the district. I had hoped that I had demonstrated that that practical point had been covered.
    Mr. Hutchinson: I appreciate the practical difficulties which may arise unless officers cease to be officers of the district authorities after this part of the Bill comes into operation. In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Messer: I beg to move in page 4, line 16, after, "all," to insert, "teachers and all other."
    While I know that, technically, the term, "officers," includes teachers I think every one who has been interested at all in administrative education will be
    1840
    aware that the meaning of the word, "officers," is regarded as something different from the meaning of the word, "teachers." There are officers who are in administrative posts, such as directors of education and divisional officers, and a whole host of administrative people who are not teachers. I therefore move this Amendment for the purposes of ensuring that there shall be no misunderstanding.
    Mr. Ede: The Local Government Act of 1933 has laid it down that the phrase, "officer of a local education authority," includes teachers. It is, therefore, unnecessary to have this Amendment in the Bill. In fact, there would be certain disadvantages in putting it in. Teachers, and the local authorities from whom they come and to whom they go, are amply safeguarded by the words already in the Bill.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 4, line 16 to leave out from "officers," to "immediately," in line 17, and to insert "who."
    This Amendment is very much on all fours with the one I moved a short time ago dealing with property. This applies the same principle to the officers. There is no doubt as to the position of officers who are solely employed. Obviously, in those cases where a local education authority has had an education officer he will go over, and people like school attendance officers will go over as being solely employed for this purpose. But, here again, we get a number of people who are employed partly on education services and partly on other functions of the local education authority. There will be, for instance, the borough treasurer, and even the town clerk in certain cases. There will be a number of subordinate people in the finance departments of some local education authorities. It is difficult to give an exact list because the practice of local authorities varies so much. In some local education authority offices you have a complete education section which has its own finance and architectural sections and various other administrative branches.
    Whole-time officers will go over but in other cases you have people working on the calculation of teachers' salaries, paying caretakers and similar finance jobs

    1841
    done in the Treasurer's Department in conjunction with other jobs. In those cases we shall have to arrive at some decision as to those people who go over and those who will remain with the county district council. I admit that the Clause as drafted—which would have transferred everybody—would have gone too far. No one would suggest, for instance, that the town clerk of Swindon should go to the service of the Wiltshire County Council merely because the education service passed from the borough to the county. But there may well be certain officers who are partly engaged on educational functions and partly on other functions, about whom arrangements will have to be made.
    Mr. Burden: May I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for moving his Amendment? I think it goes all the way to meet the Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. Friends and myself. As he pointed out, in many councils the work of education, so far as officers are concerned, is inextricably mixed with other council duties The town clerk may be the clerk of the education committee and the borough treasurer may do work in connection with the education rate, and so on. If the Clause had stood as originally drafted there would have been great difficulties indeed in the allocation of the staff. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary however, to clear up one point. If there is any dispute as to the transfer or otherwise of an officer, how will that dispute ultimately be determined? I thank my hon. Friend for the Amendment but I should very much like that point to be cleared up.
    Mr. Hutchinson: The Amendment goes a very long way to meet the objection that we felt to the Clause in its original form. The difficulty that I see about it arises from the use of the expression "mainly." I put down an Amendment to deal with this matter and I chose the expression "exclusively." I can see that some difficulty is going to arise in determining whether a particular officer is mainly engaged on educational duties or is mainly engaged on other duties. I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary dealt with the case of a number of officers but did not deal with the case of the Medical Officer of Health, or his Assistant
    1842
    Medical Officer of Health. I can see, particularly in the case of the Assistant Medical Officer, who usually discharges many of the functions of the Medical Officer of Health as school medical officer, that it is going to be very difficult to determine whether that particular officer is mainly engaged on the duties of educational officer or is mainly engaged on other duties. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to explain who is going to decide these difficult questions and how they are going to be decided.
    Mr. Wakefield: May I have your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Chairman? Is it your intention to call the Amendment in my name on line 16 dealing with this matter?
    The Deputy-Chairman: No.
    Mr. Wakefield: Then I should like to make a few observations on this point. The Parliamentary Secretary described the transference of property, and now this Amendment carries out substantially the same for people as existed for property. A point that greatly concerns local authorities is that in transferring people from their employment to the County Councils, who are to pay them, there will be a duality of loyalty. One authority pays and the other perhaps gives instructions. There is that duality of loyalty and it may seriously impair and affect the efficiency of those officers and teachers. With the best will in the world, and desiring to be as efficient as possible, if you have two masters it is very often difficult to know which to serve. My hon. and learned Friend who spoke last referred to the position of Medical Officers. In my constituency there are one and a half Medical Officers devoted to schools, and I think 75 per cent. of dentists' work is devoted to schools. How is that kind of apportionment going to be made? Is it intended that in any scheme submitted by the executive district these matters are going to be made clear beyond any shadow of doubt? It is these practical difficulties that are troubling the authorities and, unless they can be clearly overcome, I think they will make difficult the satisfactory working of the Bill. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary can give us a little more amplification of how he thinks these difficulties and this duality of loyalty are going to be overcome.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: I am not quite clear about this Amendment and I am rather suspicious of it. A few months ago there was a fairly good fight with the Ministry of Pensions and a lot of Members on this side, along with me, felt that we were quite clear on a certain point, but when we came to put it in practice we found that it was the opposite thing altogether. I should like to look at the suggested Amendment. "All officers who immediately before the said date for the purposes of any such"—
    Mr. Ede: There is a later Amendment to insert certain words after "date" which would make the Clause read:
    "All officers who immediately before the said date were employed by the Council of any district solely or mainly for any purpose."
    Sir H. Williams: I am not quite clear why the Minister leaves out eight words and inserts 12 when private Members could do it in three. My experience is that, if private Members come on a good Amendment, it is referred to experts and they express it in many more words.
    Sir Richard Wells: I hope that borough surveyors and district visitors, who often act as nurses, will be considered as well.
    Mr. Ede: I heartily sympathise with the view expressed by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams). I have often wondered why it is that Bills have to be drafted in so ornate a fashion. I hope there will come a day when I shall be able to sit beside the hon. Gentleman and enjoy the same jokes as he does. I will now deal with the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson). Here again we have almost as good a case as we had with regard to property. All the persons employed by local education authorities with educational functions have their salaries charged against the Education Vote. If 100 per cent. of the salary is charged against the Education Vote, it is clear that they are solely or exclusively so employed. I imagine that the dentist employed by the Swindon Town Council is probably employed for three-fourths of his time on education and for one-fourth perhaps on maternity or child welfare, or some similar function. These people's salaries are put against the Votes, especially those that carry Government grants, and we have a very
    1844
    good preliminary way to ascertain whether the person has in the past been solely or mainly employed on this. We shall get to the difficult case where you have 50 per cent. of the salary charged to one Vote and the remaining 50 per cent. to other Votes. I can inform my hon. Friend the Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden) that there the ever-ready Clause 89 comes to our assistance. The opening words of that Clause are:
    "Where any question arises as to whether any officers … have been transferred …"
    The disputes of the kind he has mentioned will be dealt with under that Clause.
    Mr. Hutchinson: In the case of an officer, is not the difficulty that the county district council will continue to require his services in respect of those services which he performs otherwise than as an education officer? The effect of the Bill will be to transfer him to another authority altogether, although he continues to perform services for the authority from whom he is transferred.
    Mr. Ede: That is no uncommon thing in English local government. It is not uncommon for the county council, say, to pay 75 per cent. of an officer's salary and the district council to pay 25 per cent. It is all a matter of arrangement and it is done from day to day, not merely between counties and county districts, but between one county district and another. I have no doubt that in the practical working out of this, the arrangements will follow those that are being made every day of the week and will not present any serious difficulty. The one serious point I have to meet is that which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield) on the question of possible divided loyalty. I cannot think that in Lancashire there is any doubt about the question of loyalty on the part of the great teaching service of that county.
    Mr. Maxton: Why always cite Lancashire?
    Mr. Ede: I do it because if I cited the county where it works best I should be accused of conceit. In a good many county secondary schools the teachers are in the employment of the county council. The county council pays the employer's share of the superannuation, but the teachers are appointed and can be dis-

    1845
    missed by the governing body. Their loyalty is to the service. I believe that the local government service will be able to work under this arrangement and I have no doubt that the scheme, especially in the excepted districts, will make it clear who has the power of dismissal where an officer is not performing his duties satisfactorily.
    Mr. R. J. Taylor: Will not the same practice be followed as was followed when we changed from the boards of guardians to public assistance?
    Mr. Ede: That is a reasonable analogy, except that the boards of guardians disappeared entirely. The awkward part here is that the county district council remains an authority to discharge other functions.
    Mr. Lipson: The question of divided loyalties is an important one and I think that in practice it may happen very frequently. I am not concerned with the divided loyalties of the teachers because they are not likely to give any trouble on that score. There may, however, be between the newer local education authorities and the old ones some dispute on financial and other matters which may affect some of their officers, and the officers will be in an almost impossible position in having to adjudicate between the two sides. The Parliamentary Secretary must realise that in practice these occasions are likely to arise frequently, particularly as the relations in the past between the authorities which are to be wiped out as education authorities and the new authority have in some instances been none of the best. Therefore, the ground is prepared for a good deal of difficulty.
    Mr. Ede: I am bound to say that my hon. Friend's personal experience must have been unfortunate. It is clear that the scheme will lay down the person who is responsible for giving orders to these officers and whose orders will have to be carried out. If the scheme does not do that it will be very faulty in its drafting.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 17, after "date," insert:
    "were employed by the council of any county district solely or mainly."—[Mr. Butler.]
    Sir Frank Sanderson: I beg to move, in page 4, line 23, at the end, to add:
    "Provided that this Sub-section shall not apply to a borough or urban district the council of which has the right to become an excepted district within the meaning of paragraph 4 of Part III of the First Schedule."
    The Clause as drawn transfers the staff to the local education authority before the claim to become an excepted district can be made so that the officers whose services would be vitally necessary in the preparation of a scheme by the council of the excepted district would already have become the servants of the local education authority. It is submitted that any such arrangement would be embarrassing to all parties.
    Mr. Hutchinson: There is an Amendment which immediately follows this one in my name which is in identical terms. This is one of the most important and fundamental Amendments on this Clause. Its purpose is to enable the officers of those districts which are entitled to become excepted districts to continue to be officers of the councils of the excepted districts and to avoid their transfer to the local education authority. Part III authorities attach great importance to this question of whose servants the officers are to be. Reference was made a moment ago to the case, which was to some extent comparable, of the guardians committees under the Local Government Act when public assistance was transferred to the county authorities. In that case local guardians committees were not the employers of the local public assistance officers. The result was not satisfactory. Local guardians committees never became an effective body. We are anxious that divisional executives in the excepted districts shall really become effective bodies in the sense that they will succeed in attracting to their service the right type of energetic elected representatives, as we all desire that they should. They will not do so unless they are given a substantial measure of responsibility. The most important responsibility which you can give to them is the selection and employment of their staffs. Therefore we ask, because we attach great importance to it, that the divisional executives in the excepted districts should be the persons who are entitled to employ the staffs.
    From the beginning, my right hon. Friend has attached great importance to

    1847
    the maintenance of local interest in the administration of education. He has made it plain right through the discussion on this Bill and on the White Paper that he desires to stimulate local interest. It is his view that the highest degree of efficiency in the administration of this service is reached where conditions make it possible to establish a substantial measure of local responsibility. In this matter of staffs, local interest and responsibility can be stimulated and promoted more readily than by any other branch of administration. These local bodies should be the employers of their staffs and they should be entrusted with the responsibility of the selection of the proper staff. That staff should look to them for guidance and leadership. I believe that would be a factor which would most readily attract that local interest which my right hon. Friend has always made it plain that he desires that they should have.
    One further point with which I must deal was raised by the Parliamentary Secretary in my earlier Amendment. He pointed out that there might be a difficulty if an authority which was not a local education authority continued to employ an educational staff. In respect of this Amendment that difficulty will not arise. If we insert in the Bill a statutory provision that the divisional executive is entitled to employ certain staff, there would be no difficulty in the staff being paid out of the funds of that authority. The fact that the Statute had provided that they should be entitled to employ such staff, would justify them in paying the salaries and the superannuation contributions out of the funds of the authority. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will see his way to accepting the Amendment, because if he does so I think he will have gone a very long way towards stimulating that measure of local interest which he has always said that he desires to promote.
    Mr. Palmer: I should like to reinforce very briefly what my hon. and learned Friend has just said. If we are to make the excepted districts a really live show we must make the people who are the representatives dealing with education in those districts really feel that they have a responsibility which is worthy of their time and energy. I would draw attention to the fact that, if my right hon.
    1848
    Friend proposes to accept the Amendment, or the principle of the Amendment, it will be necessary slightly to alter the wording, perhaps at a later stage, in order to cover a somewhat different point, the principle of which I hope we shall embody later on, of two or more councils who together form an excepted district.
    Mr. McEntee: I do not agree with the Amendment. It is in the nature of an insult to local authorities. To tell people like myself and many other Members of this House, who have served on local authorities for a good part of our lives, and on local education committees, that unless we are allowed to employ and discharge the people who carry out our work we shall not have any interest in the children and in education in the future, is simply insulting. That was what the hon. and learned Member for Ilford has said.
    Mr. Hutchinson: No. The hon. Member must not put words into my mouth which I have not used. I said that unless those divisional executives were entrusted with a full measure of responsibility, they would not attract to their service that type of energetic and active elected representative which we all want to see upon them.
    Mr. McEntee: That is exactly what I am objecting to. Hon. Members who take that attitude think that what attracts people to do this public work is the fact that they are able to interview a lot of people and say: "We are—or we are not—willing to employ you," or at some other time "We are going to dismiss you or to keep you on." It is the service itself which is attractive, and the children, and the possibility of seeing that those children get the best opportunity for education. I do not believe that any local education authority or divisional executive will be influenced in the slightest degree by whether they or somebody else, become the actual employers of the teachers and the directors of education. That is not what influences them, but the service which they give to the children and the opportunities that they can provide for the children in the future. I hope that we are not going to reduce this Bill to such petty miserable little things as that. Let us keep it on a high scale and let us give to people who give service in public life the opportunity of doing what

    1849
    they have always done, think of the children and of education, and not of the small and petty little things that appear to govern the mind of the hon. and learned Member.
    Sir I. Albery: I cannot help thinking that the hon. Member who has just spoken is not taking a very fair view of this matter. I do not think that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) meant for one moment to suggest that those who are going to be responsible for local education work would behave as he suggests but only whether the proposed method was going to give the best facilities for that work to be carried out. One reason why I think that is not the case I can express in one simple point. There is not the slightest doubt that a person who is employed by one authority does not like being directed and interfered with by somebody else who is not his employer. That is only human nature. One gets very many examples of it in one's daily experience. I do not think there is any doubt you get better service from people who are directed and controlled by those who are actually their employers. You do not get as good service if one person is an employer and another person has the power of directing and managing the employed person.
    Mr. Silverman: I do not want to prolong this Debate but I rise to make this point. It has happened time after time here and in other places that good causes lose some part of their appeal by being recommended for bad reasons. I think my hon. Friend the Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) was right in pointing out that one, at any rate, of the arguments in support of this Amendment was a thoroughly bad argument that does not advance the real case of the Amendment at all. I think he was right to say so, but I do not think it is at all wrong that because among the many arguments that can be advanced in support of this Amendment some people have chosen bad or unattractive arguments it necessarily follows that the Amendment is a bad Amendment. [Interruption.] It may be bad but my hon. Friend never gave any of the reasons for thinking that. He merely showed that one of the arguments in support of it was not a good argument.
    I nevertheless think that the Amendment is a good Amendment. It seeks only to preserve, as I understand it, the
    1850
    close connection between the excepted authority and the officials who are actually looking after education in that district. I cannot see what is wrong with that. The case is not that local members will lose their interest in education if they are not allowed to pay and control certain servants; that is not the point. There is no reason in the world why the personal relationship established for many years between particular officers and particular authorities should be disturbed in cases where the authority itself is not ultimately going to be disturbed in the exercise of many of these functions. That is the real case for this Amendment and I hope my hon. Friend will be able to accept it.
    Mr. Ede: This Amendment really strikes in one aspect at one of the fundamental principles of the Bill. This is an effort to legalise, as the hon. and learned Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) pointed out, the employment by these authorities of all their teachers and all their other officers and raising the money for their salaries on the local rates, thus perpetuating one of the things we remove by this Bill, the great difference between the education rates of adjoining urban areas.
    Sir I. Albery: I cannot understand how the hon. Member can make that statement unless I quite misunderstood the whole meaning of the Bill. As I understand it it clearly lays down that an excepted district will frame its own budget to cover the whole of its estimated expenditure, that that budget will be submitted to the county council, and if it is reasonable it will be sanctioned. Therefore, there will be no difficulty whatever about the rate.
    Mr. Ede: The hon. and learned Member for Ilford moved from that position and said that this would legalise the raising of a rate by the county district council. What the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery) said represented the Bill as it stands. I was dealing with the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Ilford at the end of his speech.
    Mr. Hutchinson: The point which the hon. Member made on an earlier Amendment was that an authority which was not an education authority would not be entitled to employ or to pay education officers. I was pointing out that if we insert this Amendment giving the councils of the excepted districts power to employ

    1851
    education officers they will pay them out of the rates and then presumably recover what is paid out of the rates from the county council on the annual budget.
    Mr. Ede: I am bound to say I do not think that would be the effect of this Amendment. I think the hon. and learned Member has now added an additional phrase to what he previously said in order to bring it within the framework of the Bill as drafted.
    Mr. Silverman: The Amendment itself was in fact within the framework of the Bill, and even if the hon. and learned Member for Ilford went beyond it the Amendment did not go beyond it.
    Mr. Ede: If that is so, I will accept it that that was not the intention of the hon. and learned Member, but we do get back to this, that one of the difficulties of the education service of this country is the isolated pockets of teachers we have for whom there is very little hope of effective promotion. The inbreeding of the teaching service of this country is one of the worst of its aspects. People who are born in an area go to the elementary school in the area, pass to the secondary school, go to the nearest training college, come back to the area, and serve for 44 years in the area and take their annual holiday for a fortnight in the same seaside town. I venture to say that anyone who has taken an active part in education administration in this country knows that that is one of the difficulties, and we are hoping under this Bill to get a wider sphere of employment and better opportunities of promotion. In my view that is one of the most fundamental reforms we have managed to secure in this Bill, and by going back to local circumscribed employment we should be cutting down a very considerable part of the advantages we hope to get from this Bill.
    In spite of that we intend that these divisional executives shall have as wide a measure of local control as is consistent with a great national service, but it was laid down very clearly in the discussion on the first Amendment yesterday that what this Committee desires to do is to get to the basis of education as a national service, and everything that circumscribes that must be regarded as being opposed to the fundamental principles of this Bill. In the excepted districts the
    1852
    scheme is made by the district council. The county council cannot interfere with it. It may make observations about it to my right hon. Friend but the basis on which all these matters will be settled will be the scheme drafted by the county district council. I am quite sure they will take care to secure that their power to appoint and dismiss their administrative officers is such as to make it quite clear where the immediate loyalty of these officers lies. I should have thought that that would have been sufficient to ensure that those parts of my hon. and learned Friend's speech which were not in conflict with the main principle of the Bill would be realised in actual administrative practice. I must ask hon. Members to believe that. I have given a great part of my life, 35 years, to local government and I know some of the difficulties that arise from misplaced local patriotism and the narrow views that on occasion it engenders. We hope that this Bill will, by its administrative provisions and their flexibility, enable wise local patriotism to fit in with the urgent national needs of this great national service, and we shall do all we can to ensure that it is administered in that way. But we are bound to ask this House to regard the service as a national service, with as wide a range of opportunity for the actual practitioners of education as we can possibly secure.
    Mr. Maxton: I was interested in the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) when he referred to wrong arguments for good ideas. I would very fully support the desire of the Parliamentary Secretary to establish the conception of a national service in education: when a teacher goes into the service anywhere he goes into something which is affecting the whole nation. But my hon. Friend supported his argument by a diatribe—if I may use the term—against the teacher who was trained in the district where he was born, who went to the elementary school in that district, who went into the service in that district and remained there all his life, in one locality. I can see the disadvantages of that educationally, but I think a far more disastrous thing has happened to education, under present administrative methods, because teachers in a particular locality, particularly the headmasters, are to some extent birds of

    1853
    passage. They come in, they spend two years there; then there is a better school in some other part, for which there is £10 additional salary; and on they go. One does realise that there have been great educationists, men who made their name as educationists, not always in big public schools, but in small schools. In Scotland one of our great institutions is the parochial schoolmaster, who goes into a district and makes his life there and makes his name there, so that the school is never called the parish school, but So-and-so's school, using the name of the headmaster. I hope that the President of the Board of Education will not fly from the vicious extreme of the teacher who spends a lifetime in one place, with his vision limited to one little district, to the other extreme of education being conducted by a set of peripatetic dignatories who are on the move all round very big areas.
    Let me ask, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee), what local control can a citizen have in a locality over education, except the wise choice of the people who are going to run it? It is all very well to say it is interest in children that takes people into educational administration. That is true; but how do you give practical effect to your desire for better ways of handling the children? You do it by the wise selection of the people who are going to handle the children from day to day. I speak, I admit, with every deference to the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister because of my comparative lack of knowledge of English methods of control and direction. If a local education committee want to do the best by their young, and they have got a teacher in charge of the principal school in the area who has established a good relationship with the parents, who has got the youngsters' interest, who is accepted as a great schoolmaster, the county headquarters, perhaps 100 miles away, say, "There is a good man at So-and-so; we have a vacancy elsewhere, and we will shift him to the other end of the county."
    Mr. G. Griffiths: Without his consent?
    Mr. Maxton: I will not deal with that at this moment: that is another factor which arises.
    Mr. Lipson: Is the hon. Member aware that the county headquarters have no
    1854
    power to direct that teacher from one school to another? If there is a vacancy and he wants to go, he can apply. Since the Burnham scale came into operation, teachers do not move unless they go to a headmastership or to a university.
    Mr. Maxton: If that is the case the eloquence of the Parliamentary Secretary was wasted on our ears.
    Mr. Lipson: Quite.
    Mr. Pickthorn: I feel almost bound to intervene at this moment, because I think I am probably a unique instance in this House that I am an extreme example of that abuse which the Parliamentary Secretary described, because I have been a teacher in the same institution for 30 years. I am a little comforted under his strictures of that hitherto respectable class, by reminding myself that every word he says would apply perfectly to the educational arrangements in classical Attica, which have hitherto generally been supposed to be an ideal to which we all might try to attain. I would make one other comment on his speech. The whole of his speech was based on the assumption that where you have 50 or 500—I do not know what it is; perhaps more than 500—local authorities in the country, the teachers will get pocketed in one or other of them and will not be able to move from one to another. I would ask the Committee to consider this, arising out of that argument used in defence of the Board of Education. It is generally assumed in this House, perhaps more on the other side than on this, that in international affairs, the affairs of Europe, for instance, can always be easily put right if you only get people around a table, and they will quickly agree. Here we have had a Board of Education for generations, and they have not yet been able to get education authorities to treat each other as anything more than highly particularist separate entities or to arrange general reciprocal treatment between each other.
    I would particularly ask the Minister to correct the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson), if I am right in thinking that the hon. Member was mistaken about the Burnham scale.
    My recollection is that there are two, if not three, Burnham scales, and one reason

    1855
    why it is so difficult to move teachers as would be best is because a teacher on one scale would not move into an area with a different scale. Another reason is that a teacher, having got enough seniority to reach the £500-a-year level, may be the ideal person for appointment in another county, but they will not take him if they can get someone five or ten years younger for £100 a year less. I hope the Committee will not accept the account of the hon. Member for Cheltenham without further inquiry.
    Mr. Silverman: I feel entitled to comment upon two remarks made by the Minister in his reply to the Debate. The Minister talked about the Amendment being in conflict with the general scheme of the Bill, and as being dictated by mistaken local patriotism. Will he allow me to say that I am very strongly and enthusiastically in favour of reorganising the educational system on a national basis, as is proposed by this Bill, and that the Amendment was not intended to be in conflict with that view? I think the hon. Gentleman failed to discriminate. I happen to represent in this House a constituency which has two education authorities. They are both very advanced and very progressive authorities, with proud and honourable records. The county of which they are members, and to which their functions will be transferred, is a very factious authority and is as close to the bottom of the scale as my own authorities are close to the top in the matter of educational records. They resent most emphatically any suggestion that the advantages which the children of these districts have derived from having their educational affairs conducted by active and progressively minded authorities should be handed over to a reactionary-minded authority many miles away. If the hon. Member thinks this is mistaken local patriotism, I think he ought to think again. It is not local patriotism at all. It is the determination of those who have done a good job in the past not to have their powers taken away and handed over to others who will exercise them less efficiently.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Major York: I find myself in some difficulty with this Clause on account of your Ruling, Major Milner, and I must be very careful in what I say. I hope to keep within your Ruling and to represent the views of my constituents. It does seem to me that there are two main questions upon which one has to make up one's mind in order to decide whether one can support the Clause or not. The first question relates to whether the bureaucracy, which is liable to be set up by county organisations, will make for efficiency, or will, in fact, make for inefficiency, and this, my great doubt, has not been dispelled by anything which the Minister said in his Second Reading speech, nor yet by any other speech that I have heard. I take a very strong view that, in order to maintain the parental interest in education, that interest must be exercised through the local vote, and that means that the local council of a non-county borough is the right place from which the direction of education should be exercised. I represent a constituency which is almost exactly divided into a non-county borough and a county area, and, therefore, I may fairly say that I have an unprejudiced view of the matter, because my allegiance, such as it may be, is equally divided between the two.
    When I come to consider the administration of the county area by the county council, I am not at all satisfied to allow the non-county borough in my constituency to be regulated by the same authority that is regulating the country areas. That means, in effect, that I consider the administration of education in the non-county borough of Harrogate to be of a more efficient and more forward-looking nature than that of the county council. I would propose one example only to illustrate my point. In rural secondary education, we are extremely short of any kind of buildings for that development. There is one in my particular area which has been placed exactly between two large and smelly breweries, and that is not the place in which a secondary school for a rural area should be provided. That is one outcome of the urban mind trying to deal with a rural problem. I need not go further on that point, except to say that the county in which I live is administered in the main by county councillors with urban minds, and, if these same

    1857
    minds are now going to be applied to the non-county borough of Harrogate, then I am deeply disturbed that the same outcome might well come about in that case.
    The second question, which I will only mention, is this. If we accept Clause 6, there will, undoubtedly, be a very grave financial burden upon the Part III authorities. If there were strong grounds for this, and if that financial burden was going to make a degree of satisfaction and help to the county areas, I should certainly not complain, and therefore the question which I have to ask, and which I want answered, is that I must be satisfied in my own mind that the sacrifices which are going to be made by the non-county boroughs will, indeed, be worth while, but I am very doubtful if that will be the effect. There is one further point. Under Clause 6, local education authorities in non-county boroughs are going to lose all the power that they possess, and I would stress the word power, because, at the moment, these Part III authorities have indeed got power. Under Clause 6 they will have no power whatever. Delegated power is no more power than the power of a tenant in respect of the property of a landlord, and however much the Minister of the present day says he wishes them to have power, they will not, in fact and law, have it. I feel most strongly that unless some other method can be introduced there will be a very strong ground for rejecting Clause 6.
    Mr. Lewis: I think the best thing to do with the Clause is to cut it out, and if the Committee show a tendency to do that, I hope that no one on the Front Bench will say that we desire to interfere with the conduct of the war or desire a change of Government. I have heard that sort of thing ascribed to hon. Members before. The House by giving an unopposed Second Reading to the Bill has shown that it approves of the general principles of the Bill, and the House having done that, I hope the Committee will insist on its right to amend the Bill.
    Mr. Butler: Surely there cannot have been any impression given by the Government that they do not desire to discuss these matters with the Committee. It seems to me the hon. Member's suggestion is totally unwarranted.
    Mr. Lewis: I did not say that. What I said was that I hoped no one would
    1858
    come forward and take that view. The reason that I object to the Clause is that I regard it as an entirely retrograde proposal to take away educational administration from non-county boroughs and transfer it to county councils. I think most Members of the House who have had experience of local administration in the provinces will agree that as a general rule there is more local interest in the proceedings of the town councils than of the county councils. My own experience in Colchester is that I receive, not infrequently, a letter from a constituent on some matter that is more appropriate to the Essex County Council. When I reply to the constituent that in the circumstances I advise him to consult his local representative on the Essex County Council, I not uncommonly get back a letter asking "Who is my local representative?" I have no doubt other hon. Members have had a similar experience.
    There is not the same interest in the proceedings of the county council that there is usually in the proceedings of the borough council. I think it would be a thousand pities if we lost that local interest in our educational administration in those areas. For that reason I think the proposal that these matters should be handed over either to the county council or to the county borough council, to the exclusion of the non-county borough council, is a great mistake. I am very sorry that the Minister is persisting in it. I suppose the real reason is that his Department are in such a hurry in regard to this Bill. Obviously it would take longer if you had special inquiries in different areas as to which authority should have these powers. But is there really need for such great hurry? The war is not yet over, and I do not think it is going to end quite so soon as some people believe. When it is over, there will be other matters to be dealt with, such as housing, and when the time comes to implement this Bill there will be various difficulties, including the provision of the large number of teachers required. It seems to me that there is ample time for proper inquiries to be made into the fitness of these bodies that it is now proposed to dispossess, and for consideration of what provision should be made in different cases. It is over-simplification to have only two categories of authorities, the county borough and the county. The best

    1859
    thing would be to strike out the Clause and let the Government think again.
    Mr. Butler: As there seems to be a totally wrong view of how the Government are trying to handle this matter, and also as to the intention of this Clause, I think I might be allowed to intervene. Hitherto matters which may be described as business details have been admirably handled by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. I must say first that the Government have no desire to curtail any discussion or to curtail the opportunities of hon. Members who represent areas which they think are going to be affected by the Bill, to state their point of view. The Government have every sympathy with hon. Gentlemen who represent towns and boroughs likely to be affected by the provisions of this Clause. The Government must accept the Ruling from the Chair that discussion relating to the number of authorities should be taken on the First Schedule, but I would point out that under the procedure adopted this is the first opportunity I have had of explaining the purpose of the Clause as a whole. The reason why we are to discuss this matter on the First Schedule is because there is, as hon. Members will see, a reference in the first part of the First Schedule to joint boards as local education authorities. Why the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) should think it necessary to cut out this Clause when the question is raised on the First Schedule I fail to observe, and I do not think it would be in the interests of education if hon. Members responded to the invitation to cut out from the Bill one of the most important early Clauses dealing with the local administration of education. I hope that hon. Members will not accept an invitation of that sort.
    The main object of the Clause is to settle in general outline what shall be the local administration of education subject to additions which may be made on consideration of the First Schedule. Hon. Members will see that Sub-section (1) does come down on the side of the county and the county borough. There is, however, one exception in the First Schedule dealing with amalgamations into joint boards. It may well be that hon. Members will wish to move to insert other exceptions. If so, they will have an opportunity to do so. The Government have taken the
    1860
    view that we could not continue administration on the basis of the number of local authorities we have now. That is not because we in any way under-estimate the value of the services rendered by local authorities up to the present time. The reason is that the extension of education up to the age of 18 will involve such a vast scope of educational provision that it is not sensible to rely on very restricted areas to give all those facilities. It is not that we want to deprive the smaller areas which have operated under the 1902 Act of the opportunity of taking part in the education services of the country. Therefore, we have asked the Committee to consider the set-up of the counties and county boroughs subject to any Amendments which may be moved to put either other authorities or to consider the case of the excepted districts or the divisional executives under the First Schedule. We have done that on purpose because we realise that the Bill has such a large scope that we must know where we are.
    Hon. Members want to know what opportunities they will have on the First Schedule for discussion. They will first of all have the opportunity of considering the addition of extra authorities and on that I would be misleading the House if I were to be too hopeful of their being successful. I have never misled the House during the course of this Bill. They will state their case and the Government will listen to it and give it due weight. Secondly, there is the opportunity they may have of adjusting the elasticity of the scheme as between excepted districts and the other forms of divisional executives. It may well be that we may be able to consider elasticity within the terms of the excepted districts not only in the case of the powers allotted to it but in the type of borough included in the term "excepted district." All that will be open to discussion on the First Schedule and I undertake to see that the excepted district has a life of its own both with regard to its business and educational functions.
    With regard to the other divisional executives the chief difference will be that those divisional executives will not frame their own schemes but will have to join in a scheme by agreement with their counties. I believe that in these other divisional executives there will be equal opportunity for serving the needs of their

    1861
    areas. This scheme has been as difficult for me to balance and, to use a scientific word, to compensate, as has been the whole scheme dealing with the religious settlement. It has been difficult because the problems of boroughs are different in a built-up area and the Metropolitan area from what they are in a county area. If I came down more favourably to a county area than I have done to a borough situated within a built-up area it would arouse those feelings of lack of confidence and jealousy which do unfortunately arise, so keen are the inhabitants to serve the children of their own area. The whole scheme has been very delicately arranged with a view to elasticity and it is that elasticity that I ask the Committee to consider on the First Schedule according to your ruling, Major Milner. If they do that, they will find that the Government will be ready here and now to declare that, if they are not satisfied with the opportunities, the Committee must look again, in the succeeding stages of the Bill, at Clause 6. We do not want to try and rush the Committee on Clause 6, but to have a proper look at it after the Committee has had a chance of looking at the First Schedule. If that happens I hope that the Committee will make progress and let us have this Clause, though we do not wish to crowd out hon. Members who represent areas and districts which have given such singular service to education.
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: The right hon. Gentleman has made an important statement on general policy. I agree with him that in order to get the complete agreement of the Committee we have to have a proper debate on the Part II and Part III issues. I gather that that will be taken on Part III of the First Schedule.
    The Chairman: That is so.
    Earl Winterton: I hope that the Committee will accept the suggestion that has been made by the right hon. Gentleman. My constituency is as much involved in this matter as any constituency represented here, and I cannot see the objection to raising this question in full on the Schedule. I hope that the discussion will take place then. It will be acting fairly to the Government, to the Committee and to those who, like myself, represent constituencies affected.
    Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
    The Chairman: I think it might be possible to come to a decision now.
    Sir H. Williams: There is no hurry in the least. This is the only part of the Bill that will come into operation when it becomes law. It is far more important than the rest of it. All the rest is to be postponed to appointed dates. This proposal introduces the doctrine of centralisation into education. I have had masses of communications from people who hold very strongly that there is far too great a tendency to impose central power on local authorities. This is the first opportunity of discussing it. There is a vast conspiracy in progress on restricting the powers of similar authorities and centralising them all. It was unfortunate that I was not here when the Ruling was given, but I am by no means satisfied that the Amendments we want will be in Order on the Schedule. The words
    "subject to the provisions of Part I of the Schedule"
    only take us to a certain point.
    The Chairman: The hon. Member must confine himself to the point at issue, of whether the Clause should stand part of the Bill.
    Sir H. Williams: I was not discussing the Ruling, but pointing out that if my hon. Friends had submitted an Amendment for the insertion of certain words at the beginning of the Clause, the probability would have been that the whole circumstances would have changed, and your Ruling, Major Milner, might have been of a different character. We have to proceed carefully on this issue, which does not affect education only. It is the first time that this principle has been raised, and it is one upon which masses of people up and down the country are very perturbed. That is why we ought to have a little more time. It would not do the Ministers harm to spend a happy weekend re-reading Clause 6 and what they and other people have said and trying to speculate what other people would have said if the Chairman had given a different Ruling. When one tries to find out whether somebody was mainly or solely employed, one receives a strange definition. Use is made of the yardstick of Mammon.
    The Chairman: I really cannot allow the hon. Member to proceed in that way.
    Sir H. Williams: On a point of Order. It is surely competent when discussing the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" to make reference to Amendments to the Clause.
    The Chairman: That is another question.
    Sir H. Williams: I have been ruled out of Order for saying something on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," but, bearing in mind the mental approach of the Parliamentary Secretary, when one tries to find out what is meant by the words "mainly or solely" it is very difficult. It is difficult to define an elephant, but you know one when you see one. When the Parliamentary Secretary wants to define it he asks, "How much do you put into the kitty?" He comes down to that which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) said does not matter—pounds, shilling and pence. That is the language for deciding whether anyone is "mainly or solely" employed by any of these authorities. We have to look at every word which is said and to consider the views expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, who, with great modesty, calls attention to Lancashire, and forgets his own county of Surrey, when, he says, all these things work perfectly.
    It may be. I am in the county of Surrey but fortunately not in the administrative county. We are an independent local authority. We find that a certain number of children from Surrey come into Croydon to be educated because they find they are better catered for. The hon. Gentleman is so interested in what happens at Kingston-on-Thames, that he thinks the last word of wisdom is said by the education officer for Kingston-on-Thames. Some of us have other views on this matter and, quite deliberately, as one who does not represent a county authority, as one who is a member of the London County Council—which is the largest education authority in this country—my prejudices from the point of view of my connections——
    Rear-Admiral Beamish Rear-Admiral Beamish (Lewes)rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but The CHAIRMAN withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
    Sir H. Williams: I was saying——
    It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain McEwen.]
  Mr. Tinker: I want to draw attention to a matter concerning the supplementary pensions paid to old age pensioners. The present condition is causing great uneasiness to these people, and grave concern, because they do not understand the position in which they are now placed. Hon. Members will be aware that on 9th December, in this Chamber, we decided to make certain provisions for the old age pensioners which were certainly an improvement on existing conditions. An Amendment was put forward by the Minister that an aged couple living together could claim 35s. per week clear of rent, and one person living alone could claim £1 a week clear of rent. After long debate this was accepted, and most of us thought that a payment to these people would take place as from 17th January. I addressed a meeting at Atherton where there was a crowded audience of old age pensioners and I defended the Government's offer, which I thought was a decent one in the circumstances. We had not been able to secure all we wanted but it certainly was an advance on the present position. I said that everybody would get payment from the following Monday, 17th January. Judge of my surprise when a member of the audience said I was not quite correct, that he had been to the Assistance Board to make an appeal and had been told by the officer there that only those whose cases could be reassessed in time would get the payments and those who did not get assessed in the first week or so would not get any retrospective payment. I denied that and said the Assistance Board were wrong, because Parliament meant everybody to get it, even though it might take some little time to re-assess all cases. I followed that up by a Question to the Minister of Health and he made the following reply:

  1865
  "While precise information is not available it is estimated that about 100,000 determinations will have been reviewed in respect of week commencing 17th January. In rather more than 90 per cent. of such cases the review will result in some increase in the supplementary pension. The work of reviewing existing cases, which number over 1,250,000, will, it is expected, be completed by the end of March. Where the new Regulations result in an increase, the increase will not take effect retrospectively but as from the date of reassessment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th January, 1944; cols. 858–9, Vol. 396.]
  That was a statement which rather staggered the House. One hundred thousand cases means that about eight per cent. of the 1,250,000 will receive payments on the first day. This can go on until 29th April, which means that in the following 14 weeks there will be gradual payment to the other people and that those who come last will get nothing at all for the back period. I do not think there is any Member of the House who realised the position when we agreed to the Regulations, and I think we ought to re-examine the matter in the light of the impression which has been made on the old age pensioners. If half-a-dozen people go in for reassessment and three get paid on exactly the same basis while the remaining three have to wait a fortnight, three weeks or a month before they can be reassessed, they cannot understand why this should be so. It is unfair that Mrs. or Mr. Jones can get payment on the first day and that Mrs. Marsh cannot get payment until, say, three weeks afterwards, although her case is exactly similar. Surely it is not beyond the wit of this Parliament to try and do justice to these aged people. I wrote to the secretary of the branch in my division and asked him what had happened there, and he replied:
  "We have hundreds of people waiting to have their cases reviewed and at the rate they are being dealt with it will be well into March before they are cleared up. We do not blame the office staff of the Board, as they are doing all they can to get through them, but the old age pensioners do not understand why they cannot have arrears from 17th January as the delay is not due to them. We hope Parliament will put this matter right."
  The old age pensioners have accepted the position for the time being but they cannot understand why a body of intelligent men, as we claim to be—and I think we are entitled to that—cannot put this matter right. Maybe half a crown or 3s. to a family does not seem much, but it is a lot to them and only a small
  1866
  amount for the State. The Minister said it would mean 1s. 9½d. per week for every individual who was getting a supplementary pension. Taking that figure as correct, are we to say that we shall deprive the old age pensioners of this amount simply because there is not sufficient staff to review the cases in time? If we have made a mistake and have overlooked some point in the Regulation—and I confess I did not know about it—is it too late to say, "It is unfair to take advantage of old age pensioners in a matter like this when the fault is not theirs."? That is the appeal that I make to the House of Commons. In such a matter as this, which is of vital importance to old age pensioners, when we discover a mistake that we have made is it out of reason to seek a means by which we can remedy it? If we made a gesture of that kind I believe old age pensioners would welcome it and say, "After all, they have looked into our grievance and tried to make it right." In equity and fair play to this great body of people, who cannot protect themselves and depend on us to do it, is it too much to ask Parliament to try and put this matter right? We have a new Minister of Health. I do not blame him. It may have happened in the past. But I appeal to him to make a gesture of good will to these people and to take steps to remedy a grievance which we ought not to tolerate.
  Mr. Tom Brown: My experience in my constituency is similar to that of my hon. Friend and I want to support the plea that he has made. I am assuming that the Minister will tell us that it is administratively impossible to put into operation what we are asking for. He will tell us that there are several difficuties in the way. Whatever administrative difficulties may be, they are nothing compared with the economic difficulties now being experienced by old age pensioners. The right hon. Gentleman may also tell us that it has not been the practice to make retrospective payments, but there are two Measures under which retrospective payments have been agreed upon. An Act was passed amending Section 1 of the Widows, Old Age and Orphans (Contributions Pensions Act), 1929. It was passed on 11th June, 1931, and was made retrospective in its application to all cases coming under the Act to 2nd June, 1930, a period of 18 months. The last Act of

  1867
  Parliament dealing with social services was the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1943, which became operative on 29th November of that year. All the cases under review and reassessment are assured that, when the amount they are entitled to has been determined, they will receive payment back to 29th November, 1943. There are a large number of compensation cases in the mining areas which have not yet been settled but they have the assurance that, when they are settled, they will receive payment as from 29th November.
  We are pleading on behalf of men and women who have borne the heat and burden of the day and who, by their sacrifice and devotion to duty in their earlier life, made this country what it is to-day. They are now travelling towards the Western shore of life, and in my opinion they are entitled to all the help the State can give them for the service they have rendered in their day and generation. Surely our request cannot by any stretch of imagination be called unreasonable. On every Sitting Day this House opens its proceedings with prayer, and rightly so. That ceremony is sacred to me. The Speaker's Chaplain stands at that Box, and, with great reverence and sincerity, utters the prayer, "Give us this day our daily bread." That prayer is a "sincere desire" of us all, whether
  "Uttered or unexpressed;
  The motion of a hidden fire
  That trembles in the breast"
  of each one of us. My mind then begins to dwell on the action of the Department which, by its narrow and parsimonious outlook, prevents that prayer from being answered and fulfilled. It keeps back from those who are entitled to a few extra coppers a week the wherewithal to pay for the daily bread for which we pray.
  Surely the Minister cannot justify the action he is taking in withholding the concession of retrospective payments. I invite him to look at some of the old philosophies. He could dig deeply into the philosophies of Aristotle, Socrates, Emerson and Plato and find that all of them exhort the nations and the peoples to look after the aged and infirm. A nation only finds its soul when it begins to look after those who are in need of help, particularly the old people. May I remind the Minister of another philosophy of which I constantly remind myself as I journey along the pathway of life?
  1868
  "We shall pass this way but once. Any good thing that we can do, or any kindness that we can bestow upon any human being, let us not neglect it or defer it, for we shall not pass this way again."
  The Minister has a splendid opportunity to put into practical effect that profound philosophy, and I hope he will do so, for the old people are entitled to all the goodness and kindness which the State can bestow upon them. Let me express the hope that before the Minister replies he will get a vision of Agrippa, who, when the great Apostle stood before him trying to persuade him to do the right and just thing, replied, "Almost thou hast persuaded me." I hope that the Minister will go one better and say that we have persuaded him, and that he will grant the concession and agree to the payments to the old age pensioners being made retrospective to 17th January, 1944.
  Mr. Lipson: My hon. Friend the member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) has done a useful service in drawing attention to this matter. It is obvious that what he is asking the Minister to do is what Parliament intended. When we bring in a reform which affects a number of people, all should be treated alike. That is all we are asking. I cannot understand the difficulty about restrospective payment when the fact that it has to be made retrospective is simply due to the fact that the officers have not had sufficient time to decide all the cases. I often find that when I bring a case to my right hon. Friend's Department or the Minister of Pensions and I am able to persuade the Minister to agree that a person should get a pension, it is made retrospective to the time when the person was originally entitled to it. I have another word to say to my right hon. Friend, whose appointment to office I welcomed. I say this: if he wants to make a success of his office, as I hope and am sure he will, let him not try to defend the impossible. Do not say that what obviously ought to be done, cannot be done because of administrative difficulties. If he will act upon that advice, I shall be most grateful.
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) and Ince (Mr. T. Brown) for raising this point. I feel that I might to some extent have been to blame when I commended these Regulations to the House on 9th December. I was quite short about it, because I felt

  1869
  that the Regulations themselves and the accompanying Memorandum made this point we are discussing now absolutely clear. Though I make no complaint, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh did not really mean that the House of Commons had been misled.
  Mr. Tinker: Not in that sense.
  Mr. Willink: In the sense of a grievance. In point of fact, if any Member will look at paragraph 2 of the Regulations or at paragraphs 38 and 39 of the Explanatory Memorandum, he will find that the position is in fact made absolutely clear. Perhaps it is clearest of all in the Explanatory Memorandum, where it is stated:
  "Existing assessments will continue until the cases can be re-assessed under the new Regulations."
  There are a few exceptions, where provision is made that if the reassessment was made earlier and would result under these Regulations in a reduction, there should be no reduction. The change with regard to the winter allowance, combined with the new treatment of rent, would make a reduction in a few exceptional cases and it was therefore said that there should be no reassessment until 29th April, when the winter allowances would cease. It would be wrong to say that the House of Commons was misled.
  The only reason why I said nothing about this way of doing things is that it is precisely similar to what has been done on two previous occasions, and approved by the House. These Regulations are not essentially mine; they are put forward by the Assistance Board. I have to commend them to the House. They are there for the House to criticise. I do not want to take this sort of point, but I want, on the technical and administrative side, to say something on a point which I do not think is quite fully understood, and also to say something on the question of principle. First of all, everybody knows that this is a very big job. We have all heard that, but it might be put a little more expressively if I say that the work of reassessing over 1,250,000 cases involves the preparation of something like 20,000,000 orders. This will involve writing to over 700,000 pensioners. The speed with which this is done is most admirable. I would reassure the House on one point in regard to the time taken and I can give this assurance, that in no case will an increase be
  1870
  postponed beyond the pension pay day in the week beginning 20th March. It is not a question of the end of April.
  In what sort of order is the reassessment done? Right through the whole field of supplementary pensions there has to be a periodical review, and people therefore take their turn. People in identical circumstances get reviewed one later than another. There is no favouritism in regard to this type of review. Cases are now being reassessed in substantially the same order as they are reassessed in the normal course, only speeded up. I do not think there can be any doubt that the size of the job is really very great and is most effectively handled by the officers of the Assistance Board.
  Now as to the question of principle. There is, of course, an entirely different position in the field of contributory schemes where the payments are in the nature of contractual payments. Where some change in a scheme of that sort is made of course the payments all have to be made as from the same day and these are the sort of cases to which the hon. Member for Ince referred. This has been done on a number of occasions, but it must be remembered that the supplementary pensions scheme is not a scheme based on contributions. Nor is it a payment which is based on a means test like the non-contributory old age pensions. It is a payment based on needs, and you cannot meet needs retrospectively. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] What you can do is to meet accumulated needs if they arise. Let me make my point clear, because the suggestion is that the House has been led, through not reading the Regulations or the Memorandum, to accept something that it has twice accepted before without really being willing to do so. Is that really the case? Suggestions on this point have been made on other occasions, and as recently as June last the hon. Member for Ince, in the Committee stage of the Pensions and Determination of Needs Bill, moved an Amendment in these terms:
  "Provided that the further determination may include such sum as is calculated to meet any accumulated need."
  He will no doubt remember that he moved that Amendment and withdrew it. With the principle of that Amendment am in sympathy. What is more, I think I may considerably help the House if I tell them what in fact occurs in this

  1871
  regard—which is on the lines desired by my hon. Friend when he moved his Amendment eight months ago. I am prepared to tell the House that what is in fact, done to-day, is that any pensioner who says that needs have arisen during the period of re-assessment and that he has not been able to meet them but has postponed meeting them so that they have accumulated—then he can ask to have his case specially dealt with, and it will be met. So that what my hon. Friend was asking for eight months ago is in fact the practice of the Board. But to attempt in this particular case to say that you can meet in March a need which hypothetically arose in January is really in conflict——
  Mr. T. Brown: But the need was there on 17th January yet it is not met until April. It is still there all the time.
  Mr. Willink: No more so than in other cases, subject in the ordinary way to a periodical review which cannot be applied to all cases at the same time. It is a matter in which you must take the rough with the smooth. The Assistance Board do their very best to do this review speedily and equitably.
  Mr. Mathers: Have they instructions to work overtime? I know that many of them are doing it voluntarily.
  Mr. Willink: Their actual terms of service are no concern of mine. I do not
  1872
  know what their terms of service are, but to invoke the principle that these are payments to meet need and to say, as hon. Members have in effect said, that those concerned are entitled to them and to treat them as contractual payments is really beside the mark. As my hon. Friend said, the House has twice, even three times, with full information on these provisions before them, accepted the proposals which have been made with the good points as well as the points which have caused them some doubt.
  I agree that at first sight it may appear that there ought to be a further smoothing out of these cases but these new regulations have provided great advantages in many directions. Reductions have been entirely avoided. If hon. Members of the House had really perused either the Regulations or the Explanatory Memorandum they would have seen that this point was made abundantly clear. I think they should accept the responsibility for what they did on 9th December. There is the further difficulty that I am advised that there is very considerable doubt whether arrears irrespective of need can legally be paid by the Board.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: What about the war service grants? They were made retrospective. Why cannot that be done in this case?
  It being the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question Put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

  COAL INDUSTRY (MINEWORKERS, RECRUITMENT)
  COAL INDUSTRY (MINEWORKERS, RECRUITMENT)
  ITALIAN LIBERATED TERRITORY (TRADE UNIONS)
  ITALIAN LIBERATED TERRITORY (TRADE UNIONS)
  TAXI-CAB LICENCES (APPEALS)
  TAXI-CAB LICENCES (APPEALS)
  CIVILIAN VEHICLES (LIGHTING RESTRICTONS)
  CIVILIAN VEHICLES (LIGHTING RESTRICTONS)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax (Farmers)
  Income Tax (Farmers)
  Non-Contributory Old Age Pensions
  Non-Contributory Old Age Pensions
  BEVERIDGE REPORT (SALES)
  BEVERIDGE REPORT (SALES)
POST OFFICE
  Air Letter Service
  Air Letter Service
  Parcels From Troops
  Parcels From Troops
  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY (PENICILLIN)
  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY (PENICILLIN)
  SCHOOL CHILDREN (MEDICAL INSPECTION)
  SCHOOL CHILDREN (MEDICAL INSPECTION)
  KENYA (FOOD SHORTAGE COMMISSION, REPORT)
  KENYA (FOOD SHORTAGE COMMISSION, REPORT)
  PNEUMOCONIOSIS AND SILICOSIS (NORTH MIDLAND REGION)
  PNEUMOCONIOSIS AND SILICOSIS (NORTH MIDLAND REGION)
  PETROL (SERVICES, LEAVE ALLOWANCES)
  PETROL (SERVICES, LEAVE ALLOWANCES)
  CANALS (POWER-DRIVEN CRAFT)
  CANALS (POWER-DRIVEN CRAFT)
  RAILWAYS (COMMON CARRIER OBLIGATIONS)
  RAILWAYS (COMMON CARRIER OBLIGATIONS)
  EX-SERVICE PERSONNEL (EDUCATION AND TRAINING)
  EX-SERVICE PERSONNEL (EDUCATION AND TRAINING)
  POST-WAR INDUSTRIES (DURHAM)
  POST-WAR INDUSTRIES (DURHAM)
Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LORD COURTAULD-THOMSON.
Sir Courtauld Greenwood Courtauld-Thomson, K.B.E., C.B., having been created Baron Courtauld-Thomson of Dorneywood in the County of Buckingham—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

BOMBING POLICY.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government, whether, without detriment to the public interest, they can make a statement as to their policy regarding the bombing of towns in enemy countries, with special reference to the effect of such bombing on civilians as well as objects of non-military and non-Industrial significance in the area attacked; and to move for Papers.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, the question which I have to ask is beset with difficulties. It deals with an issue which must have it own anxieties for the Government, and certainly causes great searchings of heart amongst large numbers of people who are as resolute champions of the Allied cause as any member of your Lordships' House. If long-sustained and public opposition to Hitler and the Nazis since 1933 is any credential, I would humbly claim to be one of the most convinced and consistent Anti-Nazis in Great Britain. But I desire to challenge the Government on the policy which directs the bombing of enemy towns on the present scale, especially with reference to civilians, non-combatants, and non-military and non-industrial objectives. I also desire to make it plain that, in anything I say on this issue of policy, no criticism is intended of the pilots, the gunners, and the air crews who, in circumstances of tremendous danger, with supreme courage and skill, carry out the simple duty of obeying their superiors' orders.
Few will deny that there is a distinction in principle between attacks on military and industrial objectives and attacks on objectives which do not possess that character. At the outbreak of the war, in response to an appeal by President Roosevelt, the Governments of the United Kingdom and France issued a joint declaration of their intention to conduct hostilities with a firm desire to spare the civilian population and to preserve in every way possible those monuments of human achievement which are treasured in all civilized countries. At the same time explicit instructions were issued to the Commanders of the Armed Forces prohibiting the bombardment, whether from the air or from the sea or by artillery on land, of any except strictly military objectives in the narrowest sense of the word. Both sides accepted this agreement. It is true that the Government added that,
"In the event of the enemy not observing any of the restrictions which the Governments of the United Kingdom and France have thus imposed on the operation of their Armed Forces, these Governments reserve the right to take all such action as they may consider appropriate."
It is true that on May 10, 1940, the Government publicly proclaimed their intention to exercise this right in the event of bombing by the enemy of civilian populations. But the point which I wish to establish at this moment is that in entering the war there was no doubt in the Government's mind that the distinction between military and non-military objectives was real.
Further, that this distinction is based on fundamental principles accepted by civilized nations is clear from the authorities in International Law. I give one instance the weight of which will hardly be denied. The Washington Conference on Limitation of Armaments in 1922 appointed a Commission of Jurists to draw up a code of rules about aerial warfare. It did not become an international convention, yet great weight should be attached to that code on account of its authors. Article 22 reads:
"Aerial bombardment for the purpose of terrorizing the civilian population, of destroying or damaging private property not of military character, or of injuring non-combatants is prohibited."
Article 24 says:
" Aerial bombardment is legitimate only when directed at a military objective—that

739
is to say, an objective of which the destruction or injury would constitute a distinct military advantage to the belligerent."
Professor A. L. Goodhart, of Oxford, states:
"Both these Articles are based on the fundamental assumption that direct attack on non-combatants is an unjustifiable act of war."
The noble Viscount, Lord Halifax, at the beginning of this war, in reference to this very thing, described war as bloody and brutal. It is idle to suppose that it can be carried on without fearful injury and violence from which non-combatants as well as combatants suffer. It is still true, nevertheless, that there are recognized limits to what is permissible. The Hague Regulations of 1907 are explicit. "The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited." M. Bonfils, a famous French jurist, says:
"If it is permissible to drive inhabitants to desire peace by making them suffer, why not admit pillage, burning, torture, murder, violation? "
I have recalled the joint declaration and these pronouncements because it is so easy in the process of a long and exhausting war to forget what they were once held without question to imply, and because it is a common experience in the history of warfare that not only war but actions taken in war as military necessities are often supported at the time by a class of arguments which, after the war is over, people find are arguments to which they never should have listened.
I turn to the situation in February, 1944, and the terrific devastation by Bomber Command of German towns. I do not forget the Luftwaffe, or its tremendous bombing of Belgrade, Warsaw, Rotterdam, London, Portsmouth, Coventry, Canterbury and many other places of military, industrial and cultural importance. Hitler is a barbarian. There is no decent person on the Allied side who is likely to suggest that we should make him our pattern or attempt to be competitors in that market. It is clear enough that large-scale bombing of enemy towns was begun by the Nazis. I am not arguing that point at all. The question with which I am concerned is this. Do the Government understand the full force of what area bombardment is doing and is destroying now? Are they alive not only to the vastness of the material damage, much of which is irreparable, but also to
740
the harvest they are laying up for the future relationships of the peoples of Europe as well as to its moral implications? The aim of Allied bombing from the air, said the Secretary of State for Air at Plymouth on January 22, is to paralyze German war industry and transport. I recognize the legitimacy of concentrated attack on industrial and military objectives, on airfields and air bases, in view especially of the coming of the Second Front. I fully realize that in attacks on centres of war industry and transport the killing of civilians when it is the result of bona-fide military activity is inevitable. But there must be a fair balance between the means employed and the purpose achieved. To obliterate a whole town because certain portions contain military and industrial establishments is to reject the balance.
Let me take two crucial instances, Hamburg and Berlin. Hamburg has a population of between one and two million people. It contains targets of immense military and industrial importance. It also happens to be the most democratic town in Germany where the Anti-Nazi opposition was strongest. Injuries to civilians resulting from bona-fide attacks on particular objectives are legitimate according to International Law. But owing to the methods used the whole town is now a ruin. Unutterable destruction and devastation were wrought last autumn. On a very conservative estimate, according to the early German statistics, 28,000 persons were killed. Never before in the history of air warfare was an attack of such weight and persistence carried out against a single industrial concentration. Practically all the buildings, cultural, military, residential, industrial, religious—including the famous University Library with its 800,000 volumes, of which three-quarters have perished—were razed to the ground.
Berlin, the capital of the Reich, is four times the size of Hamburg. The offices of the Government, the military, industrial, war-making establishments in Berlin are a fair target. Injuries to civilians are inevitable. But up to date half Berlin has been destroyed, area by area, the residential and the industrial portions alike. Through the dropping of thousands of tons of bombs, including fire-phosphorus bombs, of extraordinary power, men and women have been lost, overwhelmed in the colossal tornado of smoke, blast and

741
flame. It is said that 74,000 persons have been killed and that 3,000,000 are already homeless. The policy is obliteration, openly acknowledged. That is not a justifiable act of war. Again, Berlin is one of the great centres of art collections in the world. It has a large collection of Oriental and classical sculpture. It has one of the best picture galleries in Europe, comparable to the National Gallery. It has a gallery of modern art better than the Tate, a museum of ethnology without parallel in this country, one of the biggest and best organized libraries—State and university, containing two and a half million books—in the world. Almost all these non-industrial, non-military buildings are grouped together near the old Palace and in the Street of the Linden. The whole of that street, which has been constantly mentioned in the accounts of the raids, has been demolished. It is possible to replace flat houses by mass production. It is not possible so quickly to rebuild libraries or galleries or churches or museums. It is not very easy to rehouse those works of art which have been spared. Those works of art and those libraries will be wanted for the re-education of the Germans after the war. I wonder whether your Lordships realize the loss involved in that.
How is it, then, that this wholesale destruction has come about? The answer is that it is the method used, the method of area bombing. The first outstanding raid of area bombing was, I believe, in the spring of 1942, directed against Lubeck, then against Rostock, followed by the thousand-bomber raid against Cologne at the end of May, 1942. The point I want to bring home, because I doubt whether it is sufficiently realized, is that it is no longer definite military and industrial objectives which are the aim of the bombers, but the whole town, area by area, is plotted carefully out. This area is singled out and plastered on one night; that area is singled out and plastered on another night; a third, a fourth, a fifth area is similarly singled out and plastered night after night, till, to use the language of the Chief of Bomber Command with regard to Berlin, the heart of Nazi Germany ceases to beat. How can there be discrimination in such matters when civilians, monuments, military objectives and industrial objectives all together form the target? How can the bombers aim at anything more than
742
a great space when they see nothing and the bombing is blind?
When the Nazis bombed France and Britain in 1940 it was denounced as "indiscriminate bombing." I recall this passage from a leader in The Times after the bombing of Paris on June 4, 1940:
"No doubt in the case of raids on large cities the targets are always avowedly military or industrial establishments; but, when delivered from the great height which the raiders seem to have been forced to keep by the anti-aircraft defences, the bombing in fact is bound to be indiscriminate."
And I recall two other more recent articles in The Times on our own policy. On January 10, 1944, the following was published:
"It is the proclaimed intention of Bomber Command to proceed with the systematic obliteration one by one of the centres of German war production until the enemy's capacity to continue the fight is broken down."
On January 31 the Aeronautical Correspondent wrote:
"Some of the most successful attacks of recent times have been made when every inch of the target area was obscured by unbroken cloud, thousands of feet thick, and when the crews have hardly seen the ground from which they took off until they were back at their bases again."
If your Lordships will weigh the implication, and observe not only the destruction of the war-production factories but the obliteration of the places in which they are and the complete invisibility of the target area, it must surely be admitted that the bombing is comprehensive and what would ordinarily be called indiscriminate.
The Government have announced their determination to continue this policy city by city. I give quotations. The Prime Minister, after the thousand-bomber raid on Cologne in 1942, said:
"Proof of the growing power of the British bomber force is also the herald of what Germany will receive city by city from now on."
Air Marshal Sir Arthur Harris, on July 28, 1942, said:
"We are going to scourge the Third Reich from end to end. We are bombing Germany city by city and ever more terribly in order to make it impossible for her to go on with the war. That is our object; we shall pursue it relentlessly."
A few days ago, as reported in the Sunday Express of January 23, an Air Marshal said: "One by one we shall pull out every town in Germany like teeth."
I shall offer reasons for questioning this policy as a whole, but what I wish immediately to urge is this. There are old German towns, away from the great centres, which may be subjected—which almost certainly will be subjected—to the raids of Bomber Command. Almost certainly they are on the long list. Dresden, Augsburg, Munich are among the larger towns, Regensburg, Hildesheim and Marburg are a few among the smaller beautiful cities. In all these towns the old centres, the historic and beautiful things, are well preserved, and the industrial establishments are on the outskirts. After the destruction of the ancient town centres of Cologne, with its unique Romanesque churches, and Lubeck, with its brick cathedral, and Mainz, with one of the most famous German cathedrals, and of the old Gothic towns, the inner towns, Nuremburg, Hamburg and others, it would seem to be indicated that an effort, a great effort should be made to try to save the remaining inner towns. In the fifth year of the war it must surely be apparent to any but the most complacent and reckless how far the destruction of European culture has already gone. We ought to think once, twice, and three times before destroying the rest. Something can still be saved if it is realized by the authorities that the industrial centres, generally speaking, lie outside the old inner parts where are the historical monuments.
I would especially stress the danger—outside Germany—to Rome. The principle is the same, but the destruction of the main Roman monuments would create such hatred that the misery would survive when all the military and political advantages that may have accrued may have long worn off. The history of Rome is our own history. Rome taught us, through the example of Christ, to abolish human sacrifice and taught us the Christian faith. The destruction would rankle in the memory of every good European as Rome's destruction by the Goths or the sack of Rome rankled. The blame simply must not fall on those who are professing to create a better world. The resentment which would, inevitably, follow would be too deep-seated to be forgotten. It would be the sort of crime which one day, even in the political field, would turn against the perpetrators.
I wish to offer a few concluding remarks on the policy as a whole. It will be said that this area bombing—for it is this area bombing which is the issue to-day—is definitely designed to diminish the sacrifice of British lives and to shorten the war. We all wish with all our hearts that these two objects could be achieved, but to justify methods inhumane in themselves by arguments of expediency smacks of the Nazi philosophy that Might is Right. In any case the idea that it will reduce the sacrifice is speculation. The Prime Minister, as far back as August, 1940, before either Russia or America entered the war, justified the continued bombardment of German industries and communications as one of the surest, if not the shortest, of all the roads to victory. We are still fighting. It is generally admitted that German aircraft and military production, though it has slowed down, is going forward; and your Lordships may have noticed signs in certain military quarters of a tendency to question the value of this area bombing policy on military grounds. The cost in sacrifice of human life when the Second Front begins has never been disguised either from the American or from the British public by our leaders.
It is also urged that area bombing will break down morale and the will to fight. On November 5, in a speech at Cheltenham, the Secretary of State for Air said that bombing in this way would continue until we had paralysed German war industries, disrupted their transport system and broken their will to war. Again leaving the ethical issue aside, it is pure speculation. Up to now the evidence received from neutral countries is to the opposite effect. It is said that the Berliners are taking it well. Let me quote from two Swedish papers. On November 30 last, the Svenska Dagbladet—this was during the first stage of our raids on Berlin—said:
"Through their gigantic air raids the British have achieved what Hitler failed to achieve by means of decrees and regulations; they have put the majority of the German people on a war footing."
On January 9 of this year, the Sydsvenska Dagbladet said:
"The relative German strength on the home front is undoubtedly based on desperation, which increases and gets worse the longer the mass bombing lasts. It is understandable that the fewer the survivors and the more they

745
lose the more the idea spreads 'We have everything to gain and nothing to lose, and we can only regain what is ours if Germany wins the final victory, so let us do everything in our power.'"
If there is one thing absolutely sure, it is that a combination of the policy of obliteration with a policy of complete negation as to the future of a Germany which has got free from Hitler is bound to prolong the war and make the period after the war more miserable.
I am not extenuating the crimes of the Nazis or the responsibility of Germany as a whole in tolerating them for so long, but I should like to add this. I do not believe that His Majesty's Government desire the annihilation of Germany. They have accepted the distinction between Germany and the Hitlerite State.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: NO.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: On March 10 of last year the Lord Chancellor, speaking officially for the Government, accepted that distinction quite clearly and precisely. Is it a matter for wonder that Anti-Nazis who long for help to overthrow Hitler are driven to despair? I have here a telegram, which I have communicated to the Foreign Office, sent to me on December 27 last by a well-known Anti-Nazi Christian leader who had to flee from Germany for his life long before the war. It was sent from Zurich, and puts what millions inside Germany must feel. He says:
"Is it understood that present situation gives us no sincere opportunity for appeal to people because one cannot but suspect effect of promising words on practically powerless population convinced by bombs and phosphor that their annihilation is resolved?"
If we wish to shorten the war, as we must, then let the Government speak a word of hope and encouragement both to the tortured millions of Europe and to those enemies of Hitler to whom in 1939 Mr. Churchill referred as ''millions who stand aloof from the seething mass of criminality and corruption constituted by the Nazi Party machine."
Why is there this blindness to the psychological side? Why is there this inability to reckon with the moral and spiritual facts? Why is there this forget-fulness of the ideals by which our cause is inspired? How can the War Cabinet fail to see that this progressive devastation of cities is threatening the roots of civiliza-
746
tion? How can they be blind to the harvest of even fiercer warring and desolation, even in this country, to which the present destruction will inevitably lead when the members of the War Cabinet have long passed to their rest? How can they fail to realize that this is not the way to curb military aggression and end war? This is an extraordinarily solemn moment. What we do in war—which, after all, lasts a comparatively short time—affects the whole character of peace, which covers a much longer period. The sufferings of Europe, brought about by the demoniac cruelty of Hitler and his Nazis, and hardly imaginable to those in this country who for the last five years have not been out of this island or had intimate association with Hitler's victims, are not to be healed by the use of power only, power exclusive and unlimited. The Allies stand for something greater than power. The chief name inscribed on our banner is "Law." It is of supreme importance that we who, with our Allies, are the liberators of Europe should so use power that it is always under the control of law. It is because the bombing of enemy towns—this area bombing—raises this issue of power unlimited and exclusive that such immense importance is bound to attach to the policy and action of His Majesty's Government. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT FITZALAN OF DERWENT: My Lords, I cannot possibly agree with what I understand to be the views of the right reverend Prelate who has just spoken in regard to bombing on the Continent. I am an out-and-out bomber, and I approve of the bombing action the Government have taken against Germany, and I hope that there may be more to come. When the right reverend Prelate appeals to me to say a word, if I can, on the question of religious persecution or trouble in Rome I am very glad to be able to respond to his request. Personally I have the greatest possible devotion and affection for the present holder of the high office of Pope, and I should deprecate strongly anything being done that might put him to any personal inconvenience. At the same time, apart from sentimental grounds, I cannot be blind to the fact that whatever may happen to the existing occupant of the Holy See at any particular time, the Church always arranges that we are provided with a successor whenever a vacancy does occur. Also I depre-

747
cate strongly the possibility of any action being taken that might encourage the bombing of the city of Rome itself. I think it would be deplorable, not only on religious grounds but also on grounds of culture, if any damage were done to the city of Rome. I do not at all confine my views on that point to those of my own religion. I say exactly the same thing with regard to any other religious centre or religious culture throughout the world. I cannot conceive anything more humiliating to our Government or anyone else than to be responsible for doing wanton damage to the city of Rome, and I earnestly hope the Government will take every precaution to avoid any such thing occurring.
LORD LANG OF LAMBETH: My Lords, let me say at once that in the few remarks with which I shall trouble your Lordships I do not intend to follow the speech of the Bishop of Chichester, because I should be sorry, whether by agreement or by criticism, in any way to diminish the effect of its courage, sincerity and impressive-ness. I must content myself with one or two quite general observations. There is indeed one subject alluded to by the right reverend Prelate and by my noble friend who has just sat down on which I should have liked to speak at some length, that is to say the preservation of objects of historical and cultural value in the war areas. I think that is a subject so important that it deserves separate treatment, apart from any question of the ethics of the policy of bombing. Besides, it is a subject upon which I think many of your Lordships are well able to speak with special knowledge and interest. Accordingly I wish to say now that I have tabled a Motion to be brought before your Lordships' House at the next series of sittings on this particular subject, and I have reason to think that the Government would welcome the opportunity of amplifying the statement recently made in another place by the Secretary for War, which was in some ways reassuring. I therefore add nothing more on that subject to-day, and I say this now because perhaps some of your Lordships who may have wished to speak on this particular aspect of the subject may prefer to defer your remarks till the next series of sittings.
I therefore confine myself to one or two quite general observations. Of course, we must all assume, as the right reverend
748
Prelate assumes, that one of the primary objects of modern warfare must be to cripple or destroy the enemy's supply and manufacture of the munitions of war. That means, of course, in the main the destruction of munition works of every sort and kind, and that mainly from the air. Unfortunately, it must also be acknowledged that this cannot well be done without running the risk of destroying or damaging the houses or lives of civilians who live near, or in the immediate neighbourhood of, these munition works. That, I think, is a matter of necessary agreement. At the same time in passing I am bound to say that the recent attacks upon cities like Hamburg, Frankfurt and Berlin seem to me to go a long way beyond what has hitherto been the declared policy of the Government and the Higher Command. We were always told that that policy was to limit attacks to definite military objectives or their immediate neighbourhood, and not directly and purposely to involve the destruction of the lives and the homes of the people. I do not think it can be said that that policy has been adhered to in these apparently deliberate attempts to destroy whole cities, and I venture to think there is some force—I think we must all admit it—in the plea that either the hitherto declared policy is to be changed or this new policy is to be definitely adopted. That I think would give rise to a good deal of criticism which has hitherto been quite silent.
But, be that as it may, this is the very simple point on which I wish to base my few remarks: It is one thing to accept the destruction of military objectives and of their immediate neighbourhood as a regrettable military necessity; it is quite another thing to exult in it, to gloat over it, and to regard it as something that is in itself worthy of almost jubilant congratulations. What I want to do in these few remarks is not to criticize the Government but to give some indication of the effect of all this upon the moral outlook of our people. If it be true that such a mood, such a temper, of exultation is becoming prevalent among large sections of the people, it must involve a very lamentable lapse in their moral outlook. I may be wrong—I hope Iam—but I seem to see a good many signs of the spread of this particular mood and temper amongst some of our people. For example, I have recently had a fairly full correspondence where the language in

749
which this mood is expressed is to me shocking, not only from those cranks and fanatics who are apparently the natural correspondents of one who has been an Archbishop, from people whose frenzies we may entirely ignore, but from, apparently, sane and sober citizens. This is the kind of thing—"Let them have it, they did it to us, let us do it to them tenfold, pay them back in their own coin," and all the language with which we are only too familiar. It is the effect of all that upon the people that I deplore.
It may be in a sense natural. The lex talionis is one of the oldest and most primitive instincts of mankind. We cannot be surprised that it rises in strength in the hearts of chose who have lost homes and lives which they loved; though indeed I must add It is not among them, but among people more comfortably placed, from whom we hear most of this rather savage language. We may admit all that, but nevertheless it is plain that there must be some real moral deterioration in the indulgence of this temper, stimulated as it is, apparently, by the headlines of our popular Press—so many thousands and thousands of bombs dropped here and there—and sometimes by the announcements on the wireless. If that becomes prevalent, it means this, that the ruthlessness in which it exults, and for which it clamours, must bring us into competition with our enemy at his worst. It must mean that, somehow or other, we become indifferent to those values of humane civilization for which, as a people, we have believed we are contending in this war. That sort of competition is one, we should all agree, in which success would be far more dishonourable than defeat. It is a competition in which we can win only by the sacrifice of what has been best and noblest in the traditions of our race.
War, as the right reverend Prelate truly said, is fertile of every kind of evil. There are some splendid memories which this generation which has gone through the war may be able to hand down to the succeeding generations—memories of the vigilance and resourcefulness of our sailors, of the constant courage and cheerfulness of our soldiers, of the skill and bravery of our gallant airmen, and of the endurance and fortitude of our people. Would it not be lamentable if these great memories were to be sullied by other memories of which, on reflection,
750
conscience would have cause to be ashamed? I repeat that I should be glad to be convinced that I was exaggerating the prevalence of this rather truculent spirit among our people, but I know there are many of our fellow countrymen giving themselves heart and soul, spending all they can of their energies and of what they possess, in this war effort who are becoming convinced that it represents a very real moral danger to our people, and who are anxious that some word of warning should be uttered against it. I hope you will not think I have been wasting your time in these few minutes if I have ventured to utter such a warning in your Lordships' House.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE) (Lord Cecil): My Lords, the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Chichester, in his very eloquent, moving, and sincere speech this afternoon, raised the question of our bombing policy towards enemy countries. If he asked for some assurance from His Majesty's Government that the purpose of these intensive attacks upon German cities is to hamper and, if possible, to bring to a standstill enemy war production, and not merely to sprinkle bombs broadcast with the object of damaging ancient monuments and spreading terror among the civilian population, I am very ready to give him that assurance. Indeed I am very happy to have the opportunity of doing so. As your Lordships know, the Royal Air Force has never indulged in pure terror raids, in what used to be known as Baedeker raids of the kind which the Luftwaffe indulged in at one time on this country. Nor, as indeed the right reverend Prelate himself recognized, did we start raids on enemy cities. The city of Rotterdam and the city of Warsaw were destroyed by the Germans before a single British bomb ever fell upon German soil. In passing, if I may take the opportunity, I should like to say a word about what was said by my noble friend Lord FitzAlan of Derwent. I would assure him that it is certainly not the intention of His Majesty's Government to drop bombs within the precincts of the Vatican City nor, if it can be avoided, on the city of Rome.
At the same time, although it is clearly right that the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Chichester, should clear his

751
conscience on this matter, about which he feels so very deeply, although all of us have very considerable sympathy with much that he has said to your Lordships to-day, and although I entirely agree with what was said by my most reverend friend Lord Lang of Lambeth that it would be very wrong for us to gloat over the destruction of German towns which has been forced upon us by the necessities of the military situation—in this respect I would entirely agree with the right reverend Prelate—at the same time I think it is also right that he and we should face hard facts frankly. If the right reverend Prelate will allow me to say so, I do not think he was facing these facts, quite, this afternoon. The hard, inescapable fact is that war is a horrible thing, and that it cannot be carried on without suffering, often caused to those who are not immediately responsible for causing the conflict. In the situation with which we are faced today we cannot expect to find means of conducting hostilities which do not involve suffering. We cannot do any such thing. What we have to do, to the best of our ability, is to weigh against each other how much suffering is going to be caused or saved by any action which we may feel obliged to take.
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate himself has been within recent months prominent in bringing before your Lordships other aspects of the present conflict. He has pointed out again and again—though it is not an aspect he dealt with very much to-day—the cruelties which are being inflicted by the Axis Powers upon Jews and upon the peoples of the occupied countries. He has told—and we know it to be entirely true—how they are being persecuted, how they are being tortured, how they are being starved, and he has asked what His Majesty's Government can do to alleviate their miseries. He has always received a reply from the Government spokesman—I have had to give it to him several times myself—that the only cure for these miseries is to bring the war to a victorious end and liberate the occupied countries from their present servitude. That is the only honest answer, as I am quite sure the right reverend Prelate himself would agree. The purpose of the present air offensive is to achieve just that happy result at the earliest possible moment. It has been carefully planned with precisely that aim.
752
The targets which have been attacked are the administrative centres, the great industrial towns, the ports and the centres of communication. These targets have been chosen with the definite object of making it more difficult for Germany and her Allies to carry on war. That is why the Royal Air Force attacked Essen, why it attacked Mannheim, Cologne, Hamburg, Magdeburg, Berlin and many other towns. Your Lordships will remember that we have never concentrated upon sleepy country towns and villages. That would not only have been unnecessarily brutal; it would have been utterly futile from our point of view. But I would emphasize this to the right reverend Prelate: the great centres of administration, of production and of communication are themselves military targets in a total war. You cannot escape that fact.
Take Berlin, which was mentioned by the right reverend Prelate himself this afternoon. It is not only the administrative centre of Germany, it is not only the heart and soul of the Nazi system, where are situated Government Departments and the headquarters of Himmler's network of Secret Police; it is also the most important centre of German war production and it is the largest railway and air transport centre in Europe to-day. It contains the Siemens works, which make electrical equipment, it contains the Rheinmetal Borsig, which make guns, the Daimler Benz, which make tanks, the A.E.G., which make electrical cables and submarine motors, the Lorenz works, which make wireless equipment, the Henschel works, which are devoted to aircraft assembly, and the Argus works, which make aero engines. These are only some of the works which are within the boundaries of the city of Berlin. They are all war targets of the very first importance. In addition, there are numbers of smaller enterprises scattered broadcast throughout the city. Every garage is transformed into a factory for the production of war material.
If you look at another city, Magdeburg, which has also been the subject of air attack, it is one of the foremost cities in central Germany, it is an important centre both of industry and of river and rail traffic, it contains many large engineering and armaments firms, the Braun-kohle Synthetic Oil Plant, the Krupps Tank Assembly Works, the Lignose

753
Chemical Works which produces more than half the total output of T.N.T., and the Polte Armament Works. I could give similar details of every one of the cities that the Royal Air Force has attacked in its recent campaign.
I would like to give one or two more instances, because I think it is important that your Lordships and the country should realize the purpose for which our raids are organized. Take Essen, which, as we all know, is the centre of the Krupp Armament Works. I thought it might be valuable to your Lordships to know what the results of our bombing of that city have been, and I have taken pains to obtain a very brief account. This is what it says:
"As a result of our attacks virtually no part of the Krupp Armament Works, which covers an area of two square miles, escaped damage, and most of the important shops were destroyed completely. The severity of the damage was such that virtually no reconstruction has been undertaken, and this concern, probably the largest individual producers of armaments in Germany and also an important centre of locomotive manufacture, has been virtually put out of action. The earlier raids brought the work to a standstill from which subsequent ones never permitted it to recover, and some indication of the effect upon the German military position can be gauged from the fact that the production of heavy guns by the whole of the Krupp organization was reported, in the month of June, to have been reduced by 75 per cent. compared with the production in January."
One last example. It is calculated that the intensive attacks which were made against Hamburg last summer cost Germany, in the next three months no less than 400,000,000 man-hours—an immense reduction of her capacity to manufacture materials of war. This could have been achieved in no other way than the method that was adopted. Now it may well be, and I personally do not blink the fact, that these great German war industries can only be paralysed by bringing the whole life of the cities in which they are situated to a standstill, making it quite impossible for the workmen to carry on their work. That is a fact we may have to face and I do face it. It is, I suggest, a full justification for the present bombing campaign. I am sure that your Lordships would not refuse to accept the idea of shelling cities and towns in the front line. Nobody likes it, but it has to be done for the purpose of winning wars. The German cities which I have mentioned are in the front line and they must be
754
bombarded. In addition—and this is another point which I would like the. right reverend Prelate to consider—by the very fact of our attack, and the possibility of further attacks, we are holding at the present time a vast proportion of German fighter planes on the Western Front. Up to 80 per cent. are held there and they are 80 per cent. of the best German machines. That, of course, greatly facilitates the efforts of our heroic Russian Allies to liberate their own country from the Nazi yoke.
Therefore, when considering what I fully agree is a most difficult question, I do ask the right reverend Prelate and other noble Lords not only to think of the Germans who are suffering from these raids, but to think also of the Russians and the Poles and the Czechs, the Dutch, the Belgians, the Norwegians, the Yugoslavs, the Greeks, the French and the Danes who are at present enduring intolerable anguish at the hands of the Armies of the Axis. Every day, appalling stories flow in from the occupied countries of men, women and children who are being starved, subjected to fiendish tortures, mental and physical, at the hands of the German Secret Police, who are being slaughtered in droves. We must remember that. We must also remember our own soldiers and airmen who at present are engaged in mortal combat in Italy, and those others who are soon to engage in yet greater attacks in other parts of Europe. We must remember our men who are languishing at present in intolerable conditions in Japanese prison camps, and the soldiers and sailors of our Allies. Their lives are our responsibility.
I sometimes wondered as I listened to the right reverend Prelate—I appreciate his sincerity—whether he really wants to help these people, because if he does want to get them out of their misery he must accept the implications of that policy. The only way to end this horror is to beat our enemies rapidly and completely and restore enduring peace. That is the only way. From that aim we must not avert our eyes, however kind our hearts, however deep our sentiments. While, therefore, I deeply respect the high motives which have inspired the right reverend Prelate, and while I am glad to give the general assurance contained in the earlier part of my speech, I cannot hold out hope that we shall abate our bombing policy. On the contrary, we shall continue it against proper and suitable targets with

755
increasing power and more crushing effects until final victory is achieved. So alone, in my view, shall we be able to fulfil our obligations to our own people, to our Allies, and to the world.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude for the courtesy of the noble Viscount's reply. I will not disguise the fact that the end of his speech was not exactly unexpected but was nevertheless a disappointment. I, of course, wish—no one more—for the liberation of the unfortunate peoples of Europe, and I know it is only by the conquest of Hitler and his associates that that can be achieved. I would very strongly press the noble Viscount to take great pains about the definition of legitimate objectives of a military and industrial kind and to avoid to the utmost extent possible any confusion of them with non-military and non-industrial objectives. I do not wish to trouble your Lordships further, but we have to think of the future as well as the present. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

MAGISTRATES IN JUVENILE COURTS.
LORD SOUTHWOOD: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing on the Paper in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they are in a position to provide statistics about changes in the age groups of magistrates in juvenile courts since the end of October, 1943.]
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I have been asked to reply to this question. As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the noble Lord's permission, circulate it in the Official Report.
The answer was as follows:
Returns of the new juvenile court panels which took office in November, 1943, have been received from 977 of the 986 petty sessional divisions, and a classification of the ages of the justices in five-year groups gives the following results:

Men.

Women.

Total.

Percentage of ages stated.

Under 40

112

72

184

2·3

40–44

270

148

418

5·1

45–49

436

274

710

8·7

50–54

690

442

1,132

13·8

55–59

989

459

1,448

17·8

60–64

1,218

479

1,697

20·8

65–69

935

390

1,325

16·2

70–74

659

214

873

10·7

75–79

222

77

299

3·7

80–84

50

13

63

0·8

85–89

4

2

6

0·1

Over 90

—

—

—

—

Age not stated

25

11

36

—

Total

5,610

2,581

8,191

—

The 1940 figures were as follows:

Men.

Women.

Total.

Percentage of ages stated.

Under 40

94

52

146

1·8

40–44

170

119

289

3·5

45–49

313

193

506

6·1

50–54

555

352

907

11·0

55–59

990

419

1,409

17·1

60–64

1,158

471

1,629

19·7

65–69

1,163

369

1,532

18·6

70–74

931

233

1,164

14·1

75–79

430

85

515

6·2

80–84

121

20

141

1·7

85–89

13

3

16

0·2

Over 90

3

—

3

—

Age not stated

315

106

421

—

Total

6,256

2,422

8,678

—

House adjourned.