Sitting of 16 February 1944

Preamble
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

COMMITTEE ON UNOPPOSED BILLS
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Major Milner): I beg to move,
"That, if at any time the Chairman of Ways and Means is of opinion that in order to facilitate the progress of the Bills then referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills under Standing Order III the adoption of such a course is desirable, he may apportion the Bills between two Committees on Unopposed Bills, the composition and quorum of each being those prescribed by Standing Order III as modified by this Order, and each Committee shall have the assistance of the Counsel to Mr. Speaker, and all the Standing Orders applying to the Committee on Unopposed Bills shall apply to each Committee:
That the Chairman of Ways and Means have power to select from the panel appointed under Standing Order III one Member to act as Chairman at every meeting of a Committee on Unopposed Bills at which neither the Chairman of Ways and Means nor the Deputy Chairman is present, and at any such meeting the Member so selected shall be a Member of the Committee in addition to the three Members mentioned in Standing Order III:
That during the present Session the Committee of Selection have power to add to the panel appointed under Standing Order III."
The House may wish to have a word of explanation from me on this and the other Motion which stand on the Order Paper in my name. This first Motion relates to unopposed Bills and enables or authorises the setting up of a second Unopposed Bills Committee if the press of business requires it. The second Motion enables the Opposed Bills Committee to have the assistance of the Counsel to Mr. Speaker so as to ensure uniformity. Both Motions have been passed in each Session since 1937, and I hope, with that explanation, the House will be good enough to agree thereto.
Question put, and agreed to.

COMMITTEES ON OPPOSED BILLS CONTAINING LOCAL LEGISLATION CLAUSES.
Ordered:
"That in the case of an Opposed Bill promoted by a municipal or other local authority containing clauses by which it is proposed to create powers relating to Police, Sanitary and other Local Government matters in conflict with, deviation from, or excess of the provisions of the general law, the Committee to which the Bill is referred shall, when considering such clauses as aforesaid, have the assistance of the Counsel to Mr. Speaker."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

NOTICES OF MOTION
Mr. Bowles: On a point of Order. On page 673 it is stated against my name that on going into Committee of Supply on Civil Estimates I shall call attention to the future of Civil Aviation. It should have been on the Air Estimates.
Mr. Speaker: I can assure the hon. Member that is a misprint and was noticed. It has been put right.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  YUGOSLAVIA (GENERAL MIHAILOVICH)
  Mr. G. Straussasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what our present relationship is with General Mihailovich; whether he is opposing the enemy; and whether we are sending him any equipment.
  The Secretary of State for Foreiģn Affairs (Mr. Eden): For operational reasons, I am unable to make a statement on these points at present.

  CIVILIAN INTERNEES, FAR EAST (EXCHANGE)
  Mr. Hammersleyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the reason for the hold-up of the exchange of 1,600 civilian internees from the Far East and the British Commonwealth, respectively; what steps have been taken to overcome these difficulties; and what is the outcome of the negotiations which have been proceeding since May, 1943.
  Mr. Eden: It would not be in the interest either of the interned civilians whom we hope to repatriate or of our prisoners of war if we were to discuss in public these negotiations with an enemy Government and I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the matter.
  Mr. Hammersley: Could my right hon. Friend assure the House that as far as the British Government are concerned, any obstacles which it is within their power to remove, will be removed, and that so far as other Governments are concerned, they are doing the best they possibly can to deal, with the situation?
  Mr. Eden: As my hon. Friend knows, we are very anxious to reach agreement on this matter as we did in the earlier stage, but of course we are dealing with an enemy Government, for whom, fortunately, I have not to answer.

  JAPAN (POST-WAR TREATMENT)
  Major Nieldasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the Japanese atrocities against our prisoners of war in their hands, he will consider outlawing Japan, and making a public statement that after the war there can be no place for Japan among the civilised nations.
  Mr. Eden: The question of the treatment to be accorded to Japan, as to our other enemies, after the war is clearly a matter for consultation between the Allied Governments concerned. His Majesty's Government would not therefore wish to make any unilateral declaration on the subject.

  ETHIOPIA AND IRAQ
  Viscount Hinchinģbrookeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will cause a White Paper to be laid before Parliament describing the nature of the present Governments of Ethiopia and Iraq, and indicating the extent to which the British civil and military authority has been successful in securing co-operation from local native administrations in rebuilding the life of these countries.
  Mr. Eden: Ethiopia and Iraq are independent States and it is not therefore
  156
  for me to lay a White Paper dealing with the general condition of their affairs.
  Viscount Hinchinģbrooke: Could my right hon. Friend confirm that the British Government have no continuing responsibility for these two countries; and also that his answer does hot cover ex-enemy territory such as Eritrea and Italian Somaliland?
  Mr. Eden: Iraq and Abyssinia are independent States. Certainly I have no responsibility for the conduct of their internal affairs, and those British subjects employed by them are, of course, working under those Governments. As regards enemy-occupied territories, they are in quite a different category and are not covered by my answer.
  Mr. Shinwell: Are we rendering any assistance to Ethiopia in the rebuilding of her life?
  Mr. Eden: Yes, we have been doing so. We have had advisers there for some considerable time giving help in that direction.
  Mr. Neil Maclean: Considering the fact that this country and its troops were responsible for freeing Ethiopia from Italian rule, is there not some compact between this country and Ethiopia which can be laid before the House?
  Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, there was an agreement between us and the Ethiopian Government at the time, which was made known to the House. I am dealing here only with those who are serving with these foreign Governments. I say it is not for me to give an account of the internal administration of these foreign States.

  SURRENDERED ITALIAN SHIPS (EMPLOYMENT)
  Commander Sir Archibald Southbyasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the ships of the Italian Navy which surrendered to the Allies are now taking part in the struggle against Germany or Japan.
  The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr: A.V. Alexander): All the surrendered Italian warships that can be usefully employed are now taking part in appropriate theatres of operations.
  Sir A. Southby: Will the First Lord say exactly what he means by "usefully employed" when talking of the Italian Fleet? Now that this nation which has caused the loss of so many British lives is our Ally, would it not be possible to have the heavy Italian units put to some useful purpose against the Japanese or the Germans?
  Mr. Alexander: If I were to describe the use of the Italian ships, I should be giving information to the enemy, which I cannot possibly do. All I can say is that the majority of the ships are being usefully employed.
  Commander Locker-Lampson: Have all the Italian ships concerned now been released by the Spanish Government?
  Mr. Molson: Are these ships which are in use against the enemy manned by Italian or by British crews?
  Mr. Alexander: By Italian crews.

  ROYAL NAVY

    R.N.V.R. Officers (Promotion)
    Colonel Greenwellasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many officers serving in the R.N.V.R., on 3rd September, 1939, have since been promoted to the rank of Commodore or higher.
    Mr. Alexander: One R.N.V.R. officer who was serving prior to the war has been granted the acting rank of Commodore, R.N.V.R.
    Colonel Greenwell: Can the First Lord say why it has only been possible to promote such a very small number of these officers to this rank? It is not giving them very much encouragement, is it?
    Mr. Alexander: The position arises on the establishment of Commodore, R.N.V.R., which exists under the arrangements made before the war. Of course, the promotion of other officers to acting rank of Commodore depends entirely on their experience.

    Admiralty Messenģers (Train Accommodation)
    Viscount Hinchinģbrookeasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the great congestion on the railways, he will put an end to the practice
    158
    of reserving whole compartments for Admiralty messengers travelling alone.
    Mr. Alexander: I regret I am unable to accept my Noble Friend's suggestion.
    Viscount Hinchinģbrooke: Would the First Lord look into the possibility of transferring this courier service to the roads? Has he made every attempt to see whether existing military motor services could not be used to release accommodation on the railways?
    Mr. Alexander: Of course every inquiry has been made, but it is essential in all these long-distance journeys, especially the heavy traffic journeys which we have to make, to consider other matters like petrol, rubber and man-power.
    Mr. Mathers: Is it not the case that these couriers usually travel by night in a sleeper which is only available for one person?
    Mr. Alexander: That is not always the case.

    Flyinģ Officers (Sea Service)
    Captain Cobbasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether flying duties from a shore base are counted as sea time in the promotion of naval officers; and, if not, is it proposed to amend King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions to avoid this discrimination against air service compared with sea service.
    Mr. Alexander: No. Sir. No period of sea service is required as a condition of promotion of officers of the Air Branch. The only flying officers who are affected by the regulation in question are general service executive officers who have taken up flying duties. As these remain on the general list of executive officers they must be qualified for naval duties, including the command of H.M. ships, and for this purpose sea experience is essential. Their appointments are so arranged, however, that they undergo the short periods of sea time which are required for promotion, before they reach the promotion zone and they are thus not handicapped in their naval career by taking up flying duties.

    Non-Operational Service (Awards)
    Mr. Wootton-Daviesasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the unrest among men with more than six months' non-operational service

    159
    on account of their inability to claim the 1939–43 Star, which is available to Navy and Merchant Navy personnel after six months' service afloat in areas of active operations; and if he will consider the award of a special decoration to such men after a period of six months' service.
    Mr. Alexander: I am not aware of any widespread unrest of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers. The institution of a special award for non-operational service of six months or more in the Royal Navy would fall to be considered as part of the larger question of such an award being instituted for non-operational services generally.
    Sir A. Southby: Is the First Lord not aware that there is in the Navy as in the Army very considerable dissatisfaction concerning the present regulations governing the award both of the 1939–43 Star and the Africa Star?
    Mr. Alexander: I understand that that general issue is likely to be debated by the House very shortly.
    Mr. Thorne: May I ask the First Lord how, if there is any dissatisfaction in the Navy, he is going to find out?
    Mr. Alexander: We usually hear if there is anything of that kind.

  TRINIDAD (DRAINAGE SCHEME)
  Mr. Rileyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the steps being taken to drain the Laventille and Caroni Swamps in Trinidad, which constitute the biggest single malaria menace and reservoir of anopheles mosquito breeding in the Colony; and whether the land reclaimed from those swamps will be used for the cultivation of rice.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Emrys-Evans): I have been asked to reply. Plans have been made for the gradual draining of these swamps to be carried out as and when the necessary equipment and labour become available. Land reclaimed from swamps is at present being used for the cultivation of rice.
  Mr. Riley: Is it not a fact that there is a great surplus of labour in Barbados,
  160
  which would be available, as well as a surplus in Jamaica?
  Mr. Emrys-Evans: That is quite another question.

  SEYCHELLES (WAGES AND PRICES)
  Mr. Rileyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that in the Seychelles a food subsidy is granted to any person whose income is under 25 rupees or 37s. a month, while the wage of a male plantation worker remains at the pre-war rate of 11 rupees, or 16s. 6d. a month; and since the price of copra in the Seychelles is more than double the pre-war price, whether he will fix minimum wages for labourers on coconut plantations at a level related both to the increased cost of living and the increases price of copra, in order to secure to labourers a living wage and to terminate a disguised subsidy to coconut planters.
  Mr. Emrys-Evans: A subsidy was granted for rice only in 1942 to persons whose income is under 25 rupees a month. As rice is not now being imported, my right hon. and gallant Friend is inquiring whether this arrangement is still in operation. As regards the second part of the Question, my right hon. and gallant Friend has only as yet received a telegraphic summary of the report of the Commission referred to in his reply to the hon. Member's Question of the 19th of January. This does not include any proposal for further increases in fixed wages or for fixing minimum wages for labourers. It does, however, include recommendations for a stricter enforcement of price control regulations and other measures which the Commission considers the preferable way of meeting the increased cost of living. The Governor has taken steps to give effect to these proposals.
  Mr. Riley: Is it not a fact that the price of copra is now about double what it was before the war; and are not the labourers entitled to an increase of wages, in consequence?
  Mr. Emrys-Evans: The rate of wages is not the same as it was before the war. The pre-war rate for a male labourer was 6½ rupees per month, and the present wage is 11 rupees per month.

  NIGERIA (DETENTION ORDERS)
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any further information respecting the restrictions imposed on Mr. Imoudu, President of the Railway Workers' Union in Nigeria and the Rev. Thomas Dosumu; and when these restrictions will be removed.
  Mr. Emus-Evans: As regards Mr. Imoudu, I have nothing to add to my right hon. and gallant Friend's reply of 1st July last. With regard to the Rev. Thomas Dosumu, the latest information available is that the detention order made in respect of him, under Colonial Defence Regulations of 1942, is still in force, and that he is detained at Bo Camp, in Sierra Leone. Arrangements have been made for his wife and child to share his house there. If and when fresh decisions are practicable in his case, I will arrange for my hon. Friend to be informed.
  Mr. Sorensen: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that there has been considerable criticism in the West African Press regarding the detention of these two men and others; and can he say what led to their detention?
  Mr. Emrys-Evans: No, Sir, I am afraid I cannot add to my reply. These men have been detained under Defence Regulations. The Governor was asked to review the second case, as recently as last month.
  Mr. Sorensen: Will the hon. Gentleman indicate to the Governor the precedent already set in this country?

  CYPRUS (ARCHBISHOP, ELECTION)
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the restrictions preventing the election of a new archbishop in Cyprus; and whether the Government is now prepared to permit the solution of this question in accordance with the wishes of the Cypriot people and without Government restrictions and interference?
  Mr. Emrys-Evans: So far as the Government are concerned, the Cyprus Church is at liberty to proceed with the election of an archbishop at any time.
  162
  The initiative rests with the locum tenens of the See, and he has hitherto refused to take any action unless certain laws enacted in Cyprus in 1937 are repealed. These laws prohibit the election as archbishop of a person who has been deported or convicted of sedition or any offence punishable with imprisonment for more than two years, or who is not a native of Cyprus, and they provide that the Governor's approval must be given before an archbishop-elect can enter upon his office. As regards the last part of the Question, it is not considered that the present time is opportune to review these laws.
  Mr. Sorensen: Will the Minister have this matter reviewed more carefully, in view of the undoubted discontent in Cyprus over the question of the election of the archbishop?
  Mr. Emrys-Evans: I am afraid I cannot add anything to my reply.
  Captain Alan Graham: Is it not a fact that a training college for the Cypriot clergy is a far greater need for the spiritual welfare of the islanders than even the appointment of a new archbishop?
  Mr. Emrys-Evans: That is another question.

  RAILWAYS

    London-Manchester Express, Fire (Locked Door)
    Mr. Tinkerasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he has considered the letter sent him by the hon. Member for Leigh, alleging that the corridor doors were locked on the 10.15 a.m. London to Manchester express on Sunday, 6th February, 1944, causing great difficulty in getting away from the burning compartment and increasing the number of casualties; and will he give instructions that on all train journeys the doors of carriages and corridors shall not be locked.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): As my hon. Friend may be aware, the railway companies have drawn up regulations which govern the locking of doors in the corridors of passenger coaches and in the gangways between coaches. These regulations take full

    163
    account of all safety considerations, and I am satisfied that they should be maintained. Unfortunately, on the 10.15 a.m. train to Manchester on 6th February, these regulations were not observed, and a door was locked which should have been left open. I have given instructions that the importance of adhering strictly to the regulations shall be impressed upon the railway staff.
    Mr. Tinker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will realise that the locking of the doors is far too frequent. If such an accident as this happens, may I ask who is guilty of manslaughter if death results? I ask the hon. Gentleman to put this matter right. I hope that he will issue instructions that all doors shall be unlocked, and let us see how that works.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I will send by hon. Friend a copy of the regulations, as they stand. They were carefully examined after a serious accident two years ago, and changes were made, which, I think, removed the dangers that then existed.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is my hon. Friend aware that, apart from the danger of fire, the practice of locking corridor doors is highly objectionable, and that frequently it is impossible to get through a corridor, with the result that passengers are jammed in, one part of the train when there is empty space in another part? Will he look into the matter?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, I realise the difficulty; but there are strong considerations on the other side.
    Mr. Silverman: Is my hon. Friend aware that more than once fatalities have occurred which would not have occurred but for the locking of the corridor doors?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, that happened two years ago, as I have said. Since then, the regulations have been altered.
    Mr. Silverman: Was the locking of the doors, on this occasion, in accordance with the regulations? If so, what was the reason which required the doors to be locked?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: No, Sir; as I said, the regulations were not observed, and the doors were locked when they should have been left open.
    Mr. Tinker: I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

    Mineral Waģons (Use for Potatoes)
    Mr. Butcherasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether steps are taken to see that all empty wagons arriving in potato growing districts, including coal wagons, are loaded with such produce and not returned empty.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I regret that it is necessary as a general rule, to avoid loading mineral wagons with general merchandise, in order to speed up the turn-round of the wagons and to keep the coal pits supplied with the numbers which they require. Some exceptions to this rule, however, are made; for example, we allow 50 mineral wagons a day to be loaded in East Anglia with potatoes for London.
    Mr. Butcher: Does my hon. Friend really consider that 300 tons of potatoes from the whole of East Anglia is any contribution towards shifting the hundreds of thousands of tons which must be shifted in the very near future? Will he consider that point?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I am told that 50 wagons a day have been used to build up stocks, and that they have appreciably helped the situation. On the general point, we cannot accept the principle suggested. We are already in great difficulty with the coal-pits, and if we left them any shorter of wagons, I am afraid that a great disaster would happen.

  ELECTRIC BATTERY VEHICLES
  Mr. Butcherasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport what steps he is taking to encourage the design and development of electrical vehicles.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: My Noble Friend has asked the regional transport commissioners to give favourable consideration to all applications for licences to acquire electric battery vehicles, and arrangements have been made for the production of as many of these vehicles as are likely to be required for essential work. Facilities have also been given to designers to produce prototypes of new models which appear to be improvements on those which now exist.
  Mr. Thorne: Do these vehicles cost more to build than petrol-driven ones?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: They cost a little more to build, but they are cheaper to operate.

  UNLOADED MOTOR-LORRIES (JOURNEYS)
  Captain Stricklandasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is aware that, on 5th February, seven motor-lorries were instructed by his Department to proceed empty from O. N. Transport Company, Limited, and A. E. Taylor and Company, Limited, London to Warrington, about 1,500 unloaded vehicle-miles, and that one of these on reaching Warrington was loaded with empty second-hand packing cases to be delivered to a timber yard in Birmingham; and whether he will inform the House of the carriage cost involved in this latter case, including wages.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I am making inquiries, and will write to my hon. and gallant Friend as soon as I can.
  Captain Strickland: Is my hon. Friend aware that a few minutes ago the First Lord of the Admiralty stated that the Government's policy was to conserve petrol and tyres? Does he consider that the travelling of 1,500 unloaded vehicle miles is in accordance with that policy?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I have not had long notice of the Question, and I have not the information that I require to answer. This may be a case of bad operation; that is bound to happen sometimes when you are working 20,000 vehicles; it may be due to unforeseeable accidents, or there may be some other explanation; but I cannot tell my hon. and gallant Friend now.
  Captain Strickland: Will the hon. Gentleman also say whether steps were taken to find out what loads were going North on that occasion?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: That is one of the things about which I am inquiring.
  Captain Stricklandasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he will inform the House of the circumstances which necessitated two six-ton lorries being sent by his Department from A. E. Taylor and
  166
  Company, Limited, in the week ended 5th February, from London to Widnes empty, Widnes to London loaded, London to Cambridge empty, thence to Bishop's Stortford empty, on to Epping empty, Epping to Didcot loaded, Didcot to Oxford empty, thence to Slough empty, Slough to Colnbrook empty, thence to London loaded, as this involved 622 loaded vehicle miles as against 822 empty.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: The two lorries to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers were sent to Widnes to help in clearing an accumulation of essential traffic. No loads were available for the outward journey. I am making inquiries about the subsequent operation of these vehicles and I will write to my hon. and gallant Friend when I have received the information for which I have asked.
  Captain Strickland: Would the Minister also ascertain what steps were taken, and through what channels, to see what loads were available?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I have done that and I am satisfied that there were no loads which could not have been better sent by other transport.
  Mr. G. Straussasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is aware of the frequency with which lorries make return journeys empty and, in particular, that many lorries leave London for towns in the Midlands and the North with no load when there are quantities of goods urgently waiting to be transported to these towns; and will he review the present working of the road-haulage scheme.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: As I explained to my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) on 26th January, the traffic to be carried between two given places may often be consistently heavier in one direction that it is in the others. This is true of traffic between London and the Midlands and the North, and, generally speaking, there is an excess of carrying capacity from London to these areas. I am not aware that the road haulage of any goods has been forbidden when no other means of transport was available. I would add, however, that, as more traffic is transferred to road transport to relieve the railways, the amount of empty running between these areas will be reduced.
  Mr. Strauss: In view of the frequent complaints of the empty return of lorries, when there are goods waiting for transport to the destination of the lorries, is the Minister really satisfied that the scheme is working satisfactorily?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: It is not necessarily an advantage to send goods by road, if they can be better sent by rail or canal. It depends on capacity.
  Mr. Levy: Is the Minister aware that the organisation of transport is getting into disrepute, and that there is unrest throughout the country in regard to transport, because of people seeing empty lorries running around all over the country?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I am aware that there appears to be great anxiety to show that it does not work well, but when I inquire, I do not find that the evidence of bad working is very good.

  OXFORD LAUNDRY ZONING SCHEME
  Mr. Quintin Hoģģasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the terms of the resolution of the Oxford City Council condemning the Oxford Laundry Zoning Scheme; and whether he will now yield to the unanimous opinion in Oxford that the scheme should be withdrawn in view of the decision of the Government not to extend it to the rest of the country.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: No, Sir, I had not heard of the resolution adopted by the Oxford City Council until my hon. Friend put down his Question. As I explained in a written answer to my hon. Friend on 1st February, the principles of the Oxford Laundry Zoning Scheme have been applied to various other parts of the country, but, since there are some thousands of schemes for the rationalisation of retail deliveries, it is neither possible nor desirable to make them uniform. They vary from commodity to commodity and from place to place, according to the local conditions. I regret, therefore, that I cannot do as my hon. Friend desires.
  Mr. Hoģģ: Is the Minister aware that the laundry zoning scheme, in the form in which it has been introduced in Oxford,
  168
  is not applied to any other city in the country? Is it not a fact that it was originally justified only as an experiment, which had, admittedly, not proved capable of extension, and will he consider the very serious constitutional implications of depriving citizens of one city, of rights enjoyed by others?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: In fact, the principles of this scheme have been applied in various parts of South and West Scotland and in various counties of England. The hon. Member's contention really is that, because a scheme is not uniform all over the country, it should be withdrawn. If I did that, I should undermine many schemes which cause, perhaps, greater inconvenience than the Oxford Laundry Zoning Scheme, but through which great economies have been made in the national interest.
  Mr. Bowles: I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.
  Mr. Hoģģ: In view of the fact that the Minister's reply has made my constituency into a British protectorate, is the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) entitled to take the bread out of my mouth?
  Mr. Speaker: Perhaps that is the result of a very lengthy question and its equally lengthy reply.

  ROAD HAULAGE (REPLACEMENT VEHICLES)
  Major Lyonsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport if he will indicate the process whereby road-hauliers may seek replacement vehicles, and by what authority the same can be authorised, for work of essential service where present vehicles can no longer be sufficiently utilised by the operator.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Any road haulier may apply to my Department through a Regional Transport Commissioner for a licence to acquire a new vehicle, in replacement of one which is worn out. In view of the prospective demands on transport in certain areas, the Commissioners in those areas have been advised to give favourable consideration to applications for licences to acquire additional vehicles of a suitable type, even if those vehicles are not required as replacements.
  Major Lyons: In view of the apprehension that exists in this industry, will the Minister see that some proper notice of the position which he has just explained is given to those concerned; and will he see that cases of apparent injustice are dealt with?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, I will certainly consider cases of injustice, and I hope this Question and answer will lead to the result the hon. and learned Member desires.

  MINISTRY OF INFORMATION

    Church Newspaper (Article)
    Mr. Treeasked the Minister of Information whether a recent article in the Church of England newspaper calling for a fourth term for President Roosevelt and criticising the Governor of New York State was submitted to censorship.
    The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): No, Sir. An article of this kind is not subject to censorship. The newspaper that printed it is one of five Church of England newspapers and it has never claimed to be the official voice of the Church.
    Mr. Tree: While reserving full rights to the Press to make what comments they will on political matters here and abroad, is the Minister aware that a certain amount of misapprehension has been caused in the United States by this particular article; and may I ask him if he is doing everything, through his information services there, to make clear in the United States that this particular newspaper is not the official organ of the Church of England?
    Mr. Bracken: This is not exactly a function of the Government. The hon. Member's point was very well put by American newspapers, which have observed that ecclesiastical newspapers ought not to dabble in politics.
    Mr. Pickthorn: Is it not peculiarly unfortunate, in view of this Question and answer, that, by a misprint on the Order Paper, this word "newspaper" appears with a small "n," which does give the impression that this is a Church of England newspaper in the sense of being managed by the Church of England?
    Mr. Bracken: I am in the fortunate position that I do not have to set up the
    170
    Order Paper, but let me point out to my hon. Friend, who apparently did not hear my answer, that I have said that this newspaper has no official connection with the Church of England.
    Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that the people of this country have no intention of abandoning their right to express opinions about anything? Will he also make it clear that, on the other hand, we have no objection to the United States Press criticising; that whether we have any objection or not, they would take any opportunity of criticising the people of this country; that if they want to make suggestions, either about the Prime Minister or any other right hon. Gentleman opposite, they will do so, and that we have no objection to it?

    Pamphlet, "What Britain Has Done"
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Minister of Information what steps have been taken to circulate the booklet, "What Britain Has Done," amongst the Allied troops serving in this country
    Mr. Bracken: This pamphlet was prepared for use overseas and shortage of paper has prevented any wide distribution in this country. The responsibility for supplying booklets to Allied forces serving in this country belongs to the respective Allied Governments, to whom a limited number of copies have been made available.
    Sir T. Moore: Will the Minister bear in mind that this pamphlet has proved the best for stimulating public opinion that has yet been published; and will he do his best to overcome this shortage and get the booklet as widely distributed as possible?
    Mr. Bracken: I thank my hon. and gallant Friend, because compliments to the Ministry of Information are valuable, when rated according to scarcity, and I will do my best to fulfil his wish.
    Sir W. Davison: Can a copy be placed in the Library?
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Minister of Information how many copies of the booklet, "What Britain Has Done," have been sent to the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A.; and what arrangements have been made for their distribution.
    Mr. Bracken: Successive editions of this reference booklet have been supplied to the Ministry's offices in both the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. Arrangements for their distribution are in the hands of the local representatives.

    Polish Newspaper (Withdrawal of Facilities)
    Major Petherickasked the Minister of Information why the Polish newspaper "Wiadomosci Polskie" has been suppressed.
    Mr. Ivor Thomasasked the Minister of Information the reasons which led him to suppress the Polish weekly, "Wiadomosci Polskie"; whether he has indicated to the newspaper the passages on which his decision is based; whether the newspaper has ever printed matter to which the censor has taken objection; and whether the ban is subject to review.
    Mr. Bracken: I must remind my hon. Friends of the promise I gave the House on 23rd June, 1943, that any journals published by foreigners in Britain which attempted to create discord among the United Nations would be deprived of official facilities for publication. This Polish journal gave up a great deal of space to violent attacks on the Soviet Government. It also abused the Polish Government. In spite of more than one warning to desist from abusing the hospitality of Great Britain, this journal continued its efforts to stir up discord between our Allies. And extracts from its columns were widely used by German propagandists. I am not willing to reconsider the decision to end the harmful activities of this paper.
    Major Petherick: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to have copies of this newspaper put in the Library, together with translations of the offending passages, on which he took action?
    Mr. Bracken: I shall be very glad to do so.
    Sir A. Southby: Without wishing to appear to be taking any side in the Polish dispute, can my right hon. Friend say how free Polish opinion can be expressed, if one side of the story is suppressed by reason of a paper not being allowed to be published?
    Mr. Bracken: The Poles have a considerable number of papers in this country and I do not believe that British sailors
    172
    should have to cart paper across the ocean in order to provide opportunities for foreigners in this country to help German propagandists and to sow discord.
    Mr. McGovern: Have any representations been made from Russia to get this paper suppressed, and is it a crime now to criticise the rulers of Russia?
    Mr. Bracken: We have had no suggestion from the Soviet Government about any communitations we have had with the Polish Press. It is not a crime to criticise any Government—Russian or otherwise—but I must say that we are approaching some of the most terrible days of this war, and surely, wisdom lies in people attempting to create unity among our Allies rather than in attempting to sow discord.

    Meetinģs (Members of Parliament)
    Mr. Liddallasked the Minister of Information what instructions are issued to his local officers on the subject of the invitations to be addressed to Members of Parliament to take part in functions by his Ministry in their constituencies.
    Mr. Bracken: Regional Information Officers are instructed to invite to any public meeting organised by the Ministry the Member of Parliament for the constituency in which the meeting is held. In the case of exhibitions, film-shows and similar functions, an invitation is normally sent to the Member of Parliament only if the function is an important one or if there is reason to believe he would be interested.
    Mr. Liddall: Is the Minister aware that, in some cases, the Member of Parliament for the constituency and also the Mayor of the borough were not invited to these important functions?
    Mr. Bracken: I wish that my hon. Friend would give me some details about the failure of the Ministry's officers to invite the Member of Parliament and the Mayor of the borough. The popularity of these functions is highly embarrassing to the Ministry of Information, and I should think will be in the end, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  POST OFFICE

    Armed Forces (Air Letters)
    Lady Apsleyasked the Postmaster-General if he will consider reducing the cost of 6d. for an air mail letter and 3d.

    173
    for an airgraph to 3d. and 2d., respectively, in view of the burden imposed on the wives and mothers of Service men whose incomes have been reduced as a result of the breadwinner leaving home and who find the cost of airborne communications a hardship.
    The Postmaster-General (Captain Crookshank): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which my hon. Friend, the Assistant Postmaster-General, gave to the hon. and gallant Member for the City of Chester (Major Nield) on this subject on 9th February.
    Major Woolley: In view of the enormous satisfaction which the mail gives to our troops overseas, will my right hon. and gallant Friend do everything he can to encourage mail being sent over there?
    Captain Crookshank: Yes, Sir; but this is a question about altering the charges.

    Australia (British Mails)
    Mr. Keelinģasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that mail which left this country four months ago is only now being delivered in Australia; and whether he is satisfied that every opportunity of despatching mail by British or Allied merchant and warships is utilised.
    Captain Crookshank: All the surface mails for Australia despatched last October arrived in December. The mails are despatched by every suitable opportunity.
    Mr. Keelinģ: Is that an answer to the Question about the mails now being delivered? Can I have an answer to that question?
    Captain Crookshank: No, Sir. If all the mails despatched four months ago were delivered in December, they are not now being delivered.

  STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS (COUNTY COURT JUDGES)
  Mr. Turtonasked the Attorney-General whether county court judges are supplied with copies of all regulations as they are published or, alternatively, with the Butterworth's Emergency Service.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): No, Sir. County court judges are supplied with copies of those Regulations and Orders which clearly affect them, but it is not thought that the supply of all Statutory Rules and Orders as they appear would assist them.
  Mr. Turton: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that the work of the county court judges is not being hampered by the delay in sending copies of fresh Regulations?
  The Attorney-General: Cases of difficulty may arise and I shall be glad to discuss them with my hon. Friend, but it is not thought that the distribution of this vast mass of material will really be of assistance or even helpful.
  Sir Herbert Williams: Are there not arrangements to instruct county court judges what Statutory Rules and Orders mean, as most of them are rather un-intelligible?

  PUBLIC HEALTH

    Hospitals (Equipment)
    Major Markhamasked the Minister of Health how many hospitals have air conditioning in any wards; how many have electrically heated ambulances; and how many have incubators for premature infants.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbruģh): I regret that I have not the information asked for by my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Major Markham: In view of the importance of these matters in the reduction of child mortality, will the Minister get this information and circulate it?
    Miss Horsbruģh: My right hon. and learned Friend feels that in present circumstances he would not be justified in asking for a complete survey of the hospitals.

    Infant Mortality
    Major Markhamasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the senior medical officer of his Ministry gave evidence before the Barlow Commission in November, 1938, to the effect that an infant mortality rate of 29 was so far unattainable in this country; that since that date infant mortality rates as low

    175
    as this have been achieved in Iceland, New Zealand, New York, Chicago and several other places; and whether it is still the official view of his Ministry that a rate of 29 is unattainable in this country.
    Miss Horsbruģh: No, Sir. A reference was made in the proceedings before the Barlow Commission to the fact that lower rates had been secured in some other countries than had yet been attained here, but the officer referred to said that it might reasonably be anticipated that these lower rates might in time be reached here, a view from which my right hon. Friend does not see any reason to dissent.
    Major Markham: Is not the Ministry now of the opinion that these rates can be reached very quickly indeed if they follow the example of Chicago and New York in dealing with the infantile mortality problem?
    Miss Horsbruģh: That is quite a different question from that on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: Does the hon. Lady accept the figure of 29; and has that figure been reached in Iceland, New Zealand and other places?
    Miss Horsbruģh: I have not the figure of 29 for that particular date. Certainly in Holland, at the date of the Commission, the figure of 31 was reached.

  WAR CASUALTIES (ROYAL MESSAGE)
  Mr. Lipsonasked the Prime Minister if he will give consideration to the issue of an appropriate certificate of appreciation to the nearest relative of each member of the Forces killed when on duty but not necessarily by enemy action.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): A Royal Message is sent in all such cases. The question of the issue of a more permanent document will be considered on the conclusion of hostilities.

  BRITISH CASUALTIES (ITALY)
  Major Buchan-Hepburnasked the Prime Minister whether he will state the number of casualties sustained by British Forces in Italy.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Between 3rd September of last year, the day on which British troops first landed on the mainland of Italy, and 12th February, the following casualties have been sustained by the British Armies in Italy, including Dominion and Indian troops:

  Killed

  …

  7,635

  Wounded

  …

  23,283

  Missing

  …

  5,708

  Total

  …

  36,626

  This does not include Naval or Air Force casualties.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember that he promised that the figures of casualties would not be published until the beginning of April in reply to a question that I put to him?
  The Prime Minister: I was referring then to the request which the hon. Gentleman made, namely, for the publication of all the Allied casualties. That requires a larger measure of examination before it can be given, but this particular statement I am able to make at the present time.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Eģģs
    Sir Robert Younģasked the Minister of Food whether there is any time limit for the supply of eggs to priority customers; whether he is aware that eggs, already far from fresh, are held back from ordinary customers on the grounds that all customers on the priority list have not applied for their quota; and whether he will make it a rule that eggs will be supplied on demand, while assuring to everyone, within the allocation period, his or her allotted number.
    The Minister of Food (Colonel Llewellin): Separate allocations of eggs are made to retailers in respect of their priority and non-priority requirements. A non-priority customer should therefore be able to obtain his egg during an allocation period irrespective of whether the requirements of priority customers have or have not been fully met. The answer to the first two parts of the Question is, No, Sir.
    Sir R. Younģ: Is the Minister aware that it is customary for eggs to be lined up in the shops and that priority customers are supplied and other people cannot get them?
    Colonel Llewellin: If my hon. Friend knows of a particular case of that sort I shall be very glad to go into it.
    Sir Robert Younģasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that the second allocation of eggs being now in operation a large number of people have not yet had their quota of eggs under the first allocation, the reason given for this by the shopkeepers being that they have not yet had their full supply of eggs under the first allocation; and can he give an explanation why that should be.
    Colonel Llewellin: Yes, Sir; allocation periods normally overlap but in the end every area receives exactly the same number of allocations.
    Sir A. Knoxasked the Minister of Food how many eggs per week the expectant mother is entitled to and for how many weeks before confinement; and on what scale she is entitled to eggs after the birth of the baby and for how many weeks.
    Colonel Llewellin: Two shell eggs and three packets of dried eggs during each allocation period, after pregnancy is certified and until the child is six months old.
    Sir A. Knox: Is it possible to increase the allowance?
    Colonel Llewellin: No, Sir, I am afraid not at the moment.
    Sir A. Knoxasked the Minister of Food up to what age children are entitled to a special distribution of eggs.
    Colonel Llewellin: From six months to 18 months shell eggs at the rate of three a week and thereafter one shell egg at each allocation. In addition, up to the age of five years, two packages of dried eggs at each allocation of such eggs.

    Milk Distribution
    Major Yorkasked the Minister of Food the total estimated cost of distribution of milk for the periods 1st October, 1941, to 30th September, 1942, 1st October, 1942, to 30th September, 1943,
    178
    and the approximate cost of distribution for the same or similar period 1938–39.
    Colonel Llewellin: Accurate figures are only available for the year ending 30th September, 1943, but giving the best estimates of the other two years the figures are 1941–42 and 1942–43, 1s. 0½d. a gallon and 1938–39, 11½d.

    Unmillable Wheat
    Mr. Mathersasked the Minister of Food the amount of unmillable wheat produced annually in this country and say for what purpose it is utilised; and whether it will be arranged for this grain to be allotted to poultry farmers.
    Colonel Llewellin: The amount of unmillable wheat produced annually in this country depends so much upon weather and other conditions that it is impossible to give an average figure. Of such unmillable wheat as there is; some is retained by the growers to feed their own poultry and other stock, and the rest is distributed through the rationing scheme, mainly to keepers of poultry.

    Shop Hours (Workers)
    Sir William Davisonasked the Minister of Food if he will take steps to remedy the disability suffered by members of the public who have to be at work between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. by reason of the fact that supplies of oranges, fish, cakes, &c., are only available between the hours mentioned and retailers are forbidden to reserve any supplies to which the applicant would be entitled when he visits their shop between 9 and 9.30 a.m. before going to work.
    Colonel Llewellin: Yes, Sir. I am aware of the shopping difficulties of those who have to work most of the day and have no one to do their shopping for them, but there are many shops open before 10 a.m. selling the foodstuffs to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Sir W. Davison: But the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has not answered the latter part of my Question, which points out that retailers are forbidden to reserve supplies for the people who come at 9.30 a.m. as they have to get to work at 10 a.m. The shop is open but the shopkeeper is not allowed to reserve oranges, or whatever it may be, for which his customer asks?
    Colonel Llewellin: In the case which my hon. Friend brought to my notice, unfortunately the oranges were not available at the particular shop—which is a very good one from our point of view—until 10 o'clock that morning. There are difficulties in putting aside such goods as oranges under the counter. If people have been standing in a queue and goods are produced for a customer who has called earlier then calls back again, great difficulty arises.
    Sir W. Davison: There is no question of putting things aside. A regular customer who has to go to work at 10 o'clock calls in at 9.30, presumably before the queue has arrived, and the goods could be put aside for him were it not for the prohibition of the Ministry.
    Colonel Llewellin: We have asked them not to do that because other people think they have been kept for a privileged customer. But they are available; if not on that day, on the next one or two days oranges will be available at that shop.
    Mr. E. Walkden: Could I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, in defence of shop assistants and employees generally, whether the remedy for a matter like this does not lie with the local authorities and in a "get together" spirit being developed among all the parties represented in industry? It is very necessary to prevent people always blaming the shopkeeper.

  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

    Tank Board Membership
    Mr. Stokesasked the Minister of Supply whether there have been any changes recently in the membership of the Tank Board; and whether he will state the names of the persons on that Board at the present time.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Sandys): Yes, Sir. The Chairman of the Ministry of Supply tank mission to America and the Director-General of Armoured Fighting Vehicle Production have ceased to be members of the Tank Board, the former on the completion of the work of the mission and the latter as a result of the amalgamation of his post with that of the Director-General of Armoured Fighting Vehicle Development. I will circulate
    180
    in Hansard a statement showing the present composition of the Tank Board.
    Mr. Stokes: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me the name of the present Chairman of the Board?
    Mr. Sandys: Commander Micklem, who has been Chairman for a long time.
    Following is the statement:
    The Tank Board is composed of the holders of the undermentioned appointments in the Ministry of Supply and the War Office. The present holders of these posts are shown in brackets.
    Chairman of the Board.

    Chairman of the Armoured Fighting Vehicle Division, Ministry of Supply.

    (Commander E. R. Micklem, C.B.E., R.N.).

    War Office Members.

    Deputy Chief of the Imperial General Staff.(Lieutenant-General Sir Ronald Weeks, K.C.B., C.B.E., D.S.O., M.G., T.D.).

    Assistant Chief of the Imperial General Staff (W).

    (Major-General J. F. Evetts, C.B., C.B.E., M.C.).

    Director, Royal Armoured Corps.

    (Major-General R. Briggs, C.B., D.S.O.).

    Director of Mechanical Engineering.

    (Major-General E. B. Rowcrott, C.B., C.B.E., M.I.Mech.E., M.I.E.E.).

    Ministry of Supply Members.

    Controller-General of Munitions Production.

    (Sir Graham Cunningham).

    Director-General of Armoured Fighting Vehicles.

    (Mr. C. D. Gibb, C.B.E.).

    U.S.A. Liaison.

    (Colonel G. A. Green).

    Copper Imports
    Sir H. Williamsasked the Minister of Supply if he can give an assurance that Empire countries which produce copper will not suffer any disadvantage as a result of the decision to reduce the imports of copper into the United Kingdom.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Peat): My hon. Friend may be assured that His Majesty's Government recognise their special responsibilities towards the copper producing areas of the Empire and the interests of those areas are being fully taken into account in considering any adjustment in our copper import programmes.
    Sir H. Williams: Would my hon. Friend answer my Question? Will he give me an assurance they will suffer no disadvantage?
    Mr. Peat: I think I can give my hon. Friend that assurance.

    Penicillin
    Major Lyonsasked the Minister of Supply to what extent he is co-operating with the appropriate authorities in Canada and in the U.S.A., respectively, in the large-scale manufacture of penicillin.
    Mr. Peat: There is close and constant co-operation between all parties concerned, both by the exchange of information and reports and by visits of scientific and technical experts. The arrangements for the production of penicillin in Canada and the United States and this country are co-ordinated by the Combined Production and Resources Board.
    Major Lyons: In view of the uneasy feeling the public have, first, that a monopoly has been granted for the manufacture of this drug and, secondly, that we are not pressing ahead in any degree in the manufacture of it, will the hon. Gentleman say precisely what steps are taken to co-operate in the large scale manufacture now taking place in Canada and the United States?
    Mr. Peat: To answer my hon. and gallant Friend would take some time in detail but I can assure him that, as far as I know, no step is being omitted which would help us to get production going in this country.
    Major Lyons: But may I ask what step is being taken and not what is not being omitted? There is a feeling that there is a monopoly in the manufacture of this drug.
    Mr. Peat: We are in the closest co-operation with Government bodies in the United States and in Canada and with all the scientific bodies in those two countries.

  HOUSING SCHEMES (DIRECT LABOUR)
  Mr. Huģh Lawsonasked the Minister of Health if the decision of his Department that housing sites over and under five acres are to be undertaken by large and small contractors, respectively,
  182
  means that it is the Government's intention to prevent local authorities undertaking their housing schemes by direct labour; and will he encourage all local authorities to set up efficient public works departments so that public money is not diverted into the pockets of private individuals in post-war reconstruction schemes.
  Miss Horsbruģh: The reply to the first part of the Question is, "No, Sir." As regards the second part, the establishment and maintenance of a public works department by a local authority is a matter for the authority to decide in the first place.
  Dr. Russell Thomas: Is it not a fact that direct labour is both dilatory and Expensive and not highly noted for its results?

  COAL INDUSTRY

    Prices
    Mr. Thorneasked the Minister of Fuel and Power how much money the extra 4d. increase on the price of coal has realised; how the money is being used; on how many thousands of tons has the extra 4d. been charged; and is there any distinction made between house used coal and the coal used for production purposes.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Tom Smith): It is not in every case that there is an addition of 4d. because in calculating the increase in hundredweight prices for small deliveries account is taken of any gain or loss to merchants on hundredweight prices arising out of previous alterations in price. That has resulted in some increases in the hundredweight price being 1d. only, or 1s. 8d. per ton instead of 3s. 4d. Nevertheless the increase per hundredweight has more frequently been 2d. or 3s. 4d. per ton because 3s. divided by 20 does not produce an answer which can be accurately reflected by our monetary system. I ought to add that in authorising an average increase of 3s. per ton there was some house coals for which the increase in pit head price was 3s. 4d. and in such cases the permitted increase for small sales was still 3s. 4d. per ton or 2d. per hundredweight. The 4d. if collected, is retained by merchants, but, as I have indicated

    183
    will be taken into account on the occasion of any future rise; industrial coal is sold in ordinary course by the ton and no addition would be permitted to the authorised increase for the grade of coal concerned. For reasons explained it is not possible to give figures showing the precise effect of price increases in small sales as compared with an average of 3s. per ton.
    Mr. Thorne: The Parliamentary Secretary has not given the total amount realised.
    Mr. Smith: As I explained, it is almost impossible at this moment to give the exact amount.
    Mr. J. J. Lawson: When the methods of calculations for the mines are being considered, may we also have the methods of calculation in the Ministry of Fuel and Power?
    Mr. Smith: We shall have enough of the calculations in a day or two.
    Mr. Loģan: Is it the intention of the Minister to introduce the decimal system in regard to the production of coal?
    Mr. Georģe Griffiths: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary see that the public feel they are being bled? If coal is raised by only 3s. a ton and is retailed at an extra 4d. per cwt. to poor people, they are bound to get their backs up.

    Sea Transport
    Colonel Greenwellasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if his attention has been drawn to the fact that consignments of coal from the North-East for destinations on the South Coast and in London have recently been transported by rail when sea transport was available; and if, in view of the present pressure on the railway systems, he will ensure that all coal possible is carried by sea.
    Mr. T. Smith: It is definitely the policy of my Ministry to make the fullest possible use of sea transport, but rail transport from the North-East to the destinations referred to by my honourable and gallant Friend cannot be entirely avoided. There are limits to the amount of shipping available for the South Coast and to the volume of traffic that can be dealt with through the
    184
    London Docks. There would also be handling difficulties at some of the works, which at present receive their coal by rail direct, if it were transferred to sea. I have, however, emphasised my instructions that the railborne traffic must be kept to the minimum consistent with the maintenance of essential supplies.

  PRISONERS (DENOMINATIONAL CLASSIFICATION)
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of prisoners in this country are recorded, respectively, as members of the Church of England, the Free Churches, the Roman Catholic Church, or of the Jewish faith; and whether he will arrange for the practice of automatically classifying prisoners who are agnostic or indifferent as Church of England to cease and unless a positive indication of religious conviction is made prisoners to be recorded as agnostic or as indicating no religious conviction.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): No statistics are collected of the religious denominations to which prisoners may state that they belong, but even if available I consider it would be quite wrong to seek to draw any inference from them with regard to any particular denomination. The suggestion in the latter part of the Question is, I think, unfounded. I am not aware that any prisoner is classified as a member of a particular denomination against his wish.
  Mr. Sorensen: Is it not true that figures are available indicating the respective faiths and beliefs of prisoners? Further, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the careless way of describing the majority of prisoners as "members of the Church of England," gives rise to the most unfortunate feeling that members of that Church are more prone to crime than agnostics or persons with other religious beliefs?
  Mr. Peake: No statistics of any kind have been collected centrally since 1930, but if the hon. Member would like some information on that point I will try to furnish it privately. With regard to the hon. Member's second point, the possession of religious convictions is not an essential qualification for admission to

  185
  any of His Majesty's prisons. If a person declares that he has no religion that fact will be recorded.
  Mr. Sorensen: But if people are indifferent, is it not true that, automatically, they are put down as "C. of E.," which is misleading?
  Mr. Peake: No, Sir, but I admit that it seems to be the general idea that there is something rather respectable or patriotic about declaring that one belongs to the Church of England.
  Mr. E. Walkden: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that practically every Member of Parliament has received a pamphlet during the past few days inch-eating that certain crimes have been committed by members of a particular faith and stating that these facts are derived from the Home Office or certain Departmental figures? The evidence is very disturbing.
  Mr. Peake: I am not aware of the facts which have been stated. I have seen the pamphlet and I regard it as very mischievous.
  Mr. Loģan: Ought there not to be an inquiry into the characters of those who have issued the pamphlet?

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS
That they have agreed to—
Amendment to—
Landlord and Tenant (Requisitioned Land) Bill [Lords],
without Amendment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Secretary of State for Foreiģn Affairs (Mr. Eden): I beg to move,
"That the Proceedings on the Committee stage of the Education Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House) for one hour after the hour appointed for the interruption of Business."
196
I wonder if I might recall to the House that this will be our fourth day in Committee on the Education Bill? I think that in the three days we have already made quite good progress, but I hope that on this, the fourth, day we may be able to go just a little faster.
Mr. Thorne: Is it still the intention that the Prime Minister should make his statement on the war situation during our next series of Sittings?
Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, there is no change. There will be a two-day Debate on the war situation.
Mr. Gallacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the President of the Board of Education that if he is a little more susceptible to the influence of Members who put forward Amendments, and accepts them more readily, we shall get through the Education Bill more quickly?
Mr. Eden: I have always found that my right hon. Friend most skilfully combines the attributes of being stalwart and susceptible at the same time.
Sir Herbert Williams: As the Education Bill is largely founded on agreements concluded with people outside, is it not a fact that this House is being deprived of its chances of amending the Bill because the Minister is unwilling to upset those agreements?
Mr. Eden: I do not think my hon. Friend would wish to press that charge, on reflection. He has only to look at the pages of Amendments to realise that it has no foundation.
Question put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  EDUCATION BILL
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 15 th February.]
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]

  EDUCATION BILL

    CLAUSE 8.—(Duty of local education authorities to secure provision of primary and secondary schools.)
    Amendment proposed: In page 5, line 18, at the end, to insert:
    "(b) to the expediency of securing that, so far as is compatible with the need for providing efficient instruction and training and the avoidance of unreasonable expense to the authority, provision is made for enabling pupils to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents."—[Mr. Butler.]
    Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Commander Sir Archibald Southby: I do not want to detain the Committee for more than a moment, to say that the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend will be appreciated by tens of thousands of parents. I hope however he will give some indication to them of how they can exercise the rights which the Amendment purports to confer upon them, and what will be the machinery by which they can exercise their influence on the teaching that is to be accorded to their children.
    Mr. Moelwyn Huģhes: I want to ask the Minister how far this Amendment really carries us. I can understand its purpose, from the point of view of the interests represented by the hon. Members whose proposed Amendment has been substantially accepted by the right hon. Gentleman, but I want to put another aspect of the case. I am concerned with the wishes of parents particularly in the single-school areas. Under the framework of the Bill, denominational churches in such areas will have the right, if they can find half the capital cost, of becoming aided schools. Speaking for my own part of the country, I know that in many single-school areas where there are Anglican schools and the population is not predominantly but overwhelmingly Nonconformist, it will be the wish of parents that the new school shall be a controlled
    198
    school. Does this Amendment mean that the wishes of the parents will be taken into account, notwithstanding the specific provisions in a later part of the Bill, in deciding whether, in a single-school area, that school will be a controlled school or a denominational school?
    Captain Cobb: Does it mean that in the event of a dispute between a parent and the local authority as to the type of secondary education a child should receive, the parent's point of view will prevail and not that of the local authority? Some of us are rather afraid that the abolition of fees in secondary schools will mean that the local education authority will determine whether a child shall go to a modern, technical or grammar school and that the parent's wishes will receive little consideration. I would like an assurance from the Minister that the parent's wishes will be taken into account and not those of the local authority.
    The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): It is very satisfactory to feel that this Amendment appeals so much to the Committee. I can give the general assurance which has been asked for, provided that the Committee will not press me to assure them that everything will be absolutely right as a result of this Amendment. The Amendment amounts to this: It imposes a general duty upon the authorities which will pervade the whole Bill. That is why it is in Clause 8. To that extent, it is an improvement, from the point of view of parental influence, on the Clause which was included in the 1921 Bill. To that extent it is an advance. It is, of course, applicable just as much to the children of one denomination as to those of another, and if certain denominations think their children will get a better chance of being educated according to the wishes of their parents, that must equally apply to a block of children of another denomination. The object is to assist parents to obtain the kind of education they want for their children. Therefore, to some extent, the point will be very much assisted by the insertion of this Amendment, though one cannot give an absolute assurance about particular cases which may operate in particular areas.
    The other point, as to whether parents who desire a particular type of secondary

    199
    education could influence the authority, is covered on the same footing as the point about children of different denominations. It may be that a child is suitable, or not suitable, for a particular form of secondary education, there may be a bloc of parents who desire a form of technical education, or it may be that there are parents who desire boarding education. All these demands will be very easily met by the insertion of this general duty and, provided the Committee will not force me into the position of saying that every particular case will be settled by the general duty, I can give the assurance desired and I hope the Amendment will be accepted.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Leach: I beg to move, in page 5, line 20, to leave out "five" and to insert "seven".
    Mr. Butler: On a point of Order. Would it be for the convenience of the Committee if we take this Amendment together with the next two in a general discussion—in line 21, to leave out from "or", to "nursery" in line 23, and in line 24, at the end, to insert:
    "with authority to extend this provision beyond the age of five where conditions are suitable"—
    reserving the right to put the Amendments individually? We have had one general discussion on this aspect of the Bill; now we may well have another and it would be convenient to take them altogether.
    The Chairman: If the Committee agree, I think that will be convenient.
    Mr. Leach: I quite agree. My Amendment has one single, narrow, but very important purpose, to preserve the right of local education authorities, now exercising it, to retain their nursery school children up to the age of seven. We do not want to impose the age of seven on anyone. We want the freedom of local education authorities who prefer the age of five still to be maintained. According to my reading of Clauses 8 and 9, the age of five would be the limit recognised by the Bill at which children could be retained in nursery schools. That is the difficulty in which I find myself. I am convinced that, before many years are over, the Minister will discover that these
    200
    Clauses relating to nursery schools will be the brightest jewel in his crown. The nursery school lays down the foundation of an invaluable training in social life, and for youngsters of a tender age, that is of supreme importance We want to make sure that that kind of instruction shall not be suspended at the age of seven.
    Anyone visiting a nursery school is bound to come to the conclusion that he has seen the happiest school children the nation possesses. The School Nursery Association is anxious to secure this Amendment. The late Margaret MacMillan, the greatest educationist this country ever produced, strongly favoured nursery school education up to the age of seven. She went so far as to say that, in the main, the development of children leaving the nursery school at seven was, in very many respects, three years higher than those who had not that advantage. If the age of seven becomes the universal age for nursery schools it may well be that infant schools will ultimately disappear for ever. I should not regard that myself as a national disaster, but it is not my purpose in the Amendment to interfere with the present rights of infant schools or their plans in any way. I hope soon to see nursery schools—I come from a city which has probably the highest proportion of nursery schools in the country—made into a basis upon which the whole educational front is based. In that respect my Amendment would be of help.
    Mr. Burden: I support the Amendment. It would be ungenerous not to acknowledge that the proposal in the Bill is a step forward. I take it that nursery schools will cease to be a special service and will form an essential part of our educational system, but the Clause, as it now stands, limits the provision of nursery schools for children up to the age of five. Under the Fisher Act, local authorities were empowered to make arrangements for
    "supplying or assisting the supply of nursery schools for children over two and under five years of age or such later age as may be approved by the Board of Education."
    I take it that under the Clause as it now stands it would not be possible to approve nursery schools for children at a later age than five. Surely, as the Parliamentary

    201
    Secretary has himself argued, we need flexibility in our educational system. We need the opportunity for experiment. I think it must be admitted, too, that, broadly speaking, almost every advance in educational technique has come from gifted amateurs outside the teaching profession. For that reason I would urge the acceptance of this Amendment. With due respect I submit that there is no educational reason for the limitation to five years, and that the only reason that can be advanced is the administrative one that compulsory attendance at school starts at five years.
    Another point in support of the Amendment is that since 1838, when local government as we know it to-day began to take shape, local authorities have been allowed considerable latitude in the administration of national measures in the light of local circumstances. While it is true that many local authorities might have exercised their powers with greater efficiency, there does not appear to be any reason why we should frustrate and stultify, as this Clause does, the opportunities which local authorities now have for the provision of nursery schools for children up to seven years of age. I agree that the existing provision of nursery schools is far too meagre. Notwithstanding the eloquent sermon which Sir George Newman used to preach to us every year when he was the Chief Medical Officer of the Board, I understand that in 1939 there were only. 58 local authorities' nursery schools in England and Wales, providing for some 6,200 children. Apart from those nursery classes in infants' schools, the great majority of the under fives came, and to-day come, under no educational influence, and, as we know to our shame, thousands of infants are still taught in old, barrack-like buildings with no modern equipment, and classes of 50 and over are not uncommon. I urge that the conditions in a good nursery school are the best suited for children up to seven years of age.
    In 1939, when the war broke out, the Board of Education had under consideration a very long list of proposals from local authorities for the provision of nursery schools. Up to then I think the attitude of the Board to the demands of local authorities far the provision of nursery schools might be summed up in the words of Clough:
    202
    "Thou shalt not kill; but need'st not strive, Officiously to keep alive."
    I hope we shall make a fresh start. From 1921 to 1931 economy held up practically all educational advance. From 1931 to 1939 the weakness—
    The Chairman: We cannot go into the whole history of this matter.
    Mr. Burden: I only wish to make the point that from now on I hope we are to have a clean, fresh start, and that local authorities will be empowered, as they would be under this Amendment, to make wide provision for nursery schools for children up to the age of seven, in order that our children may have the opportunity which, up to now, has been denied to them.
    Miss Lloyd George: I am sure that a great many of use are very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion that the three Amendments should be taken together, to make it possible for us to have a slightly wider Debate on a question which, to many people, is disquieting. Under the Bill it now becomes the duty of a local authority to provide nursery schools for children up to five years of age. I think that is admirable and is welcomed by all, but what is to be the next step after that? Here there seems to be a discrepancy between the policy of the White Paper and of the Bill. The White Paper says that the first stage in the process of compulsory schooling is the infant stage, which lasts from five to seven. That is the old system, as it prevails to-day. When we come to the Bill we find the first stage is, in fact, from five to 11. There is no mention of the word "infant" in the Bill. "Junior pupil" is the term that applies to all children from two to 11 plus. There is a whole world of difference between the policy of the White Paper and the Bill. It seems to me, though I may be wrong, that there is a whole world of difference between the conception as it exists to-day and the conception in the Bill.
    The Parliamentary Secretary said yesterday that it does not really matter whether "infant" is in the Bill or not, that it was not in previous Acts and so why have it in this one? I never thought to hear anyone so progressively-minded as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary giving that as a good and valid reason why the word should not be in the

    203
    Bill. After all, the reason why we welcome this Bill is that it is an advance, and that there are many things in it which have not been in previous Acts. Many of us would like to have the whole position of infants, that is, children from five to seven, made absolutely clear. The Parliamentary Secretary also said that those who were anxious to raise the age to seven and not leave it at five wanted to put the whole system into a straightjacket. That is precisely what the Government want to do, only they want to make the age five. They want to put the system into a strait-jacket in the wrong place.
    Whether five is the right age to have this break in the life of a child is a very important question. The Parliamentary Secretary said there is no consensus of opinion as to whether seven is the right age. There certainly is no opinion that I have heard of that five is the right age. All who have made extensive and prolonged study of this matter have declared emphatically that seven is a more appropriate age than five for children to enter on what is, after all, a new life. They will be going away from the nursery atmosphere to the atmosphere of the school curriculum. I know perfectly well that there are immense difficulties which limit almost every Clause of the Bill, difficulties of teachers, of staff, of buildings, and so on, but in this matter I would ask whether it is not possible to extend and to adapt existing infant schools and to adapt and extend war-time nurseries, a great many of which need to be more suitable for accommodating children up to the age of seven. After all, in this Bill we are laying down the line along which our education system is to proceed, and I beg the right hon. Gentleman that when he is doing that he will not establish the break in the school life of children at five years of age.
    Mr. Cove: I should like to support the general argument put by the hon. Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George). I happen to be in touch with teachers up and down the country, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that one of the great fears about this Bill is that it will crush out the infant school. Whether that fear is justified or not, it certainly exists. There is a general fear, which has been conveyed to me from many quarters, that these State infant
    204
    schools are going to be crushed. I should like to say in passing that I entirely disagree with the observation of the hon. Member for the Park Division (Mr. Burden) that every advance in the education field has been made by gifted amateurs. I absolutely and completely disagree with that, and I cannot understand a Socialist making that remark, because anyone who knows anything of our education system will know that if there has been any advance, if there have been experiments carried out, if there have been sacrifices made by teachers, it has been in connection with infant schools. I should like to put it on record that I know of many instances in which headmistresses in infant schools have spent their own money in providing the materials necessary to carry on the work in the schools. Further, and this is my main point, it would be a real tragedy in our education system if we conveyed to those teachers that they were going to be snuffed out or smothered by the provisions of the Bill. I agree with the hon. Lady that we should like to see the children kept outside a rigid curriculum and that experiments in the educational process should have scope.
    I am not rigidly bound to any particular limit, but I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that the emphasis in the Bill is against the provision of nursery classes and my Amendment is designed to get over that. That provision in the Bill is one of the things which have caused the suspicion which exists. The opinion has been conveyed to me not by any official organisation but by a mass of correspondence from individual teachers, and I feel keenly that unless the right hon. Gentleman convinces us that he is going to meet us Parliament ought to register an opinion on the matter, because it is an exceptionally important point in the education sphere. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman this. There has certainly emanated from his Department—I do not want to go further—through various officials, the view that the Department implies that the day of the infant school has gone. Right up and down the country I find that idea exists. Both the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary know of the splendid work which has been done in towns like Nottingham. As I have said, I do not want compulsion for the small children, but I do want to maintain the

    205
    interest of our education system in nurturing and developing these young children, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to meet us on the issues we have raised.
    Mr. Hugh Lawson: I hope this discussion will not get down to the old argument as to whether five or seven is the right age to stop attendance at nursery schools. That is a matter on which there is bound to be an honest difference of opinion, because the thing which must determine whether a child should leave at the age of five or seven is its mental development. You cannot lay down hard and fast rules. The Minister should not tie himself to a particular age—the age of five—because that would be an unfortunate thing. We have very good experiments going on in nursery schools with children up to the age of seven, so I hope the Minister will accept some wording of the Bill which will make it possible for some children, at any rate, to remain in nursery schools until they reach the age of seven. That does not mean that we should force all children to attend nursery schools until that age, but the matter should be made as elastic as possible, and I hope, therefore, that the President will accept some wording along the lines of this Amendment.
    Dr. Haden Guest: I wish to say very shortly that I hope the President will agree to accept some words such as those suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Parker) making it possible to extend this provision beyond the age of five, and I rise not only to give my general support, but I think I am justified in saying that there is a considerable body of opinion among school medical officers that the age should be raised beyond five and probably to seven. Education should consist chiefly of play activities and physical education, and not in cramming up to the age of about seven. Of course, we cannot be rigid about the exact dates. One cannot say that on a certain day the development of a child ceases, nor can the Minister say that the development of a child as an infant ceases at the age of five. The probability is that in most children the physical mental brain development goes on for about seven years, and the logical thing would be to take the age of seven. There is a considerable body of expert
    206
    medical opinion which thinks that the age should be raised above five to somewhere near seven, and if some words can be accepted to make it possible for the local education authorities to do that where it is administratively feasible, I think the Bill would be strengthened and not in any way hurt.
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I rise really to save time because one or two of us have got Amendments to a succeeding Clause which will be knocked out if this is accepted. The Minister has already said that "elasticity if necessary shall go further after the compulsory school age is reached." It is also in the White Paper that infant and junior schools should be separate where possible. We want the drafting to live up to the speeches and the White Paper. I think that is all that is being asked, and I rise really to support what the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) said. It is true that in the 1921 Act the infant school is not mentioned, but we think that after 23 years of experience the experiment justifies the inclusion of the word "infant" in the 1944 Act. We also think that the war experience has proved to the country what Margaret MacMillan proved to the few.
    Mr. Butler: I may, perhaps, help the Committee to have a proper idea of the Government's policy if I intervene at this stage. There appears to be already general agreement in the Committee that it is important to have elasticity and so to frame the Statute that it is not impossible for children to stay in the nursery school atmosphere beyond the age of five and possibly up to the age of seven. That has been the intention of the Government as expressed in the White Paper and it is, in fact, in the Bill. But the Bill is a legal document and legal documents need a little interpretation, and some of us are not even lawyers. I would like to explain to the Committee that the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) need have no fear that the Bill would preclude the possibility of continuing nursery schools for children up to the age of seven. When I have proved that, I would like to say a word about the Amendment in general and, then, if I may, to keep till the end a little Amendment which I propose to make myself.
    Looking at the Bill as it is drawn, there is no need for hon. Members who have

    207
    taken part in the Debate to be apprehensive, because if they will turn to Clause 9 (4) they will see that primary schools, which are used mainly for the purpose of providing education for children who have attained the age of two years but have not attained the age of five years, shall be known as nursery schools. I am advised that the word "mainly" has been inserted so that there may be experiments provided for children to stay beyond the age of five. I might have offered a prize to anybody to pick out that needle. That is the method by which the draftsmen have saved the position.
    I would like to say a word about the Amendments on the paper. I must acknowledge the fact that the City of Bradford, which the hon. Member who moved this Amendment represents, has made some notable experiments in this particular direction. I should like also to acknowledge the experience which the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Park Division (Mr. Burden) brings into our discussions on this matter. The Government are faced by the following position in trying to arrange the Clauses of the Bill to meet all sides. It is necessary in this to be even more Solomonic than _in considering other matters. There are widely different schools of thought. There is the school of thought represented by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), which takes the view that it is important to preserve infant schools in our educational system. He also shows particular interest in nursery schools.
    I would say at once that the Government are so far removed from being opposed to the continuation of infant schools that they subscribe to all the sentiments he has expressed in support of these ventures and to the work and sacrifice of those running these infant schools. At the same time we are not at all opposed to the philosophy of the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey, and we think that in some instances it should be possible for children to remain in nursery schools after they reach the age of five, but, as has been so rightly said by the hon. Gentleman who also intervened, some children develop at one age and others at another. Therefore, to lay down in a statute of all places that there shall be a sharp dividing line in the life of a child would really be madness and I do
    208
    not advise the Committee to adopt so rigid a plan as that. No father or mother would agree to that.
    Before I come to suggest how I think we might all be satisfied, I must just say that it is the general view of the Board that about the age of five a change of environment and of teaching is desirable. That is our general view and I have, in this connection, studied the immortal work of Margaret MacMillan and realised the truth of what she said about the value of carrying on the nursery atmosphere for some children to the age of seven. But that does not detract from our general view that attendance at nursery schools within reasonable reach of the home should go on from two to five and that after that a new stage is necessary. I am supported in this by the views of a very eminent psychologist, Dr. Gesell, who said that the five-year-old
    "has a better understanding of this world and his own identity in it. He is stable and well adjusted in his emotional life, as he is in his intellectual outlook."
    That leads the Government to feel that normally there is a reason for adjustment at that age and the Government have taken a great interest in this matter because of the sympathy which has been shown in the Committee to this part of our educational development. We feel then that it will be necessary to keep elasticity in the general system, and we feel that to lay down a rigid rule would be impossible.
    At the same time, on examining the Bill in detail we have come to the conclusion that there is no method of ascertaining, either on behalf of the Government or on behalf of the House, what in fact the development of English education in this matter is going to be. We have, in fact, discovered as the result of Amendments put on the Order Paper that there is no method of reassuring hon. Members who are anxious about either the continuation of the infant school or elasticity in the nursery school. On examining Clause 10, in which authorities are asked to submit their development plans, we find that in (2, a) so far from there being a delineation of the different types of primary education there is not a provision for a review to be given of the different stages of primary education. There is, therefore, a gap in the Bill, and what we propose is to require the authorities, when submitting their development plans, to

    209
    include not only the types of secondary education, but also the types of primary education which we are also keeping elastic. In order to do that it will be necessary to amend the Bill in Clause 10. For that purpose I have an Amendment put down on the Order Paper—Clause 10, page 7, line 14, leave out from "such" to end of line 15—which would require the authorities in their development plans to delineate the nature of the provision of nursery schools, infant schools and of junior pupil education generally and thus enable us to follow the development of English education in these spheres. If I do that I hope hon. Members will realise that the Government has to decide between opposing points of view and the natural way is to have a report or a development plan so that we can see how things are developing.
    Sir Percy Harris: I would like to say one word in approval of the very wise and understanding speech of the right hon. Gentleman, but I do want it to be made clear, and he has made it clear, to those women who have given their lives to small children in infant school work, that their work is not threatened, and that there is every hope that the policy will be to encourage their work to continue and that the life of the infant school is not finished.
    Mr. Cove: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement? I am satisfied now, because it throws it back on to the local authorities, and they will have a chance. That is a vital principle and I thank the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Leach: I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment if the answer to one simple question which I propose to put to the Minister satisfies me, and I think it will. Notwithstanding the fact that throughout these Clauses the only age mentioned is that of five—which seems to me quite limiting—does the Minister assure me that local authorities will have perfect freedom to continue their nursery school tuition up to the age of seven?
    Mr. Butler: Certainly; it is included under the provisions of Clause 9, Subsection (4).
    Mr. Leach: I should be glad, with that assurance, to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The Chairman: The next Amendment to be called is that in the name of the hon. Member for South-East St. Pancras (Sir A. Beit)—in page 5, line 31, leave out "expediency of" and insert "need for." It may be for the convenience of the Committee to have a general Debate on boarding schools and boarders. That will cover this Amendment and the five succeeding Amendments: that in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Preston (Captain Cobb) in page 5, line 32, after "in," insert "existing."; that in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), in page 5, line 33, leave out from "otherwise," to end of paragraph; that in the name of the President of the Board, in page 5, line 33, leave out from "pupils," to end of paragraph, and insert:
    "for whom education as boarders is considered by their parents and by the authority to be desirable.";
    that in the name of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) in page 5, line 33, leave out from "pupils," to send of paragraph, and insert "for whom such provision is educationally desirable."; and that in the name of the hon. Member for South-East St. Pancras, in page 5, line 36, after "remoteness," insert "overcrowded condition or unhealthy surroundings."
    Mr. Barnes: Do the Amendments cover that in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Rom-ford (Mr. Parker)—in page 5, line 37, at end, insert:
    "and (e) to the need for securing that provision is made for pupils in approved schools and remand homes now under the control of the Home Office."
    The Chairman: That Amendment is out of Order as it is not within the scope of the Bill.
    Sir Alfred Beit: I beg to move, in page 5, line 31, to leave out "expediency of," and to insert "need for."
    I am delighted, Major Milner, that you have decided to allow a general Debate, because I was rather afraid that my Amendment would be looked upon as being restrictive. Since I put it down the President has himself put down a far preferable Amendment covering very much the same ground. I would draw

    211
    the attention of the Committee to the curious state of affairs that whereas it is the duty of the local education authorities to establish the various forms of education which are enumerated in Clause 8, Sub-section (2), they have, when it comes to boarding schools, only to consider the expediency of establishing such schools. I took the trouble to look up in Murray's Dictionary the actual meaning of "expediency," and found that it is defined as "a contrivance or device for obtaining an end." That is very different from the need for doing something. It became clear to me that the education authorities, in considering the advisability of establishing boarding schools, were given only the power to establish them, whereas with all other forms of education a duty was imposed upon them. I do not think that is good enough. I am anxious to know whether it will be acceptable to my right hon. Friend that the same duty which is imposed on them in other respects shall be imposed upon them in this respect.
    The other point I wanted to make, although it will be over-ridden by the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, is that when the Bill was drafted, not only was the establishment of board schools limited to expediency and to a power of the education authority, but the reasons why they should establish them were limited to parents being desirous of this form of education or to the need for providing it for children who live far away from ordinary schools. I am glad that that basis has been much broadened by the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. When the private education system is attacked it is generally attacked on the basis that it is only available to those who are prepared or able to pay for it. In the so-called public schools there are only 10,000 places, so that whatever steps were taken it would not be possible to make them available to a very greatly increased number of children. The only way, therefore, in which this system can be made more extensive is to build new schools of this type and make them available for a vast number of children who have never benefited from the boarding school system. I was glad to see that in the Second Reading Debate my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. I. Thomas) made this remark:
    212
    "It is rather curious that the boarding school principle should have been supported in the past mainly by the wealthy and opposed by the poor, because boarding schools have far more to give to the poor than they have to the children of the rich."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th January, 1944; col. 306, Vol. 396.]
    The prejudice against the boarding school system largely arises from the fact that only a limited proportion of the population have been able to benefit by it, or even to try it, If we strengthen the hands of the education authorities in the way that this Amendment aims to do and impose on them the duty of establishing boarding schools, not only in remote areas, but throughout the country, the success of this type of education will soon prove itself and thus get over the prejudice which exists against it. It is essential that the scope of these schools should be much widened over what was originally in the minds of the Department when they drafted the Bill, because we certainly do not want only unhealthy or unwanted children to go to these schools. We are hopeful that the system will prove such a success that there will be a great demand for them throughout the country.
    The boarding school is not only good for the character of the child, but it is as a rule very popular with the child. It is a real advantage to a neglected child and, best of all, it is of the greatest benefit to a spoilt child. I dare say that some Members have read an interesting book by a body of social workers called "Our Towns," which was produced shortly after the great evacuation. It is in the form of a survey taken in different parts of the country of the children who had been moved from their normal homes. There were many sad examples in the book of the effect on the child's character of being either neglected or, even worse, spoilt. The moral that can be drawn from it is that, though every deference must be paid to the wishes of the parents, they do not automatically know what is best for their children. There are a great many children in all classes of the community who would benefit enormously by an absence for a period during the year from their parental surroundings. I do not propose that boarding schools should be extended entirely for the benefits that they give to the child. They are of the greatest benefit to teachers also. I read the other day that at a meeting of the Incorporated

    213
    Association of Head Masters, the master of Dulwich College said:
    "Our boarding schools are better off than the day schools in the quality of their masters, not because they were more efficient teachers but because in the great boarding schools there was so much larger a percentage of masters who were ready to devote their entire lives to the good of the school."
    In the Debate yesterday many hon. Members indulged in personal reminiscences, and if I may be allowed to enter my name for this autobiographical race, I would say that my own recollections are very vivid of those teachers with whom I came in contact during my school days who were really wrapt up, not only in the ordinary work, but in the welfare of the boys. The best loved teachers were those who really took an interest in the lives of the boys outside school hours. It is not by any means a question of pay, because it is common knowledge that the scales for teachers at boarding schools are not very different from other scales. I believe that there are many elementary and secondary school teachers who would like to have the opportunity of teaching at boarding schools and of taking a greater interest in the lives of the scholars than they are able to do under the present system, where circumstances make it impossible for them to carry on that interest outside school hours except under conditions of the greatest difficulty.
    One of the reasons why the system would be of material benefit is that there are some teachers who are not particularly interested in any other than their immediate school work. I have in my experience during the war come across one or two schools which have been evacuated from cities to the country where the teachers frankly have not taken the opportunity that this move afforded to them of really entering into questions of welfare as they did previously. We know that teachers are of varying calibre, and it is clear that they will not do the same thing when the circumstances to which they were formally accustomed have been changed. It is clear that, given the opportunity to do more than the mere school work, the great majority would take a greater interest in the pupils. That would lead to better esprit de corps in the school than is normally the case. The outlook of parents, and of teachers as well, towards this question needs to be changed,
    214
    and the quickest and most encouraging way of doing it would be to establish a system of successful State boarding schools, because there is no doubt that they would be rapidly followed by others.
    Mr. Martin: I would like to congratulate the President on having put down an Amendment to this Clause, because it very much meets the present issue. This is not a matter on which one ought to express dogmatic opinions, but, broadly speaking, I must confess that, after a considerable period of association with day schools and having been myself at a boarding school, I think that, other things being equal, if the home and the school are both good the day school has the advantage. None the less, there is a case for establishing greater opportunities for children to go to boarding schools.
    Three conditions should govern that state of affairs. It should be clear that the parents and authorities equally believe that the boarding school is a desirable form of education. The hon. Member for South-East St. Pancras (Sir. A. Beit) said he thought that the parent was not always the best guide. Let us agree that that is the case, but is the authority always the best judge? Is the teacher always the best judge? Can we say that any one person is always the best judge, of the welfare of any particular child? Of course we cannot. The parent must always be taken first into account, and, other things being equal, must always be given the decisive voice. The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly right to amend the Clause in the sense of putting the greatest emphasis upon the parent's authority in this matter so that nothing that goes out from this House should be thought to diminish the authority or responsibility of the parent in the ordinary way of life in this country.
    The second thing that is of importance is that if you are to have boarding schools they should be good boarding schools, and the amenities, teaching and conditions of the schools should be at least equal to the ordinary good boarding school which the paying parent selects for his child. That standard at least must be maintained and preserved for children if we are to send them to boarding schools. The third question which arises is financial. So far as these schools are desirable for the children of the country, no question of finance should

    215
    stand in the way, but, none the less, one does not want to rush impulsively into this kind of thing without considering that aspect of the matter. There are local authorities who have the boarding school complex and might be anxious to take advantage of this Clause and set up boarding schools where they were not urgently required, and so spend money which might be put to better use. One of the arguments which has been put forward for making boarding schools more desirable is the distance of the pupil from the nearest school, but the areas in which pupils are a long way from their day schools are precisely those which, in most cases, could least afford to pay for great extravagance in education. That point raises once again the vexed question of local and national expenditure, which I think should be taken into account in this matter.
    Again, we might, possibly, have a Board of Education which wanted to make rather expensive experiments of this nature, and it would be most deplorable if the standard of education and of amenity in the day school were to suffer because an authority, or the Board, wanted to spend an excessive portion of the amount available for education upon the board school system. With those reservations I should be very glad indeed to support the Government's proposal and I hope that the Amendment will be adopted by the Committee.
    Mr. K. Lindsay: I rise to support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for South-East St. Pancras (Sir A. Beit) and to try to get a reply from the Minister on a rather larger point which is contained in the Amendment, and also in what, I think, is the second Amendment in the name of the same hon. Member. It is very difficult to discuss this matter without having the Fleming Report on the subject, but I think there is sufficient evidence to enable one to come to a conclusion on the point. I have put down many questions in the last two years about this matter, and naturally I welcome this new power. It is well known that unless children were delinquent or were a long way from home, you could not send them to a boarding school, unless, again, you were pretty rich. There is scope at the moment for a good many experiments attached to secondary
    216
    schools. There are in this country many boarding houses attached to day schools to accommodate perhaps 50 boys. There is a case in Sussex, which I came across recently, where boys have to stay on later in the evening, because the main problem of the day school at the moment is that there is insufficient accommodation to do any homework. The position is becoming very difficult for secondary school children. Therefore, provision is being made by hostel and otherwise. I know a school in Lewes where this is wanted. Parents and authorities are satisfied with the experiment. They will not be able to go on in the winter without boarding accommodation attached to schools and I hope that the Minister will encourage this kind of thing. There is the same development at Leighton Park.
    Then there are the camp schools. I spent this week-end in one of them, where there is a secondary school, and the experience has been that the children's health is better, their homework has improved under supervision, their social behaviour has improved and their sense of responsibility is encouraged. The country life and environment have given them a new sense of well-being. The school report states that before the evacuation, the number of children below Grade IV was 42.6 per cent. Eighteen months after evacuation it was 24.6. Those are the most reliable figures I have been able to get in the country. For those above this grade, the figures are, before evacuation only 32 per cent. and 18 months afterwards, 49 per cent.
    It seems to me that we ought to cash in on this war experience and I hope that my right hon. Friend will have control of these schools, which are now incidentally still under the Ministry of Health. Hon. Members may say that I was partly responsible for putting them there in the days of the evacuation, but those days are over. The headmaster of Westminster school in a report upon the same aspect of the matter said:
    "We return home with lessons not to be forgotten from the years of exile—the moral value of simpler standards—the educational value of self-help, the social value of contacts with your next door neighbour whoever he happens to be."
    They had to have simpler standards and simpler clothes, they have
    "improvised less formal athletics, at the same time academic standards have been improved."

    217
    If this is so, I think there is a good case, although I do not rest my case on the great public schools at all. We are in an adventurous and experimental age, and I want to see our local education authorities breaking new ground.
    But the main reason why I have risen is because I am not quite sure whether the Amendment by the President covers another group of children. I wonder whether it is generally known that there are somewhere between 70,000 and 100,000 children in this country who are homeless, or orphans, or who have been picked up on the streets and, who have been committed to a fit person, which is sometimes the local education authority, and that there are four different Ministries, Pensions, Health, Home Office and the Board of Education, inspecting or not inspecting these children. I want to know from my right hon. Friend whether these children can be brought within the scope of the Bill. I have taken the trouble to look up the original paragraphs to Part I of the Bill, which say:
    "institutions devoted to that purpose,"
    which means education. Therefore, I ask whether the public assistance schools will no longer come under the public assistance committees of the local authorities but under each local education committee itself. The same applies to children in workhouses and remand homes and approved schools. There are 12,000 children who are destitute or impecunious. This covers some of the points raised in the hon. Member's second Amendment. There are 21,000 children who are impecunious in charitable homes and schools, only a proportion of whom are inspected by the Home Office. The rest are inspected by the Ministry of Health. There are 10,000 children in approved schools. Hon. Members may ask why I raise this question. The answer is that it has been proved that 75 per cent. of the children in approved schools were originally children belonging to the above categories. In fact, there are probably, especially in view of the increase in the number of illegitimate children in this country, something like 100,000 children who are in homes, institutes, hospitals and various types of school and institution.
    It is high time that these children were brought under a central Ministry, which should be the Ministry of Education, and
    218
    that the main responsibility for their welfare should fall upon the local education committees. Some committees already look after this matter. I believe that Manchester does. Others do not. Many authorities are extremely worried about the great mass of destitute children. These are not children who are necessarily special children and they do not come under the Clause in the Bill which deals with mental and physical disability. Same of them are perfectly wonderful children. These children are a great asset to the country. I could tell stories about what has happened to these children which would not reflect well on the country in spite of the devoted work of many charitable homes, on the provision made for the happiness of this great mass of children. I want the children to come within this Clause.
    Mr. Barnes: On a point of Order. May I clear up a point which I submitted to your predecessor, in the Chair, Mr. Williams, on whether the issues raised by my hon. Friend should be discussed? I understood that it was not in Order to do so I am very anxious that they should be discussed, and if the matter is in Order I should like to make a contribution.
    The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): Is the hon. Gentleman referring to the Amendment in page 5, line 37?
    Mr. Barnes: Yes.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I understand that that has been ruled out of Order. I noticed that the hon. Gentleman was speaking on the subject of the Amendment which had been ruled out of Order, and I was wondering whether he ought to carry on; but since the matter has been raised, I must warn him that he should not go any further into the subject of special schools.
    Mr. Lindsay: My hon. Friend asked me to inquire why—
    Mr. Barnes: What I wish to ask is whether the Board of Education could really assume responsibility for them within the terms of this Measure.
    The Deputy-Chairman: Subject to further advice, I would go so far as to say that they are outside the scope of the Bill.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Ede): The Chairman of the Committee, when he ruled the Amendment out of Order, said that the reason was that it was outside the scope of the Bill.
    Mr. Deputy-Chairman: That Ruling would apply equally to the remarks which the hon. Member was making. Perhaps, therefore, he will not pursue the subject any further.
    Mr. Lindsay: I will not pursue this one moment further, because there are many other hon. Members who wish to speak. I wish to raise this point. I will just display an elaborate and coloured map which will show hon. Members the chaotic arrangements of these four Ministries, Health, Pensions, Home Office and Education.
    The Deputy-Chairman: That is exactly what the hon. Member must not display. It is going much too far when we have pictorial as well as verbal illustrations.
    Mr. Lindsay: I support very strongly the general sense of this Clause. I am not sure whether the President's Amendment should not be amended to "parents or authorities," because in some of the cases either the parents do not exist or, as my hon. Friend said, there are cases where the children have literally have to be taken away for the good of the children. Therefore, with that possible Amendment which I would suggest to the President I have the greatest pleasure in supporting this Clause. I hope that there will be a wide variety of experiments undertaken by local education authorities and by other people with the valuable idea of boarding.
    Sir Joseph Lamb: Is the Amendment which stands in my name included in those you wish to have discussed in this general discussion, Mr. Williams?
    The Deputy-Chairman: Yes, I think it is.
    Sir J. Lamb: In that case I should like to associate myself whole-heartedly with the remarks of other hon. Members on this Sub-section (d) of the Clause. I have for long been an advocate of the principle of the wishes enunciated in this Sub-section and of power being given to local authorities to have these boarding schools. I do not propose to follow the example of some
    220
    hon. Members and make a Second Reading speech on this question. There was a great deal I would have liked to have said on Second Reading, but, unfortunately, I was not able to do so as I was not called. I am strongly in favour of the principle of boarding schools being provided by the local authority. If I may enter into the discussion which has just taken place in regard to this certain class of school—not those you have ruled out of Order, Mr. Williams—I believe the other schools would come under the purview of the local authority and could be taken over by them as approved schools. With regard to the children who have no parents, I think the education authority is now practically in the position of parents of the children for educational purposes. I hope that the answer later on will be that these schools will be included.
    I do not propose to move or press my Amendment, because I want briefly to support the Minister's Amendment which I think includes the object which I had in mind in my Amendment. I should like to thank him for the Amendment, which includes the considered opinion of the authority in addition to that of the parent. Naturally, I would not do anything to diminish the responsibility or rights of parents with regard to the education to be given to their children, but in practice we find that all parents, like other individuals, are not always right, and there are occasions when the teachers or the local authority, with very close associations with the children, have opinions and have come to a conclusion which should be given full consideration. The Minister in his Amendment is giving what I was trying to do in mine, the provision that the authority should have some power of representation in this case. I want to thank him for that, and when the time comes I shall not ask to move my Amendment.
    Viscountess Davidson: I should like to support the Amendment. Two of the camp evacuation schools have been in my constituency and I have had a great opportunity of seeing them develop and seeing the enormous improvement in the children there. To start with, in one camp there were children who came from 180 different schools. Out of them has been created a public school with a public school spirit. I would not have believed it had I not

    221
    seen it and the wonderful atmosphere which has grown up in that camp in a comparatively short time. I realise that the success depends very much on the headmaster and teachers. It is perhaps asking even greater devotion from school teachers who are hardly ever off duty if they are working in boarding schools but I believe that the results have been so remarkable that that has been sufficient reward in itself.
    I very much welcome this Clause of the Bill, because I think it may be the beginning of something very important for the future. I am not, however, happy at the use of the word "expediency." It is the wrong word, it is permissive. The word should be "need" or "necessity." If it is permissive local authorities may turn away on the grounds of expense, or it may be found that London or Birmingham can afford it whereas Wiltshire, Cornwall, Cumberland or some of the other poorer counties cannot. There may be influential people on local authorities who are against boarding schools and who might obstruct. Having had this opportunity of seeing what may be done in a very short period of time I want to see this system extended as much as possible in the future. We shall have available camps which are now being used for war purposes, which will be admirable places for boarding schools of this type. Having seen the improvement in the boys in these camps in my constituency in three or four years I want to see that public school spirit brought into a great many more schools and the advantages of boarding schools given to many thousands of other children throughout the country.
    Mr. Ede: The sentiments that have been expressed in the course of the Debate I think truly reflect public opinion outside. There has been a very considerable change of view on the part of parents whose children have hitherto regarded the elementary and secondary schools as their normal places of education with regard to this matter during the past five or six years This has been very striking, as was shown in a referendum taken by the Federation of Women's Institutes into this very problem. They asked by an overwhelming majority, I think something like 160 to one, that provision should be made, where is was required, for children to receive education under residential con-
    222
    ditions. I had the advantage of attending a Women's Institute in a village on an occasion when this matter was under discussion. The curious thing was that this was not advocated by the mothers who were there on any egalitarian principle, but purely from a consideration of the educational advantages and disadvantages that their children, who were attending secondary schools, experienced under present circumstances.
    This was a village not very far from a substantial county town where there were two secondary schools, one for boys and one for girls. These village mothers took the view that their children lost a substantial part of their education because they were unable to participate in the out-of-school activities which made so much a part of secondary school life for the more fortunate children who lived in the town. They desired that their children should participate in all the school societies that were open to those who were not dependent on a very infrequent bus service, and an even worse train service, for getting to and from school. This is a very considerable alteration in the outlook of that type of parent. Working class memories are notoriously long, and the history of residential education in this country for the working classes has not been a happy one down to the very recent past. The defective, the mentally and physically defective, have been catered for in residential institutions, the morally defective have been catered for in residential institutions.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid I shall have to interrupt the hon. Member to remind him that we are dealing with this Clause.
    Mr. Ede: The reversal of public opinion has, I think, sufficiently progressed now to warrant us making provision in this Bill for dealing with the problem of residential schools, and my right hon. Friend has placed on the Order Paper an Amendment which I gather meets the views of those who have put down most of the Amendments that have appeared on the Paper on this subject. I hope that the Committee will agree to accept the words he has put down. We recognise that in this matter there must be consultation between the parent and the local education authority. It does not

    223
    follow that every child whose parents think him or her suitable for a residential education is of necessity suitable, and there may be some cases where the local education authority may desire to bring to the notice of the parents the desirability of the child securing education under residential conditions.
    With regard to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for South-East St. Pancras (Sir A. Beit) my right hon. Friend feels that it is desirable to stick to the words that have been placed in the Bill. The Clause has already been amended once by the former Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend with regard to the wishes of the parents to deal with the subject which was under discussion when the Committee resumed to-day. This also is a matter in which the wishes of the parents are concerned and it would appear desirable in this case to follow the same form of words as were used in the other case where so wide a discretion is left. With regard to why the phrase the "need for" has not been used in this Clause, and those matters which are within the old established statutory system of the country, the explanation is that we desire that there shall be a very wide range of experiments in this matter. We welcome all that has been said on that subject, but we hope the Committee will agree to leave the word "expediency" in the place where it has been placed in the Bill in dealing with this subject.
    Mr. Cove: I rise to support the request of the Parliamentary Secretary that we should leave in the word "expediency" and not substitute the words "need for." The truth is that this Amendment raises a very vital issue in our educational methods and system. The Debate has indicated, I think, that Members realise it, for throughout the whole Debate there has been, so far as I have gathered, an emphasis on the benefits derived from boarding schools or camps and so on. Quite frankly I do not share the general view that has been expressed. Therefore, because my admiration is not so positive for boarding schools as that which seems to have been expressed by hon. Members hitherto in the Debate, I support the retention of the words, "the expediency of." One of the proudest things in our educational history is not at all related to the boarding schools.
    224
    One of the proudest things in our educational history is related to the day municipal secondary schools. They have made a remarkable contribution to the educational development of this country. I do not subscribe to the theory that it is a good thing in general for children to be taken away from their own localities and their own homes. The educational process proceeds not only inside the school, but inside the home, and in the locality. I believe that the nearer the schools are to the problems of the localities in which they are placed and the nearer the children are to the problems even of the home, the more fully they will realise the difficulties they will have to face as they grow into manhood. The boarding school makes the real life that they have to live somewhat remote. I am very glad that the Government have stood firm, and I hope they will continue to do so, on this word "expediency." I am all in favour of experiment, but I am not in favour of taking away large numbers of children from the problems of their home life. I think we ought to put in a word for the remarkable contribution that the municipal schools have rendered to Britain in the last 50 or 60 years.
    Sir Georģe Schuster: I am very grateful to the Minister for the Amendment which he has put down and which is to be moved later. It seems to me to meet all the needs of the case. Although I entirely differ from the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) as to the value of boarding schools, I agree with him in preferring the word "expediency" to the word "need." If we leave expediency, I think we open a wider door than if we ask the authorities merely to consider the need. Many things may be expedient which could not be proved to be necessary. But the point I chiefly wanted to make concerns finance. We must all recognise that, when we come to extending boarding school education, we get right up against the financial difficulty. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) said that it is very difficult to discuss this matter when we have not the Fleming Report before us. I hope that we shall have another opportunity of discussing the question of boarding schools in all its aspects when we have that Report. We are discussing whether the local authorities should consider the expediency of providing board-

    225
    ing-school facilities. There was among local authorities some fear of the financial liability under which they might be put if parents had the right to say "I want my boy to go to a boarding school," when they could not afford the fees. Now there must be agreement between the local authority and the parent, as a result of the Government's Amendment. As one who supports very strongly the extension of boarding-school facilities, I wonder whether we are wise if we contemplate leaving the financial burden for the sort of thing that we want to see in this country on the shoulders of the local authorities. One of the values of boarding-school education, as I see it, is that children from all over the country can meet; the schools are not confined to the children of one locality. That being so, the schools should not be the financial obligation of particular local authorities. I want to see an education authority taking the most intimate share in the running of any boarding-school in its area; but if we are to take boarding-school education seriously, we have to face the fact that the financial burden cannot be carried by the local authorities. I hope that at some stage my right hon. Friend will tell us something about that point.
    Sir A. Beit: On the question of "expedient," I was not altogether convinced by the last two speeches or by that of the Parliamentary Secretary. I thought that the parallel which he drew with the Amendment was not altogether valid. But I am perfectly willing, having regard to the satisfactory answer he gave to the Debate, to withdraw my Amendment, especially in view of the fact that I have another Amendment down on Clause 10, regarding the plans of the local authorities, which I hope he will accept.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 5, line 33, to leave out from "pupils" to the end of the paragraph, and to insert:
    "for whom education as boarders is considered by their parents and by the authority to be desirable."
    Mr. Lindsay: Could my hon. Friend give us some satisfaction on the point made by the hon. Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster)? It is very important, in the case of schools which are at present camp schools, that, although they are financed not by the local authority but from the centre—
    Mr. Ede: I should have thought that this would have been better raised on the financial Clauses of the Bill.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I was wondering how far the hon. Member was going to get out of Order before I stopped him.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Dr. Haden Guest: I beg to move, in page 5, line 37, at the end, to insert:
    "and (e) to the need for providing accommodation for the preparation and serving of school meals for all pupils."
    I move this Amendment in order that this Clause, which governs schools as a whole, shall contain this statement about the provision of accommodation for school meals, and that such meals shall be regarded as just as fundamental a part of education as the provision of playing fields or of instruction, or any other part of school life. During the war there has been a very great expansion in the feeding of school children. The number fed in December, 1941, was 8.9 per cent. of the whole, and in October, 1943, it had risen to 26.5 per cent. of the total number of children. Some people may say that it has risen despite the difficulties of the war situation, but the war situation has made people realise the necessity of children being fed and therefore stimulated the provision of school meals, so that it has actually increased. The difficulties are the provision of equipment and premises, and the Board of Education have issued various circulars laying emphasis on this aspect of the matter.
    I want it to be made plain in the Bill that it is part of the duty of the local authority to provide premises and equipment. The necessity would not arise if all local authorities were very ready to provide school meals for their children, but even at this moment there are 12 local authorities, out of the 315 in the country, who provide for no children at all, and there is no local authority in the country which provides for over 65 per cent. of the children. Only seven local authorities provide for over 50 per cent. of the children. In the larger number of cases, the percentage of children provided for is very much smaller than that. That means that a very considerable proportion of children are not provided for.
    One of the chief difficulties is that of equipment and premises. That is one

    227
    reason for my putting down this Amendment. But there is a further reason. Some local authorities still consider that only if children are necessitous have they a claim to be fed. I want that idea swept out of existence. All children going to school ought to have one substantial meal every day, in all circumstances. The question of how you are going to arrange for payment, whether by individuals or otherwise, should not arise. It is important to make the provision of premises a vital and fundamental part of the Bill. I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister replies, he will be able to give satisfaction on this point. I do not want to quote a large number of statistics, but I have here a valuable paper by Mr. F. Le Gros Clark, which I recommend all Members to study. This is a very valuable document, and it is not easily obtainable. We ought to turn our attention more and more to the provision of school meals. If we are going to make that a reality, it means providing the premises where the children can be fed and the equipment which will enable the meals to be cooked.
    Mr. Cove: I heartily support this Amendment, not only from the point of view which the hon. Member has mentioned, that is, the general principle of the feeding of children and the necessity that children should have meals provided whether they are necessitous or not, but also because of the concrete nature of the Amendment. The hon. Member wants provision made for
    "accommodation for the preparation and serving of school meals for all pupils."
    I want that direction given because in hundreds of schools in this country there is no preparation and there is no accommodation. It seems to me essential that the physical conditions should be there in order to have proper school feeding. In many schools the children are fed in the ordinary classrooms, and they have to go back to the classrooms after the meal. That is not right. There should be separate accommodation—if you like, school restaurants. In addition to that proper physical accommodation, there should be at all schools the means for cooking and serving the meals. The cooking and serving—I am now thinking more particularly of the serving—should not, as now in many cases, rest on the
    228
    shoulders of the teachers. The teachers are appointed to teach, and I say that it is a very bad thing that extraneous duties, such as taking care of school meals, should be put upon those who have to do the teaching service in the schools to the extent to which it has been done in the past. There ought to be, not only proper accommodation, but a staff to supervise the cooking of the meals and the feeding of the pupils. School feeding has now gone on for a considerable time, and, indeed, is accepted in the educational world generally as necessary. It is accepted by the public as necessary, but again—and I know what I am talking about and I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me—there is at the moment, throughout the administrative education service and throughout the teaching profession itself, a great deal of irritation, almost amounting to annoyance, and a feeling of frustration, at people being directed from their proper job where school meals are concerned.
    I hope this Committee, through the Minister, will give a direction to local education authorities so that we shall not get meals anyhow, higgledy-piggledy, in classrooms here and there, but that proper accommodation will be provided, and a staff, apart from the teaching staff, appointed to provide and supervise these meals. The eating of a common meal by the children is a great co-operative experience. It is a training in good manners, and a coming together, as it were, in a great co-operative act—almost an act of worship, if you like to put it that way. That ought to take place under conditions which will help the children to receive the greatest benefits. I gladly support the Amendment.
    Mr. Ede: This Amendment is limited to accommodation, and, therefore, I hardly feel called upon to reply to the latter part of the speech of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove). His point will arise on a later Clause of the Bill, when I hope he will not have exhausted his right to speak on it. This is a request that proper accommodation shall be provided for the preparation and service of the meals. We are determined, as I think our action during the past two years has shown, to have a very substantial extension of the schools meals service, and in spite of what the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Haden

    229
    Guest) said, we do regard it as a considerable achievement that we should have increased the number of meals to the number we have reached during the war. Of course, at the moment, the Government are bearing 100 per cent. of the cost of buildings and equipment.
    Mr. Cove: Go on doing it.
    Mr. Ede: May I say that, in the regulations that we propose to make, under Clause 9, Sub-section (7), where it is stated:
    "The Minister shall make regulations requiring local education authorities to secure that the school premises of every school maintained by them conform to such standards as may be prescribed,"
    we intend to insert a regulation making provision for adequate premises for the preparation and serving of the meals. That would appear to be the appropriate place to deal with it in this Bill. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that these regulations will be so framed, and I hope he will feel that this will meet the point he has legitimately raised.
    Mr. Gallacher: Before the Amendment is withdrawn, I would like to say that every Member of the Committee will appreciate what the Parliamentary Secretary says on the feeding of our children. But it is a responsibility of this House, and I draw attention to the fact that I have an Amendment down dealing with the question of staff.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I beg to move, in page 5, line 39, at the end, to add:
    "and provided that the number of pupils accommodated in any one school shall not exceed five hundred."
    As a Scottish Member, moving a further Amendment to this Bill, I should perhaps explain that we have watched with interest and great sympathy the points—
    The Deputy-Chairman: This is a very narrow Amendment.
    Sir T. Moore: I quite agree, Mr. Williams, and I was merely expressing my temerity in putting forward—
    The Deputy-Chairman: There is really no reason why the hon. and gallant Gentleman should explain the reason for his temerity on every occasion.
    Sir T. Moore: I will accept it then that my temerity has been accepted. In proposing this Amendment may I say that I imagine it will probably meet with the same response as that given yesterday on the question of smaller classes. We have not with us at the moment the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) who would, no doubt, encourage us to realism, or my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Mr. E. Harvey), who would encourage us to idealism, while possibly the reforming spirit opposite would deny us the right to either. I feel that, in regard to classes, there must be some definite limit, otherwise we may as well drop this Bill altogether and with it the ideas of creating and forming the better world which we are told to expect after the war. The purpose of my Amendment is first, to secure a smaller school, and, therefore, more schools, and I hope a better England. My reasons are largely connected with the quality of the teachers we want. I admit that this might seem a rather round-about way of approaching the justification for my 500 pupils per school, but I think, Mr. Williams, you will find that it is necessary for me to develop my argument in this way. I think it is the general desire that the status of teachers should be enhanced, not only in their own eyes, but in the eyes of the community as a whole. If, therefore, we are to induce a higher type and the best qualified type of teachers to enter this great profession, which, after all, should be our object, then I think we must provide them with better opportunities for promotion and more adequate remuneration.
    The Deputy-Chairman: Really, that cannot be discussed here. We have been into the question of classes and this is a very narrow Amendment indeed—merely the question of a 500 limit to a school—and it is not fair on the Committee stage of the Bill on small points to bring in such questions as would defeat the object of the Committee stage.
    Sir T. Moore: If you listen to my next sentence, Mr. Williams, I think you will appreciate why I have developed my argument in that way. We must have smaller schools, and therefore more schools, because, unless we have more schools and smaller schools, we cannot have opportunities for promotion and better emoluments. I leave that point

    231
    now, but there is one further point which I think you will feel is within the limit of the issue raised. So far as my experience goes, both as a child and still further as a man, I do not think that any school bigger than 500 can maintain the personal contact between teacher and pupils necessary to develop mind and character. Again, I think that, according to the experience of many people more qualified than myself, it has been found impossible to develop the individuality of the pupil and also to foster the spirit of communal life if you have a larger number over which the headmaster must preside. I realise that there are a number of obstacles to the suggestions I have made. I know that the question of bricks and mortar will be advanced as an argument, and a very proper one, and that the shortage of teachers will be another. But I go back to the original motif, that unless we try to aim at some definite standard, we may well fall dawn and achieve no standard at all.
    Mr. Ede: Really, in a country with the population of ours, so diversely spread over the surface of the soil, it would be very unwise of the Committee to insert any figure such as this in the Bill. I believe that that, in itself, is a really sufficient answer to the hon. and gallant Member.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Clement Davies: This Clause, as it is framed, fails to carry out the purpose of the Bill as set out in Clause 1, and places a burden upon the local authorities which they will not be able to carry out. I want to make it quite clear, at the outset, that I think that this Clause, allowed in this form, will mean that—
    The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Member, but I have made it perfectly plain that we cannot go into the question of the burdens on local authorities. It may possibly be done on Clause 93, but we cannot deal with it here.
    Mr. Davies: Surely, Mr. Williams, I am entitled to deal with this Clause as it stands, as on the Third Reading of the
    232
    Bill. What is contained in the Clause is this—that it proposes to place a duty on local authorities to provide schools. I am therefore saying that they cannot do this—
    The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. and learned Member says they are incapable of performing a duty or a matter of that sort, that is another matter, but he cannot discuss the financial side or the question of whether they can perform this duty financially.
    Mr. Davies: Surely, I am entitled to discuss their incapacity and show that this Clause will therefore fail in achieving the purpose which was the intention of the Committee?
    The Deputy-Chairman: I must be quite clear about this. We can discuss their incapacity, so long as it has nothing to do with finance. We cannot deal with their incapacity owing to financial conditions.
    Mr. Davies: I must bow to your Ruling, Mr. Williams, but, if a duty is placed upon them which they are incapable of performing, one surely is entitled to discuss how far they are incapable of performing it and what is the nature of their incapacity; whether they could do what the Committee suggests they should do, and wherein they will fail in doing that, so that the whole purpose of the Bill is destroyed? All that is before the Committee at the present moment is up to Clause 8 and I cannot look beyond that. I do not know what may follow.
    The Deputy-Chairman: We are only dealing with Clause 8.
    Mr. Davies: I know, and I shall confine myself to Clause 8. So far the Committee have passed the Clauses up to and including Clause 7 and we are now discussing whether we should also pass Clause 8 and then proceed with the further Clauses of the Bill. It would be out of Order to discuss what comes subsequently to Clause 8. I do not know whether the Clauses will come before the Committee in their present form or whether any Amendments will be allowed. I look at the form of the Clauses that the Committee has already passed. Clause 1 sets out the policy we are discussing.
    The Deputy-Chairman: No.
    Mr. Davies: Perhaps you will bear with me for two minutes, Mr. Williams.
    The Deputy-Chairman: We must not go back on the other Clauses. If one hon. Member was allowed to do it, every hon. Member might wish to do so, and it would not be right.
    Mr. Davies: I agree. I did not mean that you should bear with me, Mr. Williams, for two minutes while I was out of Order. But I want you to realise the point to which I was referring, and that is, that in the part of the Bill that we have already passed, the whole object is to establish a national policy. When we come to Clause 8 and see how it is being carried out in the Clause, I say that object is not being fulfilled. As it stands, it is the duty of every local education authority to secure that there shall be sufficient schools available for their area. Then comes the definition of what that means:
    "The schools available for an area shall not be deemed to be sufficient unless they are sufficient in number, character, and equipment to afford for all pupils opportunities for education offering such variety of instruction and training as may be desirable."
    What is the good of presuming to legislate in that way, when we have local authorities incapable of performing the duty of providing the number, or the character, or the equipment of schools to afford for all their pupils opportunities for education? If this Clause is passed we shall be continuing the bad system which exists at the moment. We have not a national system; we have never had a national system. We have a partly national and partly parochial, or partly national and partly local authority system. We have a national curriculum and examinations but the buildings, the equipment and all that is concerned have to be provided by the local authority. Whether they are provided or not, depends upon the local authority and its capacity so to do. One has heard so often that the objections to a system of education, which enables one set of children to have a system of education better than that for other children, depend upon the wealth, or the lack of wealth, of the parents. Be that as it may, what are we doing in this Clause? We are instituting two systems whereby a wealthy authority can provide something for their pupils which will be denied to the pupils of a poorer authority.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry to have to interrupt again, but there we
    234
    are going beyond the Clause, and again the hon. and learned Member is comparing two authorities on the question of finance.
    Mr. Davies: I am only pointing out that there is an incapacity in one authority to provide the education that another authority is able to provide, and that is a double system and is not fair.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I would not mind the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that, if he had not said that one was poorer than the other. The point really is that here we cannot discuss the question of finance at all.
    Mr. Davies: They are poorer in finance, but they must be poorer in the material and the officers they can employ and in the extent of their outlook and in everything else. This is vital. It goes to the root of the problem. I am pointing out that, if we leave this Clause as it stands, the Bill will be nothing but an urban Bill, paying no attention whatever to a great part of the country outside—the rural areas which are incapable of doing what the urban areas are doing. Children in rural areas have suffered for generations. If we pass the Clause as it stands, we shall be continuing that inequality. The urban children will be benefited under the new system and buildings will be erected by local authorities for their use. They will have new buildings, new playgrounds, better kitchens and dining rooms, a staff to look after them, because they can afford it, but what are we to do with regard to the other local authorities? The Minister may give directions and control under Clause r, but if the local authority breaks down the whole system will break down. Surely, I am entitled to reinforce my argument by giving illustrations of the position. Take my own county, which will now be directed—
    Mr. Butler: This is placing the Government in rather an embarrassing position. On your Ruling, Mr. Williams, I would not be entitled to give a full answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman on the financial issues involved in helping such a county as that which the hon. and learned Member represents. Therefore, it is really impossible for the Government to have to listen to this argument and not be able to reply to it.
    Mr. Arthur Jenkins: In dealing with the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) a few moments ago, Mr. Williams, you indicated that the grant system might be discussed on Amendments put down on Clause 93. If we could be given an assurance that the whole subject of grants and their distribution could be fully discussed and decided by the Committee on Clause 93, I think that that would meet the situation. One ought not to regard Clause 8 as being the whole of this Bill. It is part of the Bill; it is associated with other Clauses, and we have to look at the Bill as a whole, and not at one particular Clause.
    The Deputy-Chairman: In reply to the Minister, I do not think that my position is a very easy one, but on the whole the question of finance of local authorities should come in on Clause 93. That is why it is wrong to have a discussion here on finance, because it would simply tend to cut out discussions and Amendments on Clause 93. That is why it would be better if we could avoid finance entirely here, so as to leave it over for discussion on Clause 93.
    Mr. Jenkins: There is only one further assurance for which I would ask and that is that, that being so vital a part of the Bill, we ought to have an undertaking from the Chair and the Minister that there will be no such thing as a Guillotine applied to prevent a discussion on that subject. It looks as though the discussions on the Bill are going to be very prolonged, but it is vital there should be an adequate amount of time given for discussion on the finances of the Bill.
    Mr. C. Davies: On a point of Order—
    The Deputy-Chairman: May I be allowed to deal with the point here?
    Mr. Davies: May I put my point of of Order first? I gave way to the hon. Member. I thought that he was raising some point of Order. I do not know how this intervention on my statement to the Committee arises. I was putting my point and I was asking for an assurance from you, Mr. Williams, on a Clause which we may never reach. I do not understand what this means.
    The Deputy-Chairman: Perhaps I may be allowed to try to get through this point
    236
    of Order. Obviously, I, as Deputy-Chairman of the Committee, cannot give an assurance on the question of the Guillotine or anything of that sort. No Chairman could, but, on the other hand, when you have a difficulty such as this, and it is obvious that financial matters should be discussed on Clause 93, and it is said by the Minister and ruled by whoever is in the Chair at the time, that the right time is on Clause 93—then whatever conditions of Closure or Timetable were laid down, it would be only right for the authorities to remember that this very vital discussion had been postponed until that time. That is the most I can say. Obviously, I cannot bind the Committee, but I think that that would probably be the opinion of the Committee.
    Mr. Davies: I am very much obliged, Mr. Williams. I realise that you cannot possibly give any undertaking from the Chair at the moment and that the Minister cannot, in any way, do more than say what is in his mind. I realise that this may be put right on Clause 93, but suppose it is not. The position as it stands at the moment is that the present amount of grant, taking it through and through, made by the Treasury to local authorities is 50 per cent. As far as we know, that may be continued. Clause 93 certainly gives power to the Minister to make allowance in that respect. It says:
    "The Minister shall by regulations make provision:
    For the payment by him to local education authorities of annual grants in respect of the expenditure incurred by such authorities."
    "In respect of" is a very general term. It may be 1 per cent., 50 per cent. or even 100 per cent. That will be the moment, without a doubt, when it will be right for the Committee to discuss what the percentage should be, whether it should be 100 per cent. or less. But, in the meantime, we have to face up to the fact that the burden will have been put by this Clause upon local authorities of providing schools and all their equipment, leaving it until we get to Clause 93 to decide how much they will get out of the Treasury. We have only one guidance, and that is either in the White Paper or in the preface in the Financial Memorandum, where we are given the global figure. My recollection of it is that at the end of seven years the total amount of expenditure per annum will be—
    The Deputy-Chairman: I really must ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, in fairness to other Members of the Committee, not to keep on with this matter of finance. He himself admitted that it comes up on Clause 93, and therefore to bring out here the global figures of finance, and all these other points, is not in keeping with this Clause.
    Mr. C. Davies: With all respect, Mr. Williams, I was only pointing out to you my difficulty without discussing finance at all. I am saying that the local authorities who will be concerned with all these matters will have had this burden put upon them under this Clause without knowing what the future may be. Surely this is the moment when I may discuss whether the local authority is the proper body to carry that burden?
    The Deputy-Chairman: No, that is exactly what we cannot discuss here. It comes under another Clause, and if we are going to discuss Clauses separately it cannot possibly be right for any hon. Member to say that because these burdens will be imposed at some period he must lay down the different details. The whole of the financial detail comes up under Clause 93.
    Mr. Stokes: Further to that point of Order, do I understand your ruling, Mr. Williams, to be that under this Clause no burden will be laid on the local education authority?
    The Deputy-Chairman: Obviously I could not give a Ruling like that.
    Mr. Lipson: Is it not a fact that the whole of the Bill will come into operation at the same time, so that the financial arrangements will apply at the same moment as the burdens become operative?
    Mr. Maxton: I think your Ruling is technically correct, Mr. Williams, but surely there is something wrong about it. This Clause imposes a duty on the local authority. This Committee has to decide whether what we are asking the local authority to do is possible or not. My difficulty in speaking on these things is that I always fly for my own impressions to a part of the British Isles which is excluded from the Bill, but, if this were a Scottish Measure, I would say it is impossible to
    238
    impose duties like that on Inverness-shire or on Ross and Cromarty without the Committee having some idea as to how much money is going to be asked from the local authorities. I think you must allow the Committee not to discuss details of finance, but to discuss at least whether reasonable provision is to be made to enable poor and remote local authorities to raise the amounts they will be called upon to provide. I think you are bound to do that.
    The Deputy-Chairman: No, that is exactly what I am not bound to do, and I must ask the hon. and learned Gentleman now to carry on the discussion on this Clause as it stands.
    Mr. C. Davies: It places me in a difficulty, because one can only illustrate the points that one desires to make against this Clause by references to present conditions. A duty is being placed on all local authorities, if we pass this Clause, to provide a standard of schools which will be the same throughout the country, and that is the duty which they cannot undertake and which should never have been placed upon them. The right way to have done this would have been to take the burden from the local authorities and place it elsewhere. Surely I am entitled to say that the local authorities, as at present constituted, with their past history, the present condition of their schools, with the amount of inefficiency that has been going on for a great number of years in failing to take care of these schools, are in an impossible position, so that they cannot carry out the duty which this House is trying to impose upon them. In my county there are 104 schools. I have had a report upon them from the County Architect and the Director of Education. Of the 104, 39 are in such a condition, and have been for a number of years, that the only thing to be done is to pull them down as early as possible and destroy them. With regard to another 40, the burden of putting them up to a standard of decency will be a tremendous one. Seventy-nine out of 104 schools will either have to be replaced or amended almost completely. How can a county like that, which has failed to give decent school buildings in the past, undertake this burden of creating new schools of the standard which ought to have been the standard there

    239
    ages ago, and will be the general standard throughout the country? It is a duty they cannot possibly perform. My county is only one of a great number of others similarly situated. There is the county of Anglesey, where, again, the schools are bad.
    Mr. Butler: If the situation is so bad in Anglesey, why is it that Anglesey leads the whole of the administration for which I am responsible in the giving of school meals to its pupils?
    Mr. C. Davies: For the very good reason that now 100 per cent. of the grant is paid by the Government. Prior to that they could not feed the children. I am sorry, Mr. Williams, if I am out of Order.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I think the hon. and learned Member has been led astray by the Minister.
    Mr. C. Davies: But this is not the only burden that local authorities have to undertake. This is going to place a burden upon some of them that they cannot possibly carry out. New burdens are being placed all the time, and rightly placed upon local authorities What is to happen with regard to the other burdens which they have to undertake? Which will have priority, this burden or a burden placed by another Act?
    The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot go on to other Acts. The discussion has been wide enough already.
    Mr. Butler: The hon. and learned Member has taken half-an-hour already.
    Mr. Coleģate: Leave it to Clause 93.
    Mr. C. Davies: Really, this is most vital. I have had an interruption from the Minister to say that I have been half-an-hour on a matter which affects hundreds of thousands of children and it will be years before this matter is put right.
    Mr. Butler: On a point of Order. My point is that I am ruled out from discussing the grant system—which is the only way I can help my hon. and learned Friend—and am not permitted to give my answer. I have been into the grant system very thoroughly in the last few weeks and I am very interested in the
    240
    matter myself. I am precluded from answering the hon. and learned Member by the rules of Order, and therefore I maintain it would be better if we proceeded without discussing finance.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry to have to intervene but we are liable, if we carry this discussion far, to get at cross purposes. If we go on with this question of finance burdens it must inevitably create a difficult position on Clause 93 where, I think, the Committee would like a full discussion. For that reason I take the liberty, if the Committee will permit me, to suggest that it would be advisable not to have long speeches on this Clause as it now stands.
    Mr. C. Davies: Thank you so much, Mr. Williams. I will reserve my remarks until then. I am much obliged for the encouragement I have had on this subject.
    Mr. Gallacher: This is an exceptionally important Clause, and if we can make sure that all the people responsible are able to carry out the work set forth in this Clause, there is no question that we shall be able to provide education of a very high character for the children of this country. That is the essential thing. I know some hon. Members consider that the general idea of education is not to fit the children for this world but to provide angelic voices for the next one. They themselves, by the way, do not provide a very attractive advertisement for their own thesis. I would also like to mention, in passing, that they are in the fortunate position of not having to produce statistics as to the location of the population in the celestial fields, but the President of the Board of Education and his Department are concerned with statistics, and I am convinced that if this Clause is effectively operated—taking into account the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) and the buildings and the various facilities essential for the building up of classes and for the extension of the school system, the playing fields, and other attractions, are provided, in a very short time the President of the Board of Education and the other Departments associated with him will be able to produce statistics of health, of height, of weight, and of educational standards such as this country has never known before. Therefore, I welcome this Clause. I am certain that the Committee—always taking into account what will

    241
    arise under Clause 93—will be prepared to assist the Minister in anything that can possibly be done in order to ensure that this Clause is carried.
    Mr. Parker: Since this Clause lays down the duties of local education authorities to provide sufficient schools for their areas, why has the opportunity not been taken to co-ordinate all the activities of local education authorities? There are one or two activities that do not come under the Board of Education at present, though many of us feel they should do so, such as the public assistance schools, which are the responsibility of the Minister of Health.
    The Deputy-Chairman: That is what we cannot have here; it is outside the Bill, and has already been ruled out.
    Mrs. Cazalet Keir: I do not wish to deal with the Amendment that was moved yesterday, and fully argued, in connection with the reduction of the size of classes, also I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is going to try and meet us when we come to Clause 10. I would like to ask whether he could give us an answer to the point which was made by the Parliamentary Secretary. One of the reasons the Parliamentary Secretary gave for not accepting the Amendment was that the size of classes would be mentioned in the Regulations. What I want to be clear about is this: do those Regulations come under Clause 101, and will they be laid before this House later so that we shall be able to discuss them then? I also want to know whether it will be possible for my right hon. Friend to give us some intimation of what the figures with regard to the size of classes will be in the Regulations.
    Sir Richard Wells: I want to raise a point on Sub-section (2, a) with regard to the need for securing that primary and secondary education are provided in separate schools. I would like to ask my right hon. Friend whether that will stop those schools which are in receipt of grant or aid from carrying on the dual function of secondary or primary work.
    Dr. Russell Thomas: I do not wish to delay the Committee or to put you in any difficulty, Mr. Williams, by following what was said by my hon.
    242
    and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). I would like to turn to one section of the Bill which is highly praiseworthy, namely, Sub-section (2, c), of this Clause, which makes provision for special treatment for those disabled in mind and body. This should strengthen the hand of the Minister. He already has considerable powers and I hope he will put them into operation, because I am afraid that they are not being applied in the way they should be at the moment. I hope he will give this matter serious consideration. I want especially to point out the advisability of the need for getting mentally deficient children into special schools. When I say "mentally deficient" I do not mean those who are grossly deficient, those whom an unskilled observer would at once say were deficient. At the present time many young children leaving school at 14 have never been tested for mental deficiency. Between 14 and 16 they go from job to job and associate with men and so on, whereas if they had been kept under observation at school they would have been spotted and sent to special schools. Classes are so big now that teachers are unable to recognise these deficient children; they leave school at 14 in the ordinary way and go into industry. I had a report the other day which shows how important it is that this Clause should be applied to its fullest degree. Out of 63 female juvenile delinquents who were examined 22 were found to be mentally deficient. That is about 35 per cent. Their intelligence quotient, as the psychologists say, was only 75 out of 100. Such children require discipline for the whole of their lives. Indeed, it is essential to protect the rest of society from them—
    The Deputy-Chairman: That is getting rather wide.
    Dr. Thomas: I merely wanted to give that example to show how important it is that the Minister should apply the provisions of this Clause to the utmost extent.
    Mr. Butler: I hope the Committee will now be ready to let us have this Clause. My hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mrs. Cazalet Keir) asked me a question about the Regulations. I am not able to go any further on that matter at the moment, but she was right in stating that these Regulations will be laid

    243
    before Parliament and that Parliament will have in those Regulations the size of classes which the Board attach to their condition of grant, and they will be able to consider the matter at that time. No doubt in the course of our deliberations I shall be able to expand this a little more. If my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Sir R. Wells) will look at Clause 103 he will see that there is a definition in the proviso saving the position in regard to the preparatory departments in secondary schools, a matter to which we shall be able to give attention a little later. The hon. Member for Southampton (Dr. R. Thomas) is right in thinking that for the first time we are bringing special schools and handicapped children more into the body of the Bill.
    As regards the Clause in general, nobody would wish to differ from the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) in thinking that we are imposing fresh and important duties on local authorities. The time will come when the Government can answer some of the points which the hon. and learned Member managed to introduce into our discussion and I would like to reserve my position to do so, without any inhibition, with the utmost frankness and, I hope, with devastating success. Meanwhile, I would beseech him not to adopt such a pessimistic attitude. There is a school in his village which is very remarkable. That, I know, because I have seen it for myself. With regard to the other local authorities of the country, I am convinced that, although they will wish to receive as much grant from public funds as they can get, at the same time they will be able to carry out their duties under this Bill.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 9.—(County schools, auxiliary schools, nursery schools, and special schools.)
    The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. KENNETH LINDSAY:
    In page 6, line 2, to leave out "nursery schools or."
    Mr. Lindsay: I propose not to proceed with this Amendment and the others in
    244
    my name, because of the safeguards which the Minister gave earlier to-day. The reason for the first Amendment—
    The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. Member is not moving I must call the next Amendment.
    Mr. Butler: I beg to move, in page 6, line 20, to leave out from "schools," to "which," in line 21.
    This Amendment is necessary in order to secure that the expression "nursery schools" is not confined solely to those schools maintained or assisted by a local authority. It is quite clear that there may be, and indeed there are, many such nursery schools and special schools which depend on voluntary effort. This Amendment and the next one in my name on the Order Paper are more of a drafting character than anything else.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 6, line 25, to leave out from "schools," to "which," in line 26.—[Mr. Butler.]
    Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 6, line 36, after "maintained," to insert "or assisted."
    I understand that a local authority, where it is not in a position or does not think it wise to make provision itself for maintaining the school, has the power to decide that the children for whom it is responsible shall attend a school to which it gives assistance. The Clause, as drawn, places on the local authority only the duty of seeing that the premises to which the children are sent are adequate if the authority itself maintains the school. It is only right and fair that if children are to be sent to schools that are assisted by a local authority, it should be the duty of that authority to see that such schools come up to the same standard as the schools maintained by itself.
    Mr. Butler: I must explain to the Member that I cannot accept this Amendment because it would be drawing the Bill rather too wide to insert the words "or assisted." It would mean that in the case of a grant given by a local authority it would be a statutory necessity for those premises to conform to the Board's building regulations. That would be a great inroad on present practice and a great thing to demand in return for, perhaps, a small grant, and we could not accept these

    245
    words. The position of independent schools will be radically taken in hand in Part III of this Bill and, therefore, I hope the hon. Member will not press his Amendment, although it was valuable to elucidate the point.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 6, line 37, at the end, to add:
    "and such regulations shall prescribe standards which shall achieve parity of conditions for all types of secondary schools maintained by a local education authority."
    Sub-section (7) of this Clause provides that the Minister shall make regulations requiring local education authorities to secure that the school premises of every school maintained by them shall conform to such standards as may be prescribed. In the Bill the various types of secondary schools are not referred to, but in the White Paper there are three types of such schools mentioned—modern, grammar and technical. The White Paper states that it is desirable that there should be a free choice as to whether a child attends one type of secondary school or another, that it should be according to his particular ability, and then goes on to say:
    "It is manifest that the different conditions in different types of secondary schools shall be broadly equivalent."
    That recognises that the status of these three types of secondary school shall be equal. At the moment the status of the secondary school is far higher than that of the senior school or, unfortunately, even that of the technical school. I was pleased, indeed, to find that the White Paper recognised the desirability of the status of the various types of secondary school being equal. That ought to be reflected in the type of premises. The object of the Amendment is to provide that, in making Regulations, the Minister shall ensure that the premises of the various types of secondary school should be equivalent. Of course they must not be equal, because there are different types of schools, but I want an assurance that there will be no priority of the grammar school over the modern or over the technical. In view of the fact that the principle has been accepted in the White Paper, I anticipate no difficulty in the Minister accepting, at any rate, the principle of the Amendment.
    Mr. Butler: I have no difficulty in accepting the principle, though I would
    246
    rather not specify one particular question which has been put into the Bill as having to be included in the Regulations. I will accept the hon. Member's plea that similar, or equivalent, standards shall be applicable to secondary schools as a whole. He was wise enough to say one cannot get complete equality, owing to the different types of establishments which exist now, but we can ensure that, when a child enters the secondary sphere, it may have similar standards laid down for the physical surroundings in which it finds itself, with equivalent opportunities for recreation, physical or mental, and that, I think, will assure the hon. Member that we intend to accept the spirit of his Amendment, though I would ask him to leave the matter to the Regulations. If he wishes to be assured that Parliament will see the Regulations and know what the Government has in mind, he will realise that they are to be laid before Parliament.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand pant of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 10.—(Development plans as to primary and secondary schools.)
    Mr. W. H. Green: I beg to move, in page 6, line 44, to leave out "one year" and to insert "six months."
    The Clause lays down that every education authority shall, as soon as may be, prepare estimates and draw up plans for operating the Act and that this report must be submitted to the Minister within 12 months after the passing of the Bill. In our submission that period is unduly long. The Bill has met with an extremely favourable reception in the country. The suspicions and misapprehensions that exist are to do with the apparent looseness with which some of the Clauses are framed and the possibilities of delay if they are passed with their present wording. Some of us feel that six months would be a much more appropriate time. After all, this part of the Bill will come into operation in April, 1945, and there are 12 months after that, so it really means that education authorities are to be allowed at least 18 months to prepare and submit their schemes. I think it may be reasonably supposed that they are already exercising their minds as to the schemes they will submit. Two years is an undue period

    247
    and lends some countenance to the suspicion that there is too leisurely an air in many of the provisions of the Bill.
    I am not unaware of the immense difficulties which war and other conditions impose on education authorities but, taking all that into account, I would ask the Minister seriously to consider, unless there is some insuperable difficulty which is not apparent to some of us, whether the period could not be reduced. If he sees his way to do that, I am sure education authorities, like local authorities in most of their activities, can rise to the occasion and I believe they will find it possible to get their schemes submitted within six months prior to April, 1945, as reasonably as they could be supposed to do if it was extended to 12 months.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I think we should take this Amendment together with the next one in the name of the hon. Member—to leave out from "date" to "prepare," in line 45.
    Mr. Green: The second Amendment would delete the words "such extended time as the Minister may allow," which further aggravate the point of view that I have been advancing. If 12 months is considered not too long, later in the Clause the Minister asks power even to extend that date to such period as he may desire. That is even more dangerous than the part of the Clause which my Amendment seeks to deal with. I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to accept both Amendments and fix the target within which local authorities must draw up their plans at six months rather than 12, or such period as a more dilatory Minister than he might seek to impose.
    Mr. Tinker: I support the Amendment on the same line of reasoning as my hon. Friend. It is felt that two years from April, 1945, is too long. Inserting six months in place of 12 may cause the Board of Education to get the thing going more quickly. Local authorities may take more time than is necessary if they have 12 months. We do not like the Minister having it in his hands to allow still more time to deal with it. Probably the Minister cannot accept these Amendments, but they show our keenness to get the Bill working quickly, and that is what is behind them.
    Mr. Ede: My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment was for many years a distinguished member of the London County Council, one of the more progressive authorities in the country, and I ask him to contemplate the task that we are placing upon the London County Council. A complete survey has to be made of the whole of the area, a complete survey with details has to be made of every auxiliary school, and an estimate has to be prepared of the cost of bringing it up to date, and the managers have to be served with notice. Local education authorities are working under very great pressure at the moment, with reduced staffs and with a great amount of extra work to do arising out of the war, which will not end, even if the war against Germany ends, before 1st April, 1945. We are anxious to get on with the job as quickly as possible but, clearly, we cannot put on local education authorities a burden which we know they will be incapable of carrying. In view of the very large measure of work which we put on them, I think 12 months is the minimum time. With regard to the other point, we do not desire to have to extend this provision, but there may be cases where the work to be done is so heavy that it will be quite impossible for local education authorities to complete it in the time. It is not, as my hon. Friend says, such period as the Minister may desire, but such period as the Minister may allow, which is a rather different thing. We should not desire that there should be any extension at all but, should we be faced with a case of breakdown which is quite unavoidable, the Minister must be in a position to allow schemes to be prepared and submitted to him.
    Mr. Silverman: I find it difficult to follow my hon. Friend's argument. He says the burden placed on local authorities is so heavy that, though they may be able to do it in 12 months, they could not do it in six. That has no relevance whatever either to the Clause or to the Amendment. It is within six months or 12 months after the date on which this part of the Act comes into law, and that date is not until 1st April, 1945. Therefore the difference is not between six months and 12 but between 18 months and two years, roughly speaking. Surely, whatever the burden may be, 18 months is quite enough for them to prepare their schemes. Is it contemplated that once

    249
    the Bill is on the Statute Book no local authority is going to begin even the survey or the consideration of a scheme until 1st April, 1945? Is that the spirit in which the Bill is to be operated? Is that what the right hon. Gentleman contemplates as to the speed and the urgency with which this great task of reconstruction is going to be pursued? I really cannot understand how my hon. Friend brings himself to approach this question, apparently taking it for granted that no one is going to begin to inquire or survey or make plans about anything until the last minute contemplated by the Bill, and Heaven knows those minutes are late enough. My hon. Friend has approached the whole consideration of the Amendment apparently giving his blessing to the idea that they must not begin doing anything now but must wait until April, 1945, and that then it would be wholly unreasonable to ask them in six months to survey their area. What has the London County Council been doing for the last 25 years?
    If the local authorities who will be charged with these duties have not some idea now of what will be required, then they have just been neglecting their duties. Let us assume that nearly all the authorities in the country have been neglecting their duties. They do not know what is in their areas, they do not know what will be required, and they have no schemes in contemplation. Even then from this moment until six months after the 1st April, 1945, is 17 months, and why in the world should not that be enough; and if it is not enough will another six months make any difference? We really think that the hon. Gentleman ought to look at this matter again and that there ought to be some appearance of seriousness. Let it at any rate appear that he means business and that the local authorities are really expected to begin now to do something about it. He ought not to lend sanction to the view that local authorities can postpone undertaking the obligations laid upon them in this Bill until 1945, which is the whole basis on which his argument rests.
    Mr. Coleģate: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) appears to show a complete lack of understanding of the position of the local authorities in this country to-day. They have had placed on them, owing to the war, an
    250
    immense burden of work, most of it carried on voluntarily, and to say that in these circumstances six months is nothing is an argument which is totally unfair.
    Mr. Silverman: I am sure the hon. Member does not want to be unfair. I suggest to him that he has not understood my argument. I said it was wrong to look at the Clause and the Amendment as the difference between six months and 12 months. It is nothing of the kind. It is the difference between 17 months and 23 months. That is my argument.
    Mr. Coleģate: I fully understood the hon. Member's argument, which was that an extra six months was no use. That is fantastic nonsense. To suppose that because you cannot do a job in 17 months therefore you cannot do it in 23 months is perfect nonsense. The amount of time required for any particular job varies very much with the complexity of the job. Some education authorities will do it easily in the time laid down in the Bill; other authorities, known to Members of this House, will have great difficulty in doing it; and it is only right that there should be this proviso, which the hon. Member has misinterpreted. The Parliamentary Secretary made it clear that it was a case of having discretion in certain difficult cases to allow an extra few months in order that an adequate scheme may be prepared. No one could be keener on getting this Bill through quickly than I am, but to get it through in a shabby way will ruin the whole purpose of it. We want the schemes under this Clause to be thoroughly sound and to be thoroughly considered, so that when they are put into operation there may be as little amendment of them necessary as may be, because this Measure is not something which is going to be used for a period of a year or two—it is for generations ahead. To say that in remaking the foundation of education in this country you must do it in 12 months or you must do it in 17 months and not 23, is, in my opinion, to under-estimate the value and profound effect of the scheme which we are trying to enforce in this Bill.
    Amendment negatived.
    Professor Gruffydd: I beg to move, in page 6, line 45, after "Minister," to insert "in special circumstances."
    I shall be very short, but I want to give

    251
    the reason why I have suggested that those three words "in special circumstances" should be added to this Clause. It is because of what happened after the previous Education Bill. In spite of the many directions in that Bill the reorganisation which was proposed did not take place and year after year passed without anyone even attempting to justify the delay. I suggest that the words "in special circumstances" should be put in to prevent the Minister giving his consent to or acquiescing in the same scandalous procedure as happened before. "In special circumstances" are the strongest words I can think of. They would permit poverty to be a sufficient excuse for postponement but they would not allow laziness or unwillingness on the part of the director of education to be sufficient reasons for postponement as too often they were in the past. In other words, special circumstances cannot possibly cover personal omissions and personal unwillingness on the part of the officials.
    Mr. Ede: This point has really been covered in the previous discussion. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Perhaps I should put it better by saying it was covered in the reply which I made on the previous discussion. We are not at all anxious that there should be any extension of the time, but we do ask the Committee to allow us to be able to make an extension when, in the opinion of my right hon. Friend, it is necessary so to do in order to get the scheme adequately prepared.
    Mr. Silkin: It does not seem to me much good putting into the Bill that authorities are to have a year to submit their schemes, when, after that, the Minister can give an indefinite extension without any reasons whatever, and the reason which may guide the Minister may not appeal to the House. The Minister referred to the London County Council, and I want to assure him that whatever is in the Bill will be duly carried out. If he says six months, then the scheme will be prepared in six months. Of course, the London County Council has large resources and can do it, but I feel that the extension of time should not be given except as a special measure. It should not be regarded as a normal thing that any local authority which has not been able to produce its scheme in the time should ask for an extension which may be for more than a year. There is
    252
    nothing in this Bill which limits the amount of time that the Minister may give for extension, and, therefore, I believe it is quite reasonable to say that any extension should only be given in exceptional circumstances.
    Mr. C. Davies: I cannot understand why this Amendment cannot be accepted. It is said that exemption will not be granted except in special circumstances. The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary are not going to be there for ever. There will be a change of Minister and the new authority will not want to be bound by this. They will say, "We want a free hand to extend the time as much as we like." We ought to put in now that we will not grant an extension except in special circumstances.
    Mr. R. Morgan:: I am not clear as to the wording of this Amendment. I am just as anxious as the mover of the Amendment to see this Bill carried through as quickly as possible, but I understood from the Minister that he was going to allow extra time in special circumstances, whatever those special circumstances might be. What I think my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd) has in mind, is that, before any special circumstances are agreed to, they should be laid on the Table of this House so that we may have a chance of examining them.
    Professor Gruffydd: My Amendment did not go so far as that.
    Mr. Morģan: I rose to ask what are the special circumstances which the hon. Member has in mind. I do not really understand how those particular circumstances would make it any clearer than giving the Minister permission to extend the time after considering the facts he has before him.
    Mr. Cove: I cannot understand why the Minister does not accept this Amendment. I presume that if he were going to grant a delay, the delay would only be based on special circumstances. It that is so, why not put it in the Statute? I would say quite frankly to my right hon. Friend that not being prepared to place a phrase like this in the Bill does throw some doubt on the sincerity of the intention to operate this speedily. By doing this, he would remove a number of doubts that were expressed by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) who seemed to suggest that there was not too much drive

    253
    and purpose behind the Bill. I say that the rejection of this phrase confirms the attitude taken up by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne and, if only on that ground, it would be well to give us the feeling and, indeed, give the local authorities the feeling that extra time can be given only in special circumstances. That would give added impetus to the whole business, and it would convince local authorities that we mean business. Since it appears from the Parliamentary Secretary's reply that the Government mean to put this into operation, I cannot for the life of me understand why they do not accept the burden and give themselves the statutory power to do what they want to do.
    Mr. Ede: My right hon. Friend and I have listened to the views that have been expressed, but there is this difficulty, that if we put in these particular words, it may encourage people to find special circumstances and then to come to us with the argument: "You said that if there were special circumstances you would grant us an extension." May I say that we are anxious to meet the views expressed and to make it abundantly clear to education authorities that they are expected to get on with the job and complete it within the time laid down. If the Committee will allow us, we will examine this part of the Clause again to see if we can put in any words that would help to make the desire of the Committee quite plain. I hope, with that assurance, my hon. Friend will feel that we can now go on to another part of the Clause.
    Professor Gruffydd: With that assurance I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Butler: I beg to move, in page 7, line 14, to leave out from "such," to the end of line 15.
    The object of the Amendment is that explained by me in the Debate on infant and nursery schools, to ask local authorities in their development plan to give a delineation of the general education provided for junior pupils. By taking out these words, "county secondary school or auxiliary secondary school," we are enlarging the scope of the development plan and introducing a desirable Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Moelwyn Huģhes: I beg to move, in page 7, line 27, at the end, to insert:
    "including a sufficiency of county schools to meet the needs of those children whose parents desire such schools at which their children may attend."
    The Amendment desires that the education authority, in specifying what additional county or auxiliary schools are required, shall have regard to the needs of parents who desire county schools. There has been ample discussion, and I have no doubt there will be plenty more before we get to the end of the Bill, on the needs of those who require their awn denominational schools. We want by this Amendment to protect the rights and the demands of parents who require county schools, that is, schools established, maintained, run and controlled by the local education authority and the State. It may seem strange to many Members who are over-enthusiastic for their denominations that there exist masses of people who want their children to be educated in State maintained schools. There should be in the demands laid down by this Clause on local authorities a provision that they must be charged with the duty of satisfying the needs of those who want State schools, or county schools as they are called in the Bill.
    Two problems arise. There is, first, the urban aspect of the matter. There are in different towns denominational schools which have more places than can be filled by their own denominations, and local authorities send to them children who do not belong to the denominations; indeed, they have to go because they are the only secondary schools available. There are denominational secondary schools to which local authorities send between 35 and 50 per cent. of the school population. The first thing that an education authority, charged with the duty of seeing what additional schools are necessary, should direct its attention to is seeing that county schools, not denominational schools, are provided for the children. Then there is the country aspect of the matter. The Committee will observe that the Amendment states that there shall be a sufficiency of county schools to meet the needs of those children whose parents desire such schools at which their children may attend.
    Earlier to-day the Committee accepted an Amendment moved by the right hon.

    255
    Gentleman which agreed that the needs of parents should be taken into account. What is to happen on the basis of that Amendment in single-school areas? There are 4,000 of them in England and Wales, over 200 in Wales, and over go in the County of Carmarthen—single-school areas with Anglican schools only. What about the wishes of the parents there? When it was asked whether that Amendment would over-ride the power of the Church, if it finds 50 per cent. of the capital cost, to insist on having a church school, with the whole power of the law compelling people of any other denomination to go to it, the answer was that that was a matter for consideration and something to be taken into account. If that Amendment gives the parents an over-riding power so that in a predominantly Nonconformist area there shall be a county school, I am prepared to accept it. If it does not I ask for these words to be inserted so that, whatever the cost, the local education authority, taking account of the wishes of the parents, shall be charged with the duty, if somehow or other 50 per cent. of the capital cost is found by the denomination, of putting up a county school to which the majority of parents desire to send their children and to which, under this Amendment, they will have the right to send them.
    Mr. Cove: I want to follow my hon. and learned Friend's argument. As I understand it, it is a serious argument to come from this side of the Committee. Am I right in assuming that my hon. and learned Friend wants 100 per cent. of public money for schools which will be directly related to the religious opinions of the parents?
    Mr. Huģhes: My hon. Friend says he wants to follow me. I only wish that I could follow the point of his question. I have never suggested putting up any denominational schools. What I want are county schools, which are undenominational schools and belong to the State. I am suggesting that where the people want a State school they should have it.
    Mr. Cove: This Amendment raises a big issue. My hon. and learned Friend, who, I take it, represents Nonconformity in this Debate, seems to have taken up
    256
    the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), who represents the Catholic interest. I cannot see what difference there is between them. My hon. and learned Friend relates the provision of county schools which will be fully provided by public money—
    Mr. Huģhes: And will be undenominational.
    Mr. Cove: That may be my hon. Friend's view, but these county schools provided by public money will, as I understand it under his Amendment, be related to the wishes of the parents. The parents may be Nonconformist. They may be Jews. Indeed, they may be agnostics, or atheists, Liberals or Tories. If we are to have public money spent on the principle enunciated by my hon. Friend it seems to me it will Balkanise the entire educational system. The hon. and learned Member, without knowing it, has raised a very deep issue. I can understand his intense feeling against the existence of Church schools in single-school areas throughout rural England, but, on the other hand, I want, what he really wants, complete public schools in those areas determined by the public necessity and not by the principle that parents in groups shall decide what schools shall be put up. I want to warn my hon. and learned Friend that he is enunciating a principle which hitherto, as I have seen it, has come from opinions and bodies to which he is apparently bitterly opposed. He has swallowed it without knowing it, and I hope that he will not press the Amendment.
    Mr. Butler: I would not like to interfere in the internecine strife on the other side, which resembles the situation which so frequently arises in the Balkans. The hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Amendment is inspired by the deep necessity of having some sort of palliative to the difficulties of the single-school area. I fully understand what he has in mind. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) has shown some of the difficulties of his proposal. I would not choose this Clause or this portion of the Bill in which to insert a provision of this sort. It is essential to leave the whole review of their area to the education authority. We have already inserted an Amendment, which I moved, on the subject of paying attention to the wishes of the parents. As

    257
    I said in moving it, the general Clause in which it appears pervaded the whole Bill, and I do not think it is necessary to repeat my speech on the present Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman may take it, therefore, that in general those ideas are now instinct in the general drafting of the Bill.
    With regard to the difficulty of the single-school area, the hon. and learned Gentleman perhaps under-estimates the provisions which we shall be considering later. The controlled school, for example, is a form of organisation which will go far to meet the interests of those who live in single-school areas. I do not think it unlikely that in the rural areas the controlled school will be a permanent feature. He also under-estimates the provisions of Clause 53 on the subject of transport. It may well be that there is a county school within reach of children to which they can be carried. When we are considering that Clause I shall be glad to give sympathetic consideration to anything which the hon. and learned Gentleman puts forward. I am anxious to help his friends in single-school areas, and I hope that the indications I have given will show that I am not unsympathetic.
    Mr. Georģe Griffiths: Has the Minister any knowledge of how many schools are to be controlled schools as against non-provided schools?
    Mr. Butler: I have never been so unwise as to give an exact figure.
    Mr. C. Davies: For the purpose of this Amendment I would give an instruction to the local authorities. As it stands, the local authorities are to specify what kind of schools will be required. Left in that way, they might say: "There is already a school here. It is a denominational school, and there is no need to have any additional schools in the area." The whole point of this Amendment is to ask them to consider the circumstances and desires of the parents and, bearing those things in mind, to say whether there ought not to be more county or county non-denominational schools. There may be a large number of Nonconformists whose children have been compelled in the past to attend a denominational school and who may be compelled to do so again in the future, merely because the local authority have not taken into account the wishes of the parents. I do not know
    258
    whether the mover of the Amendment is satisfied with the assurances which have been given by the President, but it is helpful to know that we can raise the matter again at a later stage.
    Mr. Moelwyn Huģhes: Before I mention the assurances given by my right hon. Friend I wish deliberately to dissociate myself from the interpretation put upon my remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove). I would go further. He talked to the Committee about the needs of the rural areas in England but I would remind him that I am alive not only to the needs of the rural areas of England but to the rural areas of Wales as well. In view of the assurances given by my right hon. Friend, I will join with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) in expressing satisfaction. I would enter a small caveat as to how far transfer may resolve the difficulty. Subject to that, I accept the assurances given and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Linstead: I beg to move, in page 7, line 44, at the beginning, to insert:
    "give particulars of the arrangements made and proposed to be made by the authority for the provision of boarding schools and."
    We feel that it is necessary to bring home to local authorities their obligations with regard to providing an adequate number of boarding schools and incorporating them in their plans. By including words such as are proposed we shall keep prominently in front of local authorities the need for thinking of boarding schools, as well as other schools, in their plans.
    Mr. Ede: I have had to resist previous Amendments moved by my hon. Friend and his friends. Therefore, I have much pleasure in accepting this Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Major Woolley: I beg to move, in page 7, line 45, after "authority," to insert "including the size of classes."
    In view of the fact that this subject was discussed very fully yesterday, I do not propose to take more than two or three minutes to move this Amendment. I would draw the attention of hon. Members

    259
    to what the Parliamentary Secretary said yesterday to indicate that this problem of the size of classes goes to the root of the Bill. After the emphasis that was placed on the matter, I am sure that everyone will agree. I rather understood my hon. Friend to indicate that this was the appropriate point in the Bill to introduce some Amendment. Without enlarging on the merits of the proposal, which I am sure are appreciated by every Member of the Committee, I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Butler: The Government have given the greatest consideration to the Debate which took place yesterday and we have considered the possibility of an insertion into Clause 10 which would help to meet the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment. If we examine Clause 10, we see that it is in that Clause that we lay upon the local authorities the duty of framing their development plans and sending those plans in to us. We do not think it will be as satisfactory to wait for the authorities to send us their proposals in regard to classes as it will be if we ourselves give an indication of what we consider the size of classes should be. This would be the wrong place in which to include a reference to the size of classes.
    We are, therefore, put back to our original suggestion that the size of classes must be set out in the Draft Regulations of the Board so that the conditions of grant include a condition which lays down the size of classes. We think this is a very much more effective way of securing a given size of class than simply to ask local authorities to send their development plan to us before we make the condition. I think that my hon. and gallant Friend will agree that the method we are proposing is better than that which he proposes. The Regulations must, under Clause 101, be laid before Parliament and Parliament will have an opportunity of considering and debating them. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will agree that this will be an effective method for securing a reduction in the size of classes.
    Major Woolley: In view of the assurances which my right hon. Friend has given and the fact that the Regulations will lay down the size of classes to be envisaged in the plan, I am sure that my hon. Friends will feel that the position is
    260
    satisfactory, I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Moelwyn Huģhes: I beg to move, in page 8, line 6, at the end, to insert:
    "(3) A local education authority in Wales shall, before submitting their development plan to the Minister, consult the Central Advisory Council for Education for Wales referred to in Section four of this Act."
    The Amendment relates to development plans in Wales. I want to make it clear from the outset that this is not an endeavour in any way to make the Central Advisory Council for Wales an overriding authority upon the local education committees, or to insert any procedure which would cause delay in the formulation of development plans. We realise that, in Wales at any rate, whatever the position may be in England, there is an overwhelming necessity that the plans of the different local education authorities should fit in one with another. Therefore we suggest that when the local education authorities, which in Wales more particularly will be the county councils, are in course of formulating development plans, they should have a word with the Central Advisory Council for Wales, so that when two or three adjoining counties are submitting their proposals, there should be some body to give them a word of advice as to how those development plans can fit together.
    I can give my right hon. Friend a concrete instance. Take the dividing between the counties of Cardigan, Pembroke and Carmarthen. He will find that the educational centres in West Wales are Cardigan, which is on the borders of Cardiganshire and Pembrokeshire, Llandyssul, on the borders of Cardiganshire and Carmarthenshire, Lampeter, which is within Cardiganshire but is very near to the county of Carmarthenshire, and Machynlleth, which is in Montgomeryshire, but which also serves the counties of Merioneth and Cardiganshire. I cannot see how the development plan of the five counties can make a complete whole unless the matter is discussed with the Advisory Council, which can impartially suggest and advise the local education authorities as to how their development plans can fit together. Our sole desire in this Amendment is to make the development plans fit together as a whole, to make a perfect mosaic for Wales, at any rate. I therefore ask, if the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept the Amendment

    261
    in terms, he can accept it in purpose, and see that the purpose is carried out.
    Mr. Butler: We discussed this important subject before, on Clause 4. We do not desire that these advisory councils should interfere with the actual administration of education. I have been in touch with important local authorities in Wales and with the Federation, and I cannot help thinking that they would be a little distressed at the suggestion that their own responsibility to their own areas should in any way be upset by association with an outside body. The hon. and learned Member raises the problem of the counties and the need for making a network of educational progress in Wales. I suggest that it would be better if those who are responsible for the administration of education in the counties got together with the Federation, which I believe has an important future in Wales, and that the Federation should build itself up and should leave to the Advisory Committee the duty of direct advice. I cannot accept the Amendment as it is designed, because it would take away from the power of the educational bodies the development of their responsibility and it might take away from the power of the educational authority itself.
    Mr. Cove: I rise to support the Minister and I hope that he will give a quid pro quo. I do not see why, in the name of a Parliament elected on the basis of popular election, people should be compelled to suffer dictation from a body which is selected by the Minister himself. As the Minister says there is in Wales a Federation of authorities, and if co-ordination and advice are necessary that body already exists, as the Minister has pointed out. I therefore heartily support the Minister in resisting this Amendment and I hope that when I come to further Amendments later he will reciprocate.
    Mr. Gallacher: I want to draw attention to the fact that the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes) has a very good idea which he has expressed in connection with this Amendment, a very desirable idea, that education in Wales should not be developed in a haphazard manner in one district as against another. Arising out of the Amendment he has put forward and the remarks he has made I would like to give a word or two of advice or offer a word or two of wisdom.
    The Chairman (Major Milner): The hon. Member can only do so if his words of wisdom are connected with the Amendment.
    Mr. Gallacher: I was about to say that Members from across the Border who have had very wide experience on this question of education will be very ready and willing to assist our Welsh colleagues in developing their education in an organised manner and in insisting in getting a Department of State in Wales similar to Scotland.
    Mr. Moelwyn Huģhes: I am somewhat encouraged by the remarks of my hon. Friend. I hope I may interpret them as meaning that in one way or another he will do what lies in his power and in the power of his Department to see that Wales has a correlated plan. I am somewhat disturbed by the assistance he has received from the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) but that does not deter me from asking leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir John Mellor: I beg to move, in page 8, line 6, at the end, to insert:
    "() The local education authority for a county at all stages in the preparation of a development plan shall consult the council of the county districts within the county and shall furnish full particulars of the plan to such councils and the Minister shall consider any representations that such councils may make."
    The purpose of this Amendment is to secure that the councils of the county districts shall be consulted by the local education authority at all stages in the preparation of a development plan, and to secure that the local education authority shall supply the councils of the county districts with full particulars of their proposals, and that the councils of the county districts shall be able to make representations to the Minister which the Minister shall consider. It is a matter of considerable importance and it is rather surprising that such provision has been omitted from the text of the Bill. I think it is a very conspicuous omission considering my right hon. Friend's desire, which he has frequently expressed, and which we all know he feels very strongly, to maintain local interest in education and to encourage the councils of the county districts to believe that they will remain an integral part in the national scheme. The omission to include any provision for

    263
    bringing into discussions councils who have been Part III authorities and for many years have done admittedly good work might be regarded by such authorities as rather scurvy treatment. I am quite certain that my right hon. Friend does not desire they should feel that they have been treated discourteously. I am sure that he will also recognise that it is in the interests of the plans that they shall be devised after all considerations have been put forward and that these district councils should be brought into consultation. I hope very much that my right hon. Friend will accept this Amendment.
    Mr. Loftus: I would like very briefly to support on two grounds the proposal moved by my hon. Friend. The first is to avoid waste. There is a great deal of experience and knowledge and enthusiasm working to-day in these local councils. The second reason I support the proposal is that we want this great scheme to get together the utmost good will of all parties concerned, and if there was any suspicion in any case that these councils were not to be consulted it might damage a section of the scheme. I hope, therefore, that this provision will be put in as mandatory instead of permissive.
    Mr. Ede: Although the hon. Member who moved this Amendment devoted some part of his speech to dealing with the Part III authorities, his Amendment in fact goes far wider than those authorities, and in view of the desire of the Committee that there should be reasonable speed in preparing these development plans, I hope the Committee will realise, in considering this Amendment, exactly what the implication would be. Take the county with which I have been connected. We have 32 county district councils and the Amendment asks that everyone of them shall be consulted at all stages in the preparation of the development plan. Quite clearly that would involve an amount of time and consideration of detail by people, many of whom have never been connected with the education service before, that could only tend to delay. In the whole of England and Wales there are 309 municipal boroughs and 572 urban districts. I do not know how many rural districts there are, but rural district councils would also
    264
    be brought in. It is clear that this would involve a very considerable delay in the preparation of the plan.
    Under the first Schedule the question of the duties to be devolved upon the Divisional Executives will come up for consideration. Where the Divisional Executive is that of an excepted district it may very well be that in some cases the duty of preparing part of the development plan relating to that area may be devolved upon the Council of the excepted district.
    Where the county district is not an excepted district it will nominate members to a Divisional Executive whose duty it will be to consider the educational needs of the district, and I should have thought that in most, if not all, cases the county council in preparing their development plan would take consultation with their Divisional Executives, who will certainly have a substantial part of the administration to carry on after the plan has been prepared. I venture to say that that will be a far more effective form of consultation than saying that every municipal borough, every urban district, every rural district irrespective of its size, shall be consulted at all stages. We are exceedingly anxious, as the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor) said, that local interest shall be preserved and shall be aroused in some districts where it has not hitherto had much chance of finding expression. In the scheme prepared under the first Schedule we can do this more effectively than in the words of the Amendment, which really would impose such a duty with regard to consultation that either it would be so perfunctory as to be valueless, which we do not desire, or would be so overwhelming that it would impose intolerable delays in the preparation of the plan.
    Sir J. Mellor: Would the hon. Gentleman be willing to accept an Amendment on these lines provided that it is limited to Part III authorities, because I think they should be included in consultations at the development stage?
    Mr. Ede: We are very anxious to allay the legitimate fears of the county district councils in this matter who have been Part III authorities. I am advised that paragraphs 8 (b) and (e) of the third part of the first Schedule are sufficiently

    265
    wide to enable arrangements of the kind I have indicated to be given effect to, and I hope that that will satisfy my hon. Friend.
    Sir J. Mellor: But not during the development stage?
    Mr. Ede: Yes.
    Mr. Silverman: I think my hon. Friend is perfectly entitled to do what he has done and take the words of the Amendment that have been moved. However, I did not understand the argument of the hon. Member to mean that what he really desired was that every detail of the development at all stages should be submitted for representations to be made by all the county districts, though I agree that is what the. Amendment says. I rather think that what is at the back of the minds of those who have put down this Amendment is merely to secure what I think my hon. Friend has sympathy with, that a county district shall have the right to make representation to the county authority about the plan in so far as it affects their area. It is not intended they should have power to make representations on the county scheme as a whole but that they ought to be consulted, to be given information and to have the power to make representations, no matter how small they are, about the development plan as it affects the area for which they are the council. I take it that what my hon. Friend had in mind was that the part of the Schedule to which he referred gives power for them to be consulted in that way. I do not think it covers every district. I rather thought that what was intended here was that every elected authority should have a voice in the development of an education plan for the area for which they are elected representatives. That was behind the Amendment as I understood it.
    Mr. Ede: If that is the point behind the Amendment what I said with regard to the intolerable delays that would occur has all the greater point.
    Mr. Silverman: Surely not.
    Mr. Ede: My hon. Friend makes his speech and always interrupts the people who have the very difficult task of replying. His arguments are so logically expressed that they present enough difficulty in answering without having one's mind put off by further interruption. There are
    266
    1,356 county district councils in the country.
    There are 475 rural district councils. They are in addition to the numbers I gave before, for municipal boroughs and urban districts. These bodies are elected for specific purposes; among those purposes is not education. We propose to give them a share in education in the future, through the divisional executive, which will contain those members of the district council who are interested in education. This is the proper body to consult. In the case of the excepted districts—that is, by and large, the larger ex-Part III authorities—the divisional executive is the town or urban district council, so that in those cases the consultation will be with the council. In the case of the smaller authorities, by grouping them with the larger executive we shall get a reasonable idea of what their needs are. The third part of the Third Schedule will indicate to hon. Members interested in this Amendment that we are with them in their desires and think that this is the most effective way of meeting them.
    Sir J. Mellor: As the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) has suggested, I desire only that district councils should be consulted on matters affecting their districts. I would like to make one correction. When I inquired whether Part III authorities would be consulted at the development stage, I meant, on the preparation of the development plan. I would like to know whether the Parliamentary Secretary could reply "Yes" to that also?
    Mr. Ede: Clearly that would depend on the scheme. The smaller Part III authorities—those, let us say, of under 30,000 people—are in a very different category from those, let us say, of over 60,000 people. It is impossible to give a general reply on a subject which goes into such different details.
    Sir J. Mellor: It may be that these small Part III authorities are not going to enjoy any educational authority in future, but they have done so in the past. They have the experience, and surely that experience should be at the disposal of the local education authority, and, if necessary, of the Minister.
    Mr. Vernon Bartlett: The Minister's reply does not mean that inevitably the smaller authorities are ruled out?
    Mr. Ede: No; that will depend upon the scheme that is drawn up. They have the right, when the scheme is drawn up, of making their representations and of being consulted with regard to the powers that will be delegated.
    Amendment negatived.
    Professor Gruffydd: Might I ask for your guidance, Major Milner? I have an Amendment dawn—in page 8, line 10, to leave out "other than county schools." This Amendment is linked with a further Amendment that is to be moved. The point of the Amendment is that all secondary schools and not merely the auxiliary schools should have governing bodies of their own. The main argument on that point will come up on Clause 16, and I wonder whether I should move this Amendment now?
    The Chairman: The hon. Member says that the main argument will come up on Clause 16. If so, perhaps he does not wish to move this Amendment now.
    Professor Gruffydd: The point is, whether that later Amendment is going to be called or not?
    The Chairman: I have not had an opportunity of considering that Amendment. If there is any doubt the hon. Member had better move this Amendment.
    Professor Gruffydd: I beg to move, in page 8, line 10, to leave out "other than county schools."
    The county school, whether secondary or elementary, is not going to have a governing body of its own. It is though separate from the other schools in the same area to be included under a common scheme. In drawing up this Clause, it was quite impossible to include among the managers who were to be consulted by the local education authority the managers of county schools, because the managers of county schools would be the local education authority themselves. The matter is rather complicated, and the whole question of whether secondary schools in future are to have their own governing bodies or are to be lumped into one holus-bolus of a county authority is, I think, one of the basic points of this Bill. I trust the Chair enough to be fairly confident that when we come to Clause 16 it will be possible to discuss this matter then, and I merely move this Amendment formally.
    Mr. Butler: In the circumstances, I think the Government had better reserve their answer until the Clauses which affect the governors of county schools are considered.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Henry Brooke: I beg to move, in page 8, line 17, at the end, to insert:
    "The appropriate Diocesan Education Committee shall for the purposes of this Sub-section be deemed to be managers or governors as well as the actual managers or governors of a school in which, either by trust or usage or repute, religious instruction according to the doctrines of the Church of England is given."
    This Amendment is designed to define further the words in lines 9 and 10 of page 8, where a duty is placed upon the local education authority of consulting the managers or governors, or persons representing the managers or governors of all schools other than county schools. Under a Measure sent up by the Church Assembly and agreed to by this House last year, diocesan education committees were established in every diocese of the Church of England. Reading the Bill, I have little doubt that it was to bring in those committees that the words:
    "Or persons representing the managers or governors."
    were introduced in lines 9 and 10. However, the Bill as it stands imposes no direct duty on local education authorities to consult diocesan education committees in every case. It would certainly be to everybody's advantage that that direct consultation should take place, because at some stage or other the diocesan education committee must be brought in, and the earlier they are brought in the better it will be for them, for the managers or governors, and for the local education authority, which will be able to obtain the committee's view. It is solely because a local education authority which might not be fully aware of the advantage of consulting the committee at an early stage might fail to do so, that I move this Amendment, in order to make certain that that consultation with the committees will actually take place.
    Mr. Butler: The Government are in sympathy with the principle enunciated by the hon. Gentleman that there should be consultation with the diocesan education committees. For one thing, we very much

    269
    approve of what I may describe as the rationalisation of church organisation and finance, without which some of the association between the Government and the local authorities and the church schools would not be so easily carried out. I do not want to be misunderstood when I say that we sympathise very much with the recent Measure passed through the Assembly of the Church of England—the Diocesan Education Committees Measure. Section 2 of that Measure includes the following provision:
    "To promote and co-operate with other religious bodies and with local education authorities in promoting religious education within the diocese."
    That is paragraph (iii); paragraph (iv) of the same Section says:
    "To give advice as and when the Committee thinks fit to trustees or owners and managers of church schools and others concerned as to any matters affecting church schools within the diocese."
    The difficulty we have with the terms of my hon. Friend's Amendment is that it looks as if it were possible, under the Amendment as drafted, to conduct relations direct with the diocesan education committees, over the heads of the managers or governors. That we do not think is the proper relationship if the managers and governors do not choose that such a relationship should exist. The Bill is drafted so that, in the first place, there shall be direct contact with the managers and governors, and, if they choose, with the diocesan committees. This is a complicated matter. To understand it fully Members would need a complete knowledge of the Diocesan Committees Measure, as well as a complete knowledge of this Bill. It is difficult enough to have a complete knowledge of this Bill; to have a complete knowledge of the Diocesan Committees Measure as well would be very difficult indeed. Therefore, I suggest that my hon. Friend should not press his Amendment to-day. I will take his point that this is merely permissive, and accept the principle in that spirit. But to accept the Amendment—
    Mr. A. Bevan: It is not the right hon. Gentleman's intention to consult both the managers and the diocesan authorities, but just one or the other?
    Mr. Butler: I hope the hon. Member will feel satisfied that we are dealing with
    270
    the diocesan committee in individual circumstances, and not seeking to over-ride them in any shape or form.
    Mr. Silverman: Does that include a provision that discussion with the diocesan authorities shall not take place except where the diocesan council takes financial responsibility for the school which is involved in the consultation? I hope the Committee will not mind my saying so, but I had a professional experience once which has left the deepest impression on my mind. I once acted for certain persons who were injured in an accident, in which some people were killed, in a Church of England school in Liverpool. There were 142 persons crowded together in this school at some exhibition. The floor collapsed and they were precipitated on to a floor below. Some were killed and some injured, some seriously and permanently injured. In that case, the owners of the school were the council—I do not want to go into details now—and there was a trust deed which provided that that council were, and should always be deemed to be, in occupation of that school. The council had accepted that position of legal occupiers, and had insured themselves against the liabilities of occupiers, but when remedies were sought in the courts the council said that this was nothing to do with them, that the duty of keeping the school in repair—and it was admitted that it had not been kept in repair, and that there had been no proper inspection for years—did not lie with them. They said, "We are the owners, we are the occupiers under the trustees, but the Statute lays the duty only upon the managers, and therefore the financial liability lies upon the managers, and your action can only be against the managers, but, unfortunately, the managers have no money." In the end, the Education Council actually sold the school for £2,000 and put the money in its pocket.
    Major Woolley: Can the hon. Member specify what he means by "Council?" Is it the local council?
    Mr. Silverman: No, no. Perhaps I had better say—I did not want to give the name—that there was a body called the Liverpool Church of England School Society, which had a general committee, and this general committee were the

    271
    trustees and owners, and, by the deeds, the occupiers, but they shuffled out of all responsibility, and in the course of the litigation actually sold the buildings for £2,000 to the Liverpool City Council and put the money in their own pockets, and the rest of the liability fell on the penniless shoulders of the others. Eventually the Council had no responsibility at all. If Councils of this kind are going to claim the privilege of being consulted, then they should take full responsibility for schools about which they wish to be consulted, and I would like to hear if the Minister accepts that view.
    Mr. Butler: My difficulty is in reconciling the two Measures, and I should like the hon. Gentleman to look at his Amendment again because it says:
    "the Diocesan Education Committee shall for the purpose of this sub-section, be deemed to be the managers or governors as well as the actual managers or governors of a school."
    That is not our reading of the Diocesan Education Committee Measure, 1943, which, in Section 2 (2) simply provides that
    "the trustees or owners and managers of every Church school in a diocese shall be bound to consult the Committee and to have regard to its representations in any negotiations for and before making any agreement or arrangement with the Board of Education. … or the local education authority for or with respect to the restoration, rearrangement, continuance, discontinuance, closing, sale or lease of, or other dealing with such Church school, or for or with respect to the amalgamation thereof with any other school."
    If that is to be the view of the Diocesan Education Committee Measure it is different from the Amendment on the Paper, which says that trustees and managers shall be deemed to be one and the same thing. I do not think the Government should advise this Committee so to legislate until we are satisfied by the movers of the Amendment that the terms of the Diocesan Committee Measure and of the Amendment are the same. If the hon. Member will not press it to-day, I think it is desirable to have more information.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Will the Minister give sympathetic consideration to the Amendment if it merely asks that the Diocesan Education Committee shall be consulted as a whole?
    Mr. Butler: I should want to see the terms of the Amendment, but I first of
    272
    all want to have the assurance that there is no desire to supplant the managers of schools, because the Amendment has given that impression. When we are clear on what they desire I can give my answer.
    Mr. Silverman: Surely it is important to know, when considering these matters, whether the council which is to be consulted is going to be discharged and have no responsibility for the statutory obligations of managers? Surely, that is the point.
    Mr. Brooke: I could not answer the question raised by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) without going far beyond the terms of the Amendment, which refers to Diocesan Education Committees. It does not refer to a Liverpool school council or any other form of Church or other society.
    Mr. Silverman: It is the same thing.
    Mr. Brooke: With great respect, it is not the same thing. These are bodies brought into statutory existence by the Church Assembly and this House within the past 12 months. I would certainly like to respond to the spirit in which the Minister has replied to my Amendment. We do not wish in any way to supplant the managers or governors of any of these schools. What we do wish to ensure is that there will be consultation with both the managers or governors and the Diocesan Education Committee, and perhaps it will be possible, in further consultation, to work out a form of words which might achieve that agreed object.
    Mr. A. Bevan: That is precisely what we do not want. That is the situation. What justification is there for the consultation with the Diocesan Council at all? We have already been told they have been in existence for over a year and they are not a repository of any great educational experience in their own rights. They may have members with educational experience, but as bodies they have none. Why should the Minister have his negotiations cluttered up by having to consult not only the managers but this other extraneous body, whose functions are entirely denominational? We have been told that it would be unwise to consult a very large number of elected bodies—local councils—because there are so many of them. We are now saying—and I am suspicious of the Clause—that in addition to consulting

    273
    the managers or the governors of all local schools, which are now going to be mostly controlled schools, for which we will be entirely responsible financially, the Minister ought to consult another body outside these. What for? I understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that the use of the words "or persons representing the managers" could be interpreted as substituting the Diocesan Council for the managers or governors. Do we understand that? If that is to be the case, some of us will have to take serious exception to it, because we see no reason at all why the Diocesan Council should be consulted in a development scheme of this sort—a non-elected body. I should like a little more specific clarification. If the hon. Member will press his Amendment, we will divide on it—or at least I will—on the grounds of this purely extraneous body. It would be unwise to divide this Committee on any educational matter; but if, on the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman says that his meaning of the term is that managers and governors can be set on one side and the diocesan body established, I should also be suspicious of that, for I see no reason at all why that body should come into the picture at any stage.
    Mr. Brooke: I have said once and say again that there is no desire by the movers of the Amendment to supplant managers or governors or deprive them of any of their rights. I rather think the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) should have raised his point on the Diocesan Education Committee Measure in the last Session and not on this Bill. But if I have the good will of the Committee I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Colonel Arthur Evans: I beg to move, in page 8, line 26, to leave out from "made," to "necessary," in line 27, and to insert:
    "by any person to whom particlars or further."
    I understand it would be convenient if, with this Amendment, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) and other hon. Members, we considered the Amendment in my name and that of other Members, in page 8, line 29, after "Sub-section," to insert:
    "(if such objections are so made not later than three months after the date or latest date on which such particulars or further particulars were received by that person)."
    274
    and also the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon)—in page 8, line 29, after "Sub-section," insert:
    "(if such objections are so made not later than three months after the date or latest date on which such particulars or further particulars were received by that person)."
    Under Sub-section (3) of Clause 10, to which I refer hon. Members, the local education authority has to consult the managers or governors of schools, and after submitting the plan to the Minister, has to furnish to the managers or governors sufficient particulars to show the manner in which the school will be affected by the execution of the plan. If the Minister is of opinion that no particulars, or insufficient particulars, of the plan have been furnished to any person who, in his opinion, would be affected by the execution of the plan, he is to give such directions as he considers expedient for securing that sufficient particulars are so furnished.
    Under the provisions of Sub-section (3), I understand there are three classes of persons to be considered. First, there are the managers or governors who have received particulars which the Minister may consider sufficient; but there is another class—those managers or governors who have received particulars which the Minister may consider to be insufficient and to whom he directs that further particulars shall be furnished. There is a third party to be considered—that is, any person affected by the execution of the plan who has received no particulars and to whom the Minister requires particulars to be furnished. There are thus three separate parties to be considered by the Minister before his decision is given. If hon. Members will refer to Sub-section (4) they will find that it provides for consideration by the Minister of
    "any objections to a development plan made to him within the period of two months after the date on which he is satisfied that all necessary particulars have been furnished in accordance with the last foregoing Sub-section."
    The position is a little complicated and I must apologise, but in the view of my hon. Friends who put their names to this Amendment there is no requirement as to publication of notice of the day on which the Minister is actually so satisfied, and any person to whom particulars are

    275
    furnished pursuant to Sub-section (3) would have no means of knowing whether the Minister was or was not satisfied that the local education authority have done all that needed to be done or as to the date on which the Minister may be so satisfied. Moreover, the particulars or further particulars will have to be furnished to a large number of persons and it would appear to us that any individual persons would take it that the time for lodging objection would begin to run from the date on which the Minister is satisfied that in all cases the necessary particulars have been furnished. This would add to the difficulty of any intending objector in ascertaining the actual time when he must lodge his objection to the scheme.
    It will be noted that the time for lodging objections is "within a period of two months." This would mean that any objections made either before or after the expiration of that period need not be taken into account by my right hon. Friend. The object of the Amendments on the Order Paper is to secure that, in the case of each person to whom particulars or further particulars are furnished under Sub-section (3) of the Clause, the time for lodging objections shall run from the date or latest date of the receipt by the Minister of the particulars or further particulars. I submit therefore that this is the only practicable way that the Minister would have of ensuring that persons affected shall have an adequate opportunity of submitting objections to a development plan. The period of two months for the making of objections we consider to be insufficient and, in a similar case, under Sub-section (3) of Clause 12, the period of three months is allowed for the submission of objections. The Amendments which I am now moving accordingly provide for the lodging of objections within three months.
    Sir J. Lamb: Will this preclude the calling of the Amendment which stands in my name—in line 29,—after "sub-section," insert "and after consulting the local education authority"?
    The Temporary Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I have safeguarded that Amendment.
    Mr. Stokes: I wish to say a few words in support of the Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Cardiff, South (Colonel Evans). It
    276
    is most important that the date on which the Minister has satisfied himself should be made very clear to all concerned. That is not clear from the Clause, and neither is the date from which the two months should run. Even if the date were clear, we submit that two months is insufficient time and that the period for lodgment should be extended to three months. We have heard all sorts of suggestions as to improvements which ought to be made in the Bill with which we are in hearty agreement, but I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary would agree that it would be unfair to the managers and governors of schools if insistence was made on provisions which they could not provide, and they found themselves without time to produce or lodge their objection. We do not insist that these words should be part of the Clause but we ask the President of the Board of Education and his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to consider our point of view between now and the Report stage.
    Mr. Ede: The hon. and gallant Member for Cardiff, South (Colonel Evans) said that this was a very complicated matter. It is and I congratulate him upon the clarity with which he managed to move his Amendment. It deals with the situation that will arise when the managers or governors know the requirements that will be placed upon them. They will then have a period of time within which to decide whether they are going to say that they are reasonable requirements and they intend to carry them out, or whether they are going to lodge an objection upon any ground that may be open to them. On the question of time, I do not think that the period of two months should be regarded as being too short. These are schools which have been in their possession for a considerable time, They have probably a pretty good idea before things start as to what they ought to do, and one knows that in most cases the surveying of the school by the local education authority and the consideration of what ought to be asked for will be carried out in consultation, not necessarily formally, but informally, with the representatives of the managers or governors.
    We are anxious, as the Committee has shown on this Clause and the previous one, to get on with the job of bringing these schools into a fit state of repair and

    277
    I hope that the Committee will feel that, in these circumstances, the period of two months is a sufficiently long time. With regard to the other point as to the date from which the two months' period is to run, undoubtedly, it is very desirable that the managers or governors or anyone else concerned with the matter should know the date from which their period of making an objection runs. I should have thought that the words in the Clause made it clear that it would have to be some disclosure of knowledge on their part that would enable my right hon. Friend to be satisfied that all necessary particulars had been furnished. We are advised that managers or governors are amply protected by the words in the Clause but I respond to the appeal made by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). Undoubtedly, this is complicated and we do not desire that anybody should be cut out through not having the knowledge. We do not want anyone to get into difficulties inadvertently. We do not desire that anybody should be able by some manoeuvring to prevent managers from lodging their objections in time, and we will examine the words to see if the exact date on which the furnishing of the particulars has taken place and from which the opportunity for notices will be given can be made more clear.
    Mr. Stokes: I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cardiff, South, will be grateful but we want to be clear that the people entitled to receive notice of the alteration or improvements in the Order shall have sufficient time. It is not sufficient that they should know that the Minister was satisfied. They might only know that he was satisfied a month after he had become satisfied. We want to be sure that the people responsible shall have ample time to lodge objections within the dates authorising them.
    Mr. Ede: We desire that they should have two months from some given date during which they can consider whether they are going to lodge an objection or not. That is what we intend them to have and I hope that the Committee will feel that a two months' period is long enough. If there is difficulty when we look further into the words in making that date absolutely certain, we will endeavour to meet them.
    Colonel Evans: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has met our real
    278
    anxiety and we are most grateful for the manner in which he has approached the proposal, and in view of his assurance I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir J. Lamb: I beg to move, in page 8, line 29, after "Sub-section," to insert, "and after consulting the local education authority."
    Mr. Butler: On a point of Order, Sir Charles. Can we discuss this Amendment with that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster)—on page 8, line 30, after "as," to insert "after consultation with the local education authority."—as they cover the same point?
    Sir J. Lamb: I wish to put the position briefly because I want to expedite the progress of the Bill, and I hope that the Minister will accept my Amendment, though I have not high hopes that that will be done. There is no obligation here upon the Minister to consult local education authorities with regard to objections he has received. We think—and I am speaking for the county education authorities—that it is desirable that there should be an obligation under the Bill for him to notify the local education authority of the objections and to consult them with regard to the objections which have been received. It would lead to better administration if this were done. The Minister may say that he would naturally do this in the course of his administration, but we think that it would be better to make provision in the Bill for the obligation to be placed upon the Minister to bring about consultation.
    Sir G. Schuster: I hope that I shall be allowed to move my Amendment as it stands. It covers the same point as the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) but it makes the Bill better English and it is much better grammar. My hon. Friend is able to get in ahead of me by having put his Amendment down two lines further up in the Bill, but I would put it to the Committee that my Amendment really does make a much better Clause. I do not want to repeat what my hon. Friend has said, or to take up much time on this, but I think it is the most reasonable Amendment which has been moved on the Bill. I want to sup-

    279
    plement in one respect what my hon. Friend said. He mentioned that the local authority ought to be consulted about objections received. I put it rather in another way. I hope that the Minister will not modify the plan of the local authority and give directions to the local authority to override their original plan without giving the local authority the chance of stating their position practically without consulting them. May I then be allowed to move my Amendment?
    The Temporary Chairman: The time for that has not come, and I am afraid that it will not come at all.
    Mr. Ede: I do not want to prove you an untrue prophet, Sir Charles, but we prefer the Amendment, where it is proposed to be made by the hon. Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster) rather than in the place suggested by the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb). The two Amendments have practically the same effect but the change fits into the drafting of the Bill better in the second case than in the first. While we accept the spirit of the Amendment, we should prefer that it should be in the place where it has been put down by the hon. Member for Walsall.
    Sir J. Lamb: I am prepared to accept the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member fox Walsall (Sir G. Schuster). It is the object of my Amendment that I want, and if it is more likely to be accepted by the Minister at the place indicated I shall be ready to ask leave to withdraw my own Amendment if I can be assured by my hon. Friend that the Amendment of my hon. Friend will be allowed to be moved.
    The Temporary Chairman: I am in the position of not being able to select Amendments.
    Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: May I submit that you have not been asked to select an Amendment, Sir Charles- If the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) asks leave to withdraw his Amendment, surely you will be entitled to call the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster).
    Sir J. Lamb: I want to be assured of that.
    The Temporary Chairman: That could have been done, if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster) had been selected, but that is my difficulty.
    Mr. Barnes: Could it not be settled if the Government agreed to make the Amendment on the Report stage?
    The Temporary Chairman: I will call the Amendment.
    Sir J. Lamb: On your assurance, Sir Charles, that the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall will be called, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: In page 8, line 30, after "as," insert "after consultation with the local education authority."—(Sir G. Schuster.)
    Colonel Evans: I beg to move, in page 8, line 39, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided that—

    (a) before approving a development plan the Minister shall publish in the London Gazette, and in such other manner as he may think best adapted for informing persons affected, notice of the proposal to give such approval and of the place where copies of the plan as proposed to be approved may be obtained, and of the time (which shall not be less than twenty-one days) within which any objection made with respect to such plan by or on behalf of persons affected must be sent to him;

    (b) the Minister shall consider any objection made by or on behalf of any persons appearing to him to be affected which sent to him within the required time and, unless all such objections are withdrawn, shall cause a local enquiry to be held in accordance with section eighty-six of this Act."

    The object of this Amendment is to ensure that, before a development plan to which objections have been lodged is approved by the Minister he shall exercise his powers under Clause 86 and hold a local inquiry unless all objections are withdrawn. My hon. Friend and I who have put their names to this Amendment submit that the formulation of the development plan is of such vital importance that the fullest possible inquiry should be held before such a plan is approved.
    Mr. Stokes: I want to say a few words in support of the Amendment, the object of which, as my hon. and gallant Friend said, is to give people a proper opportunity of taking action. We want to

    281
    secure proper publication regarding the development plan. It is suggested in the Amendment that the "London Gazette" is the proper means of giving this publicity. I am not sufficiently well informed to know whether that is the best means or not, but manifestly, when managers are concerned with schools that they have to administer and which may be taken away from them as a result of not being able to carry out the plan, they should have full and proper notice of the intentions regarding the plan. Equally, it is important that the Minister himself should exercise his powers under the Act to hold a full inquiry if the objections which may be made from time to time to such plan have not been satisfactorily cleared up. I would refer to what I have said already on a previous Amendment with regard to the possibilities of this matter—that everybody is desirous of having the maximum amount of development. We have heard talk of large playing-fields to be provided for everybody; we have heard talk of canteens for everybody, wireless sets, and goodness knows what. That is all splendid, but if the development plan is to include all that, and the managers of the schools have not the wherewithal to provide it, surely they are entitled, before being shut up, to be sure that the Minister means to hold a proper inquiry into objections to the plan?
    I know this is not the proper place to discuss finance, and I am not going to do it, but the reason why we are anxious to get inserted in the Bill provision for a public inquiry, if proper objections have not been satisfactorily met, is in order to safeguard ourselves against being required to do something which, under the provisions of the Bill, we are entirely unable to do from an economic point-of-view. There may be other objections as well, but all I am claiming—while not in the least wishing to obstruct any development scheme of any kind whatever—is to see to it that the schools are not closed down without having any objections properly ventilated in a public inquiry, and full opportunity given so that the managers and their representatives may turn up at such inquiry, state their case, and have it fully and properly held by the Minister under the powers given to him in Clause 86. I hope that if, in the opinion of the President of the Board of Education and of the Committee, I have
    282
    made my case, the right hon. Gentleman will see fit to find some way of meeting this.
    Major Mills: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 3, to leave out "and" and to insert "or."
    The only doubt I have is whether the people interested will read the "London Gazette" and I should prefer to see "and" altered to "or," in the Amendment, so as to give the President of the Board of Education the chance of doing what he thinks best.
    Mr. Loftus: I would support what my hon. and gallant Friend has just said. I do not like the words of the Amendment as they stand and especially "London Gazette." Surely the proper course is to insert the word "or," and to advertise in local papers so as to get the utmost local publicity.
    Mr. Gallacher: It may be necessary to have an Amendment but I would ask the Minister to consider very carefully any such Amendment. In connection with the publication, if the Amendment is accepted, the proper medium of publication would be the "Daily Worker," but the important thing about this Amendment is that it visualises conflict—
    Hon. Members: Order.
    The Temporary Chairman: Does the hon. Member realise that we are discussing an Amendment to the Amendment—to leave out, "and," and to insert, "or"?
    Mr. Gallacher: I thought we were discussing the Amendment as a whole.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
    Question proposed, "That the proposed words be there inserted."
    Mr. Gallacher: This Amendment visualises conflict—
    Colonel Evans: May I remind the hon. Member that under Clause 86 the Minister is bound to hold an inquiry? All this Amendment is seeking to do is to insist on the holding of a local inquiry unless all the objections are withdrawn.
    Mr. Gallaeher: I understand, but the fact is that if the White Paper and the

    283
    Bill are to be carried out, in the sense that the House and the country desire, it will call for the maximum co-operation between the Minister and the various authorities responsible for the carrying on of education, whether they are county or denominational schools. Hon. Members who are moving this Amendment will agree with me that the greatest possible value for denominational schools, as well as for county schools, will come from the maximum measure of co-operation. That is why I want the Minister not to accept such an Amendment light-heartedly, but to consider carefully what he is doing, in the light of the absolute necessity for getting the best results from the Bill, of getting the maximum co-operation, and avoiding at all cost conflict between the different authorities in connection with the carrying out of this scheme.
    Mr. Moelwyn Huģhes: I sincerely hope that the Minister will not accede to the second part of this Amendment. It is designed not only to cause friction, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) has said, but it will operate automatically to cause considerable delay in bringing the plan into operation. Reference has been made to Clause 86 which gives the Minister power to direct a local inquiry if he thinks fit to do so. Clause 86 says be may, but the Amendment now moved, places it within the power of a sectional interest, organised in different parts of this country, automatically, without any question of distinction, without any question of ascertaining what the weight of the objection is, without ascertaining whether it is material or considerable, to insist that if an objection is lodged, the Minister must direct an inquiry to be held. That could be staged quite easily by an energetic, sectional interest in a great many parts of this country at the same time.
    Mr. Stokes: May I interrupt? The hon. and learned Member is not stating at all correctly what my hon. and gallant Friend and I said. We said that if any objection has not been withdrawn—not if any objection is merely lodged. The President may be able to satisfy those objections and with the co-operation he hopes to have, he should be able to do so.
    Mr. Huģhes: May I remind the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) of the terms of his own Amendment?
    "(b) The Minister shall consider any objection made by or on behalf of any persons appearing to him to be affected which is sent to him within the required time and, unless all such objections are withdrawn, shall cause a local inquiry to be held in accordance with Section 86 of this Act."
    In other words, they would be able to say to the Minister, "If you do not agree to every word of objection that we put before you, we shall not be satisfied, and we will compel you to hold a local inquiry." That will not come from just one area. The interests represented in different sections of this Committee will take very good care to see that it is not one objection that will be on the Minister's plate but a couple of hundred, and they will all say, "You give way to this objection, or 200 local inquiries"—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, No."] That is what will happen if this Amendment is accepted. I have some experience of inquiries held by Government Departments into matters affecting local administration, and I know that it takes time to get an appropriate inspector from the Ministry to conduct the inquiry. It takes time to find an appropriate place at which the inquiry is to be held; it takes time to see that all the persons who are properly interested in the inquiry are given notice to be there, and they again will produce further delay because they will say, "Wait a minute, you cannot hold the inquiry next month or the month after. We must instruct counsel, we must be adequately briefed and represented." The procedure, it this were conceded, might hang up the whole of the operations of the scheme for obtaining the development plan to get on with the job which this Bill envisages. For those cogent reasons, I hope that the Minister will reject this Amendment.
    Mr. Coleģate: I have very great sympathy indeed with this Amendment and I did not follow the hon. and learned Member's arguments against it. It is quite clear that in a Bill of this kind there are many of what the hon. and learned Member calls sectional interests, although I think he refers to them as denominational when he speaks of his own.
    Mr. Huģhes: I have never in the course of the discussions on this Bill argued once for my own denomination. I have argued for Protestants, Nonconformists, council

    285
    schools and public schools in general, but never once have I uttered a word here in favour of my own denomination, the Welsh Calvinistic Methodists.
    Mr. Coleģate: I have my own opinion upon that, but it is quite clear that a number of interests are affected very cogently and very directly, and I think the Committee should make every effort to meet any of those objections which can be met without upsetting the whole scheme. Here is an opportunity where we can meet what are obviously the very sincere feelings of a certain section of the community, without doing any harm to the main intentions of the Bill, and I therefore support it. You do not get rid of friction by slurring it over in the preliminary stages. If you are to have friction, you had much better have it out, than prevent people bringing up their real objections by refusing them the facility for inquiry and then afterwards saying, "Let us hope for the best and that they mill forget about it." That is not the way to make a sound scheme; the way is to give everyone an opportunity of airing their opinions in so far as they have a legitimate locus standi and then trying to meet their objections.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is it not clear that the Minister will not be desirous of creating feeling amongst any section in connection with this matter, and will be willing to meet them to the utmost possible limit, and is it not better that that spirit should prevail?
    Mr. Coleģate: I thank my hon. Friend for supporting this Amendment, because that is the very point. The movers of the Amendment have provided that all such objections being withdrawn then the proposed inquiry shall not be held. We are told that there should be ample time for inquiries to be held but you will find that this provision would be used only in cases where there is strong local feeling or strong religious opinion and I think it will be the exception rather than the rule.
    Mr. Butler: If the situation were as simple as my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Colegate) has made out, I might find it easier to meet my hon. Friends who moved the Amendment. But let us face the facts of the situation. We all want aggrieved persons to have a
    286
    chance of stating their views and we all want inquiries to be held whenever there is an injustice but this is a question to do with the submission by an authority of a development plan. It is quite clear that in this matter the less delay we have the better. The sense of the Committee has been in favour of speeding up the submission of development plans and if we were to adopt the Amendment in the terms as drawn on the Order Paper we should throw into our education administrative system cause for indefinite delay. The hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes) who, with great modesty and wisdom refrained from representing his own religious views, pointed out that this might lead to certain troubles and that it might be in the best interests of the movers of the Amendment if we accepted it in the terms on the Order Paper. I think the movers of the Amendment are mixing two things. This development plan refers only to the layout of existing schools within the authority's area. When we come to Clause 12, which deals with the establishment and discontinuance of county and auxiliary schools, there is full provision laid down in Sub-section (3) for objections to be made and when it comes to a new school or the discontinuance of an auxiliary school there is elaborate machinery under which to local government electors can object to the proposals. On the matters where they are likely to be affected the Bill is wide and democratic in the sense they desire.
    Let us go back to the development plan on the existing schools. If this were to be published in the "London Gazette," even supposing I accepted the words, "and or," or "or and," I do not think it would give great satisfaction. Let us take an area in Wales, such as that represented by the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen. I do not think the citizens of that district would feel particularly excited if they had this published in the "London Gazette" or the Press generally. What they want is that the people they understand and know should be happy about the layout which the authorities suggest for their area. If Members will look at this Clause they will see that there are elaborate provisions under which a local education authority, before submitting the plan to the Minister, must consult with all the small educational units involved, such as the managers or governors of the different schools. In

    287
    my opinion, it is through their own local representatives that those who support the Movers of this Amendment will find their salvation. If there is adequate machinery for consultation with all those engaged in the conduct of school administration that will be sufficient, rather than resorting to the ambitious and dilatory method suggested in the Amendment. If you differentiate between a development plan for existing schools and an elaborate plan for new schools those who moved the Amendment are fully covered. But if, on the other hand, you stick to the layout of administration, to accept an Amendment as elaborate as this would not be appropriate and would slow up things enormously. The Government will examine this matter with a view to seeing whether we can do anything but I cannot accept the Amendment in the rather broad terms in which it has been drawn, although I well understand the motives of the hon. Members who have supported it.
    Mr. Stokes: We are, naturally, in some difficulty at this stage of the Bill but if the Minister can assure us now that he will endeavour to cover our main fear, namely, that some arbitrary local authority, without consultation with the governors of schools, will insist on certain developments and improvements in a school which the governors are totally unable to provide, then I think OUT fears would be met. We want to provide for the persons who have, hitherto, run their schools very well, although perhaps not so up to date as they should have been. We want the closest possible co-operation. [Laughter.] Well, it is the Minister who wants to continue the dual system, not we. We do not want the dual system. All we want is that the State should provide schools with Catholic teachers.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think we can have a discussion on the dual system.
    Mr. Stokes: I was only answering the imputation by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes) about our lack of co-operation. I was trying to make it clear that we wanted the maximum co-operation. We want to have the best for our children. We do not want to have schools arbitrarily closed. We want the fullest inquiry of there is anything which cannot be carried out because of the financial burden.
    Mr. Butler: I think the answer to the hon. Member is to be found in Clause 64. If there is a dispute on a matter between managers or governors and an authority it automatically comes to the Minister for determination. However, I would rather like to look into the matter from that angle than from the elaborate manner in which it has been suggested.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Henry Brooke: There are two points that I would like to mention in connection with this Clause, which is of key importance to the future layout of primary and secondary education in this country. This Clause makes 1st April, 1946, a crucial date. That is the date before which every local education authority has to make up its mind how its schools are to be arranged for primary and secondary education. I hope the Minister will make sure, if he is setting up any further Committees or securing any further authoritative reports from independent bodies, that they will be submitted and published well before that date, and not shortly afterwards, because it would throw this work into chaos if reports and recommendations of the greatest significance for education were published and were to become available shortly after instead of well before that important date-1st April, 1946. We had an interesting Debate at an earlier stage of the Bill on rural education, when it was obvious that the Committee wished local education authorities to give careful attention to the most modern and enlightened views as to the manner in which education in rural areas should be organised in future. I do not know whether that is one of the subjects which the Minister intends to refer to his new Advisory Councils. Personally, I hope it will be. But if he is setting on foot any new inquiry of that sort, will he make sure that the findings are available before the date when local education authorities have to submit their development plans? It will be disastrous if all plans have to be reconsidered in the light of new and important findings which are published shortly afterwards.
    My second point concerns consultation. I am sure the Committee wishes that all consultation carried out under this Bill should be constructive, and not merely

    289
    formal so as to comply with the Statute. I had an Amendment on this point which was not called. It is not that I want to insist on the Government altering the actual words of the Bill, but where, for instance, local education authorities are required under this Clause to consult managers or governors of auxiliary schools there are two ways in which that consultation can be carried out. They can either take the managers and governors into their confidence at the beginning of the preparation of their development plan and invite their views at the first possible moment, or, in a conceivable case where a narrow-minded local education authority had perhaps had some quarrel with those interested in religious education in the area, the authority might claim that it was complying with the Statute by writing a week or two before the last possible date and saying "Here is our development plan. This is Monday. Please let us have your comments by Wednesday, because the Statute requires that the plans shall be submitted to the Minister by Thursday." That would not be the consultation which this Committee desires. I had hoped that it might be possible to alter the terms of the Bill to secure that the consultation was genuine, but now I would ask my right hon. Friend to give an assurance that he will do everything in his power to make certain that the consultation required by this Bill is carried out in a way that is truly constructive.
    Mr. Lindsay: One thing which, I have been told outside, is causing great consternation is the shortage of local authority staffs. Could I get some assurance that the right hon. Gentleman will do everything in his power not only to maintain their present staffs but, if necessary, to get back further staff so that their plans may be carried through?
    Mr. Huģhes: There is one point on which I should like some assurance. This is the Clause which lays out the scheme described as the blue print of the educational future. When you have that, there will be contained in it an outline of the new secondary system that we envisage—the new system of secondary schools of three types. It has been emphasised from the earliest day on which the White Paper was discussed that it is necessary that these three types of school shall be created on the same level, so that
    290
    no child who goes to a technical secondary school will feel in any way inferior to a child who goes to a secondary grammar or modern school. They must be equated. Sub-section (2) lays down that the nature of the education and the ages of the pupils shall be provided as part of the general plan. Surely, in order to equate these three types of secondary school it is essential that somewhere or other, either specifically in the plan or by directions that the Minister may give before he approves it, specific provision should be made governing the conditions of admission of pupils to these schools. Otherwise we shall find schools of the old grammar school type hand selecting and being maintained at a level consistently higher than the technical and modern school. I should like an assurance that the right hon. Gentleman will see to it that in these plans for the future there is control not only as to the education to be provided and the ages of the pupils to be taught but as to the conditions governing admission to the schools.
    Earl Winterton: I should like to take up one point which has been made by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay). I am slightly concerned at the pressure that exists on all sorts of Ministers to release staff for certain purposes. No one can tell what the manpower position will be in 1945. It may be a question not of releasing staff but of calling up more for the Forces.
    Mr. Lindsay: I only mentioned it because I think it is very bad for the country to let it go out that we can do a great many things that we cannot do. I am aware of the great pressure that is going to be put on the staffs.
    Mr. Gallacher: The important thing in connection with the consultations referred to in the Clause is that those who may have objections arising out of the Clause should feel satisfied that the Minister is ready to meet them. The measure of co-operation which will be absolutely essential will depend to a very great extent on how the Minister carries out the obligations that arise under the Clause. If the necessary sympathetic attention is given to objections that are felt, there will be no need in my opinion for any friction during the course of the operation of the Bill or of this Clause.
    Mr. Stokes: I should like to say a few words in support of the views expressed

    291
    by the hon. Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Brooke). I hope the Minister will seriously consider the representations that have been made with regard to proper consultation. We feel that, if there is an opportunity for the ventilation of all grievances, the objections which we have to the Clause as it stands will be removed. I should like to tell the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes) that this is not a blue print at all, It is a sketch.
    The Deputy-Chairman: And this is a Clause.
    Mr. Stokes: It is most regrettable that in a Debate on education we should use the expression "blue print" in its wrongful meaning. It is wrongfully used all over the world.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I intended to explain shortly that the hon. Member must not talk about blue prints.
    Mr. Stokes: I have been trying to get this off my chest for years and, as the opportunity even now is not favourable, I will sit down.
    Mr. Butler: I think the Committee is to be congratulated on having concluded the discussion of one of the most important Clauses of the Bill in a most businesslike manner, and I am obliged for the progress that we have been able to make. The Committee has taken part in the deliberations in a constructive manner and I hope it may now be possible to get the Clause and make a little more progress. I accept the spirit in which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Brooke) spoke, and he was supported by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) and the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). I think it is most important that the consultation should take place in the same spirit of co-operation that these three hon. Members have shown in associating themselves with the Amendment. We are seeing so happy a spirit of co-operation that I hope it will be reflected not only in the country generally but in the local authorities' areas as well. We are indeed setting an example to the world of education.
    The points raised by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) and the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl
    292
    Winterton) were very well worth making. At present local authorities are working on a very bare minimum. We hope the time will come when they will able to enlarge their staffs by the inclusion of those whose minds and ideas are refreshed by the experiences through which they have been passing, but that will take time and therefore, though the Government wish to press ahead as fast as they can with these development plans—and we have resisted any Amendment likely to delay the Bill in any way—it must be realised under what a severe strain some of these authorities are working. That is why I have not always been able to give as much information and statistics as I should desire. Local authorities have made one of the biggest drives that have been made recently in war time—I refer to the milk and meals scheme particularly—with reduced staffs and, when we come to constitutional development, I am sure they will show the same vision as they have shown in war time. The question of secondary education will be included in this development plan. The hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen is interested in the question of entry to the secondary schools, a subject of burning interest which will arise on Clause 16. Apart from that particular issue, I assure him that there will be in these plans the plan that authorities have of the new secondary world. It is in that new secondary world and the new primary world, too—because by an Amendment the Committee has accepted to this Clause the range of primary education is now to be set before us in its various types—that we will see the whole range of peaks of opportunity which this Bill provides.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 11.—(Local education orders with respect to primary and secondary education.)
    Mr. Bartle Bull: I beg to move, in page 9, line 27, after "which," to insert, "and to any local authority who."
    There are a number of other names above mine to this Amendment, and I cannot understand why those hon. Members are absent, except it be that the Government propose to accept the Amendment. I have heard a lot of Members say to-day that they do not wish to hold up the Bill,

    293
    but still they speak at great length. I do not propose to do that. If my hon. Friends whose names appear to this Amendment above mine and I can understand something of what the Amendment means, I think that the President and the Parliamentary Secretary can equally well understand it. The Parliamentary Secretary said a little time ago that he did not accept an Amendment moved by one hon. Gentleman but that he would accept another one. If he will accept this or the next Amendment in my name I shall be grateful.
    Mr. Ede: I regret that we are not able to accept the Amendment in the form in which it is moved. It covers a wide range of authorities because, in addition to the county district councils, whose numbers I enumerated on a previous Amendment, it includes every parish council in the country. We are sincerely desirous of affording the localities an opportunity of making their views known and we will consider whether it can properly, be done on the First Schedule. If not, we will endeavour on the next stage of the Bill to submit words that will ensure that the appropriate bodies in the localities shall be in a position to express views with relation to this Clause.
    The Deputy-Chairman: Before we leave this Amendment, I should say that the next Amendment, in line 31, after "proprietor," insert "or by such local authority," can be discussed with it. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman would like to ask the Government if they will accept the second Amendment. We shall have to deal with them separately, but they can be discussed together.
    Mr. Bull: I will ask the Government whether they will accept that Amendment.
    Mr. Ede: The answer on the second Amendment is the same as on the first.
    Mr. Bull: In view of that satisfactory assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir J. Mellor: I beg to move, in page 9, line 32, at the end, to add:
    "(3) If a local education authority inform the Minister that they are aggrieved by an order or by an amendment of an order made
    294
    under this Section the order or amendment shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be thereafter and if either House of Parliament within the period of forty days beginning with the day on which any such order or amendment is laid before it resolves that the order or amendment be annulled the order or amendment shall cease to have effect but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder or to the making of any new order or amendment.
    In reckoning any such period of forty days no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days."
    The purpose of the Amendment is to provide that where a local education authority is dissatisfied with the local education order or an amendment of an order which has been made by the Minister, and expresses that dissatisfaction to the Minister, the Minister will lay the order before Parliament, and if either House so resolves the order or the amendment shall be annulled. This Clause enables the Minister, by a local education order, to give effect to a plan which he has approved under the preceding Clause. Under that Clause the Minister can approve a plan after making such modifications as he considers necessary or expedient. Under this Clause he can, having given effect to a plan by a local education order, proceed to alter the plan by an amendment to the order. In each case he has to consider objections made by the local education authority, but he has complete and absolute power to make any alterations in the plan, either before or after making a local education order. In these circumstances, as his powers are dictatorial, it is only right that there should be an appeal to Parliament in cases where the local education authority is dissatisfied with the changes he has made in the plan. The Minister has, with respect to many previous Amendments, raised objections that they would involve delay and that he desires that unnecessary delay shall be avoided. This proposal would not involve any delay unless one or other of the two Houses of Parliament considered that the chances in the plan were undesirable. In those circumstances the delay would prove to be justified.
    Mr. Ede: The hon. Gentleman has moved his Amendment in the most convincing style. We have had to resist every other Amendment that has been moved by his group of Members, but in

    295
    view of the way in which this has been moved, my right hon. Friend has been moved and I am instructed to accept it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 12.—(Establishment and discontinuance of county and auxiliary schools.)
    Mr. Moelwyn Huģhes: I beg to move, in page 9, line 33, at the end, to insert:
    "otherwise than in pursuance of a development plan submitted under the provisions of section ten of this Act."
    This is a somewhat complicated Amendment. I want to remind the Committee of what has been passed in Clause 10. That has been described as the framework of the new educational system and it was implied by the Minister that it is of a rather general character. If we examine the Clause, however, we find that it is not quite as general as that. I am not going to roam over all the types of school included in it. I will take only the one example of the additional school. It says in Clause 10 (2, c) that the plan shall—
    The Deputy-Chairman: I do hope that we shall not get back to Clause 10.
    Mr. Huģhes: I am afraid that, in connection with this argument, I shall have to do so, because I am seeking to demonstrate to the Committee, and I hope to the satisfaction of the Minister, that in Clause 12 we are duplicating the work that Clause 10 has provided shall be done.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I do not remember the point which the hon. and learned Member says this Clause would duplicate, but if that is his argument, it is in Order.
    Mr. Huģhes: Clause 10 provides that there must be set out in the development plan particulars as to additional schools. It is not general, because, as hon. Members will see from Sub-section (3), it is the duty of the local education authority to consult the managers and governors of schools affected. It is quite patent that unless the plan provides for a county school in a particular place, it will be impossible for the authority to know what existing schools are affected and what managers or governors shall be informed. Clearly, therefore, for the purpose of a development plan, a new additional
    296
    county school must be something specific. If we go back to Sub-section 2 (a) we find that it is even more specific; because the plan has to say exactly the type of education that is being provided there. As laid down by Clause 10, the development plan will have to provide an additional county school of a particular type, supplying a particular kind of education. That is perfectly plain.
    Having the matter before them in the plan, the authority will have to consult the managers of all schools affected and consider all objections to the development plan which have been placed within a period of two months. Then the Minister himself has to consider the matter and to see what is behind it. He has to be satisfied. Again, we go through this procedure. Having done that, under Clause 11, which we have passed, the Minister makes an Order. The Order, by the terms of Clause 11, becomes a direction on the local education authority to proceed. I would remind the Committee that, under Clause 11,
    "the local education order for every area shall continue to regulate the duties of the local education authority."
    In other words, having gone through this elaborate procedure, having got a development plan, confirmation of the Minister, and the making of an education order, it is then the duty of the local education authority to build that county school, of that particular type, in that particular spot.
    Now, with my apologies to the Committee for having taken them so far back, I come to Clause 12. We have provided for the new school to go up and for it to be the duty of the local authority to do it. Let us turn to Clause 12 to see what is going to happen—I limit myself to the new county school—where the local education authority intend to establish one. We have gone through this procedure already; shall the local education authority build it? No. We start over again. The Clause says that they shall submit proposals to the Minister. A more scandalous duplication and delay in obedience to sectional interests it is difficult to imagine. Let us go on. We do not finish there. We go on to Subsection (3). It is duplicated again, because the matter goes back to the Minister. He has had it twice already. After it has gone to the Minister under

    297
    Sub-section (3) he will have to give public notice. Then the managers of schools affected—they have already been consulted before the plan was approved, and had an opportunity already of objecting to the Minister and so have been heard twice—for the third time are to have the right, according to the Clause, to come to the Minister and submit objections; for the third time. Not only that, but we provide another hurdle. Any ten local government electors—any ten sectional interests you like—have to be there.
    Why this duplication? [An HON. MEMBER: "Waste of time."] It is not only a waste of time but it is another implied concession—hardly implied. It is an actual concession, although not in terms—to sectional interests. It is a concession to people who want to stand in the way of the plan being effective and new schools being built. The Amendment includes words to secure that there shall be no need to go through this procedure, which has already been gone through in connection with the development plan. I can imagine the procedure might be useful if it was desired to build new schools before a development plan had been approved. It would be sensible, in order to build schools ahead of the development plan, but when the development plan has been passed, this is only an invitation to every kind of obstructor, to the kind of people who say: "This is a wonderful Bill, and we want to see it in operation," because they dare not face it and oppose it, but who watch for every opportunity to put sprags in the wheel and prevent it from going full speed ahead.
    Mr. Cove: It sounds to me like a bad Bill.
    Mr. Ede: One must congratulate the hon. and learned Member upon the way in which he can tear a passion to tatters on the very slightest provocation.
    Hon. Members: Oh.
    Mr. Buchanan: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Mr. Williams, whether it is in Order for Members of a Coalition Government to talk like this to one another?
    The Deputy-Chairman: I am not responsible for the way in which members of a party or of a Committee talk, to one another, so long as they do it within the bounds of Order.
    Mr. Ede: After the language which my hon. and learned Friend has just used I am surprised that he should have felt at all hurt in the matter. The last thing I wanted to do was to hurt him. If he does feel hurt I willingly admit that it was a calm and reasoned speech. The hon. and learned Member has, I think, rather over stressed the amount of detail there will be in the development plan with regard to the schools. He said, for instance—I give just one example—that the development plan will show the spot on which the school will be situated. I very much doubt with regard to new schools whether it will show anything of the sort. It will say perhaps that in a particular town or village or district there will be a school of a particular kind built. When it comes to the actual submission of the plan it may very well be that the local education authority will propose to put it on a site that may bring it into competition with some of the other schools of the district, and members of other bodies of managers and governors will object that the school, if erected, will in some way prejudicially affect the school for which they are responsible. It may very well be that they will be quite satisfied, and were satisfied when the development plan was submitted, that a school in broad general terms in which it had been intimated was needed. It may even be that the inhabitants of the place themselves may very well feel they would sooner have it in some other part of the district than the one in which it is proposed to erect it.
    Mr. Moelwyn Huģhes: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me what is the difference between the expression in Clause 10, Subsection (3):
    "The managers or governors of all schools … affected by the execution of the plan. …"
    and the expression in Clause 12, Subsection (3):
    "the managers or governors of any auxiliary school affected by the proposals. …"
    Mr. Ede: Clearly that was the point I was endeavouring to explain. The plan indicates generally that in a particular town or village, let us say, a county secondary school will be provided. It says nothing more than that. It will probably indicate the size of the school, of let us say a school for 500 secondary pupils. When it comes to the actual

    299
    placing of the school in a district, the locality, which was quite prepared to accept it in general terms, may have very strong views with regard to the actual location. I have, for instance, had to attend inquiries under the old Act where 10 ratepayers, as they then were, have turned up and objected very strongly to the proposal to place a school on a particular site that would involve a substantial number of children crossing a main road. The locality has very strong views indeed on occasion with regard to the exact situation of a school. If we are going to delay the development plan until, with respect to every new school, we indicate exactly where the site is and all the other details that will have to be available when the proposal is submitted, it is quite clear that we shall have imposed delays which all the day we have been trying to avoid.
    Also this Clause enables 10 local government electors to make their views known. No such provision is made under the development plan. This does really give the point at which parents can make a most effective contribution to the settlement of the educational proposals for their district. For these reasons it is clearly desirable that even in respect of schools which have been included in the development plan, whether they are new schools or whether it is proposed to close an old school, there shall be specific local notice given so that the views of the locality can be made known and effectively heard. There is therefore no real duplication in this matter at all. Everyone throughout the day has been exceedingly anxious to secure two things which unless we are careful might be mutually destructive. The first is speed in the preparation of the development plan. The second is certainty that local views shall get an adequate voice in the settlement of the detailed proposals with regard to education. The Government in framing this gave consideration to the question as to whether it would be necessary, in respect of schools that had been included in a development plan, to make these proposals. We came to the conclusion that in dealing with new schools and with the closing of old schools, it was exceedingly desirable that the local people should have an effective opportunity of making their views known before the actual operation takes place.
    300
    I hope the Committee will feel that this is not an unreasonable provision with regard to new schools. One hopes that the development plan is going to look a good many years ahead in the framing of its proposals, and a perfectly general proposal in a development plan may be sufficient, provided everyone in the locality has an assurance that when the actual scheme for the new school or the closing of an old one is to be put into operation, they will be able to make their views heard. This will enable us to get rid of a good many objections on points of detail that might arise on the stage of the development plan unless we include in Clause 12 this opportunity for making proposals.
    Major Woolley: Does the proposal cover existing schools, because Clause 12 (b) says:
    "to maintain as a county school any school which at the time being is not such a school."
    Therefore the school may become a county school and not come within the proposal.
    Mr. Ede: That is precisely the kind of thing on which the locality might desire to have an opportunity of expressing an opinion. Let us suppose that the managers of some voluntary school propose to hand a fabric over to the county to be maintained in future as a county school. Parents may very well say, "We would far sooner have a new county school than take over this building, for which we have never had any great respect in the past," and try to make their views known. I hope the Committee will realise that this is an endeavour, where the actual domesticity of the locality is being considered, to give parents of the children a really effective voice, because after all 100 local government electors only means five husbands and five wives, that is on the assumption that each one of them has only one wife and that they are law-abiding citizens. Seriously, this is an example of the way in which this Clause is an improvement on what is now the law because under the existing law you have to get 10 ratepayers. Very often you get an objection taken to the parent of a pupil on the ground that he is not a ratepayer. Now most parents come under the heading of local government electors and very rarely are the mothers of schoolchildren ratepayers. The only case, generally speaking, is where the mother is a widow. We really have endeavoured in this Clause

    301
    to make local wishes effective with regard to the domesticity of particular communities.
    Mr. Cove: I have been consulting my hon. Friends on this side, and what troubles us is that you seem to give a few electors such a long period of time. We cannot believe that there is any justification for a mere 10 electors being able to hold up the thing for three months.
    Mr. Ede: We are here re-enacting the existing law, which gives three months for 10 ratepayers or the managers of other schools to lodge their objections. Three months is not an unreasonable time to give these people, who have to hold their meetings, and, quite possibly, want to have local consultations with a view to avoiding raising objections. If they can get together to solve their problems, it may save the longer delay which would occur if they had to make their objections in a shorter time.
    Mr. C. Davies: I am surprised at my hon. Friend's answer. When I saw the Amendment, I thought my hon. and learned Friend had filled in a lacuna in the drafting of the Bill. I had no idea that it was intended to duplicate in Clause 12 all that we had on Clause 10. I thought that my hon. and learned Friend was taking a long time to explain the obvious, which we had accepted. Now I find that it is really the intention of the Government that there shall be duplication, and, as a result, delay and more delay. The Parliamentary Secretary did not do justice to himself or to Clause 10. It was suggested that Clause 10 does not particularise, but merely deals with a general situation, and that only when you particularise would Clause 12 apply. They have to
    "specify which of the said schools the authority would propose and be county primary schools, county secondary schools"
    and so on respectively. Then it goes on:
    "specify what alterations are, by reason of the provisions of this Act or of any regulations made thereunder, required in the premises of any school proposed to be either a county school or an auxiliary school, and furnish estimates of the cost of those alterations."
    Nothing could be more particular than that.
    Mr. Ede: That does not cover the question of altering it from a county to an auxiliary school.
    Mr. Davies: It says:
    "specify what alterations are, by reason of the provisions of this Act or of any regulations made thereunder, required in the premises of any school proposed to be either a county school or an auxiliary school, and furnish estimates of the cost of those alterations."
    Very well, you have a school now which is not a county school. Under the Bill that can be changed into a county school. If they propose to do so alterations will have to be made and they will have to specify them.
    It being one hour after 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.

  INFANT MORTALITY, SCOTLAND
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Beechman.]
  Major Markham: It is with considerable diffidence that I, an Englishman, rise to speak on a Scottish subject, but it is one in which, I think, all humanity is interested, namely, the question of infant mortality. Hon. Members will remember that up to 1941 Scottish infant mortality was rising very rapidly, and this House showed considerable concern at the position. The House welcomed very much the statement of the Secretary of State for Scotland on 8th July, 1942:
  "I have been very concerned, as we all are, about our infantile mortality figures. The figure per 1,000 births rose from 68 … in 1939—and that in itself was a high figure—to 78 in 1940, and 83 in 1941. I have asked the Department of Health's Scientific Advisory Committee, under the Chairmanship of Sir John Boyd Orr, to consider and report quickly, if they can, the causes of this rise and to suggest remedial measures."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th July, 1942; col. 787, Vol. 381.]
  That statement was warmly welcomed. The House welcomed the fact that the Committee was to be set up, to go into the latest situation in regard to infant mortality. Yet in the introduction to the Report we find that "the Committee has confined itself to pre-war conditions." My first question is, Who changed the terms of reference? This House was given one set of terms of reference, the Committee has had another. The House was under the impression that the Committee would

  303
  go into infant mortality right up to date, yet the Committee has limited its investigations to pre-war conditions. The changes in diet, housing, employment, medical services, and so on have had a profound effect during the war years, and it would have been of very profound assistance, not only to Scotland but to England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and, indeed, to the Empire generally, if this Committee had carried out its terms of reference as the Secretary of State for Scotland announced them in this House.
  I will refer to the Report, for convenience, as the Boyd Orr Report, although I understand, from the "Aberdeen Free Press" of 4th February, that Sir John Boyd Orr has denied that he had anything to do with the sub-committee which drew up the Report. One of the reasons given in this Report as to why the Committee has not gone into the war situation is that there is little information published for the war years. That, I suggest, is definitely untrue. There is a wealth of information available, not only as regards Scotland but as regards England and Wales, which would have done admirably for comparative purposes, and also as regards the United States, New Zealand, Australia, and so on.
  I would remind the Minister that on 20th January, in this House, I asked for certain statistics up to August, 1943, and I was very pleasantly surprised at the wealth of information the right hon. Gentleman gave, not only in the course of that answer, but which he sent to me privately after. Much information relating to the war years was available, and I suggest that it is definitely untrue to suggest that there was no information which the Committee could have considered for that period. My second point is in regard to the Minister's foreword, and my purpose here is to be helpful and constructive. I am not concerned in damning anybody in this Report. I genuinely want to help. The Minister, in his foreword, says:
  "for the first time all the known comparisons are carefully marshalled."
  That, I suggest, is untrue. There is no detailed comparison with other countries including Iceland, and I suggest Iceland deliberately because Northern Scotland and Iceland have to a large extent the same climatic conditions. There is no comparison with the great American cities which I suggest might be compared with
  304
  Glasgow, or any detailed comparison with Australia, and, of course, no diagnosis of war time fluctuations in any of these countries. Then the Minister goes on:
  "A medical committee of great experience and authority under the chairmanship of one of the leading scientists of our time, has diagnosed the cause or causes of the lamentable place Scotland takes among the great nations in the saving of infant life."
  I suggest that that statement is not strictly accurate. My final quarrel with the Minister's introduction is this. He says:
  "Remedies and alleviations must be found for our infantile mortality position in the immediate post-war years."
  The question obviously is—why not now? This question is urgent and important, and to adopt this attitude of "Let us see what happens after the war" is, to my mind, quite incredible on a vital problem of this importance.
  May I now refer to the Report, and here I should like to say that I criticised some points in connection with this Report in the "British Medical Journal," for 5th February, and sent a copy of my letter to the Minister. My first point is that the statistical basis of the Report is poor. It is very evident that there was not a very good statistician at the service of this Committee. There are errors, very crude errors, such as I have never seen before in any Government publication, and perhaps one of the astonishing things is the fact that some of the comparative tables—from Table 1 to Table 29—are for the period 1934 to 1938, and I cannot understand why so ancient and limited a period should have been selected. The information for the immediate war years and early years of the war was available. The curious thing is that the section of the Report which deals with stillbirths does use information and statistics relating to the war years. If they could be used for stillbirths they could have been used on infant mortality as a whole. I will not go into the statistical errors in detail, but will furnish a list to the Minister if he will promise to circulate an errata slip to the Report through the usual channels. I would rather like to see that done.
  But I do wish to refer to two statements—major errors. On page 30 of the Report it says:
  "Statistics relating to the percentage of the insured population unemployed in English cities are not available.

  305
  Every Member of the House knows that we had a magnificent struggle around these figures in pre-war years. The figures are available in the Ministry of Labour Unemployment Index right up to 1939. They were the bases of many discussions in this House over the distressed areas, and the reason why these statistics were not given to the Committee shows how sadly they were lacking in real statistical assistance.
  Another astonishing statement, on page 61, is that
  "the rich both in England and Scotland have infantile mortality rates approaching the limit of what is attainable with present knowledge of how to control environment."
  Considering that the English rate (Class I, page 16) is 33 per 1,000 and that for Scotland demonstrably higher, it is obvious that these figures will have to be reduced to a third before they approach or equal the New Zealand or Dutch figures for comparable classes. Actually, Chicago, New York, New Zealand, Utah and Iceland have already got a rate of 29 per thousand, and therefore there is a suggestion of deep pessimism in this passage of the Report unwarranted by the facts. Another statement on page 62 is that:
  "It is difficult and of doubtful value to make comparisons between the present Scottish services and those in other countries because the nature of the services varies and detailed information is difficult to procure."
  There is the suggestion of a closed mind in such a sentence as that. It says in effect that Scotland is so perfect that they need not go anywhere else and that they can reduce their infantile mortality figures to a third of the present rate without considering what other areas have done. I would remind the House that not a single visit was paid by any member of the Committee, nor was any oral evidence taken. No effort was made, with the exception of a few letters sent to the United States, Australia and New Zealand, to find out what other countries were doing and yet the Minister says in his foreword:
  "All the known comparisons are carefully marshalled."
  The statement that detailed information is difficult to procure is untrue. There is a wealth of information available here in London, and the Committee charged with this responsibility should have gone further and sought more widely for the remedies for this appalling situation in Scotland. May now I deal with the gaps in the Report? In the first place, there is
  306
  no mention of changes due to war conditions, such as reduction in unemployment and poverty and changes in diet, and diet is of some importance. There is no reference to national bread and to the fact that calcium and vitamin B1 have been added to it, and yet the tables in the Report would seem to say that the diet in Scotland is still deficient in these two important elements. There is no reference to problems caused by evacuation, or the effect on infantile mortality of the fuel shortage. There is no mention of alcoholism, which has a certain impact on infantile mortality. There is no mention of vitamin E, the reproductive vitamin which is important. I remember the old rhyme:
  "Vitamin E, Vitamin E,
  That's the stuff for you and me.
  It kills all the hopes of dear Marie Stopes,
  And produces the seed for a good familie."
  To omit all reference to vitamin E in a nutritional report on infantile mortality is deplorable. Another gap is that there is no information regarding the difference between the infantile mortality rates in ordinary homes and institutions. That would have been extremely useful. There is no mention that in other countries the rate is as low as 29 per cent. Most of the overseas comparisons are from six to 10 years old.
  When we come to Scottish conditions, there is no mention of the new Simpson Memorial Hospital at Edinburgh, which has air-conditioned wards. One would like to know whether they are successful or not. There is no mention of "Infant Life," which is a publication of the American Children's Bureau and possibly the most important publication issued in America dealing with infantile mortality. It has a circulation of hundreds of thousands, if not millions. It is the publication on which the instruction of expectant mothers is based in the United States, yet the Committee apparently has not seen it, and does not know of its existence. I repeat that when the Minister says that "all the known comparisons are carefully marshalled" and that the Committee "has diagnosed the cause or causes of the lamentable place Scotland takes," such a statement demands some explanation. The Report, too, should have given some attention to environmental conditions, including smoke and fog.
  There is not the slightest doubt that smoke and fog combined play a very large

  307
  part in general bad health and in infant mortality. If you compare the winter sickness and death rates against the summer, the winter is always 50 per cent. higher and very often 100 per cent. This Report says that the winter has very little effect on infantile mortality. Throughout the world you will find this swing from winter to summer, and there is obviously something in the climate which affects infant life. For that reason the Americans have tackled this problem from the point-of-view of air conditioning and have made a great success of it. There is also the question of fuel, which the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) raised in the House the other day. It is very important, from the point-of-view of the proper warmth of the mother and child in those most important days, and the ideal temperatures are several degrees higher than those in the average Scottish home. I am now on my last two minutes or I would have liked to quote from the report of the Medical Officer of Health for Nottingham, 1942, on this question of smoke and fog, but perhaps hon. Members will look that up for themselves.
  May I finish by making nine constructive suggestions to the Minister? They are these. First of all, that when he considers infantile mortality from the point of view of a broad programme, he should give attention to these questions of environmental conditions, and that temperatures for all new-born babies should be kept as far as possible to 70 to 75 degrees night and day, which is the American ideal, and has helped greatly to reduce infantile deaths there.
  Dr. Haden Guest: Is that in the Glasgow tenements?
  Major Markham: That is an ideal to be aimed at. It can be worked. The next point is that all premature infants should be reported within an hour, and that there should be electrically-heated ambulances to bring them into hospital and scientifically heated wards or incubators. That may be a policy of idealism, but it must be aimed at if you want to keep mortality down. Then there should be intensive training for special nurses to deal with premature infants on the lines of the Chicago development. Clinics and infant welfare services should be improved
  308
  by making them clean, warm and comfortable. Next, the Minister should set up a committee of non-medical men to go into these environmental factors in infant life—
  Dr. Morģan: Why?
  Major Markham: With special consideration to recent developments in the United States. Next, he should press ahead with housing and heating and ventilation appliances. The next point is that he should embark upon a national campaign for adolescent and expectant mothers on the lines of the Chicago campaign, and finally—and this is perhaps the most controversial thing I have said—he should break down the old fallacy that the Scots are a hardy race. They are not a hardy race. Their infantile mortality is higher than almost any other part of Europe. The expectation of life is four years less than the average Englishman's. Their death rate is higher. He should get the Scot to admit frankly that 5,000 Scottish children die every year from dirt, cold, and ignorance.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): I would have welcomed a discussion on this matter, but there is not enough time left and I have a wide field to cover.
  Mr. Buchanan: We have been promised a day for discussing this question. It is most unfair of the hon. and gallant Member to come in for half-an-hour when the Government have promised us a full day to discuss the matter.
  Major Markham: This was arranged before the hon. Member raised it in the House.
  Mr. Johnston: In any case the Government's promise to afford facilities through the usual channels for an adequate discussion on this matter still stands. May I, as briefly as I can, seek to cover some of the difficult points which the hon. and gallant Member has raised? First of all, the composition of the Scientific Advisory Committee, who co-opted the Boyd Orr Committee, is Sir John Boyd Orr himself, Professor Carl Hamilton Browning, Professor Crew, Professor Daly, Sir John Fraser—the most eminent surgeon we have—Professor David Murray Lyon, Sir Alexander MacGregor—Medical Officer of

  309
  Health for the largest city in Scotland—Professor MacKie, Sir Edward Mellanby—the secretary of the United Kingdom Medical Research Council—and Professor Tulloch. This is the parent body which selected or co-opted the Boyd Orr Committee. Who did they co-opt? They co-opted Doctor Baird—Regius Professor of Midwifery at Aberdeen—Doctor Douglas—chief Maternity and Child Welfare Officer of the Department of Health for Scotland. I will say something about their qualifications in a moment.
  They co-opted the matron of the hospital, the Simpson Memorial Maternity Pavilion, Royal Infirmary, Edinburgh, which has had, since 1939, the very air conditioning experiments to which the hon. and gallant Member referred. She was a member of this Committee, so she did know about the experiments in Chicago without requiring to go there and see them. Other members of the Committee were Dr. Stanley Graham, Visiting Physician, Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Glasgow; Dr. James Hendry, Regius Professor in Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the University of Glasgow; Dr. Isabella Leitch, Deputy Director, Imperial Bureau of Animal Nutrition, Aberdeenshire; Dr. Jean Mackintosh, Regional Medical Officer for Maternity and Child Welfare, Aberdeen; Dr. Peter McKinlay, a very eminent statistician; Dr. Charles McNeil, Professor of Child Life and Health, University of Edinburgh; Dr. Margaret Scott-Dickson, Maternity and Child Welfare Department, Dundee; Dr. Elenora Simpson, The James MacKenzie Institute, St. Andrews; and, lastly, Dr. Nora Wattie, Senior Child Welfare Medical Officer for Glasgow.
  I submit that nobody could have selected a more eminently qualified Committee than this. This Committee gave the reason why they did not analyse the war-time trend. They said that the reason governing their decision was that there was little published information for the war years. That is true. They said that the most important environmental conditions of diet, housing, employment and medical services are highly abnormal in most areas. That, also, is true. It is impossible, they said, to judge to what extent any of the changes which have incurred since 1939 are likely to be permanent.
  310
  From my point of view it would have been highly desirable that the Committee should have analysed war-time trends, if possible, because the trend is going down. Scotland, last year, had the lowest infant mortality in her history. [An HON. MEMBER: "What was it?"] It was 65 per 1,000. The point is that the Committee did not analyse the downward trend in the war years because, as they said, of the difficulty of getting a comparison, of getting accurate statistical data which would warrant conclusions being drawn from it. The hon. and gallant Member asked why the Committee did not pay a special visit to America and New Zealand. Well, the obvious answer is in the Appendix, if the hon. and gallant Member will look at it. There he will see an enormous list of the qualifications which five members of the Committee have as regards their knowledge of these things abroad. For example, Dr. Douglas, the chief maternity and welfare officer of the Department of Health, has qualifications and has knowledge of New Zealand, and other members of the Committee have been to Scandinavia and have knowledge of conditions there. There is another member who has actually got the air conditioning apparatus which the hon. and gallant Member so highly commended.
  Dr. Haden Guest: Which he obviously knew nothing about.
  Mr. Johnston: An hon. Gentleman said, What about coal? It is true that Sir William Beveridge draws attention to the fact that Scotland consumes about 13 per cent. less coal than the English household, but Titmuss goes out of his way to show that fuel conditions are not the cause of the whole of infant mortality in Holland, for example, and draws attention to the fact that the rate in Iceland, a very cold climate I should think, is 28.3 per thousand live births, and therefore in his judgment this question of heating the household is not a primary factor. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the New Zealand figure. We have to take great care in using foreign, colonial and Dominion comparisons. It is true that the New Zealand figure is 29, but that figure excludes the Maori figure, which is 97. I have not time to go into all these comparisons but let us compare like with like. It is hardly fair to exclude coloured populations and so on from your statistics and then compare them with

  311
  purely white figures of this sort. In July, 1939, our unemployment figure in Scotland was 11.5. In January, 1944, it is down to one, and I believe one of the component parts in causing the reduction in the infant mortality rate is the fact that there is a bigger income and that more purchasing power is coming into the home.
  I should like to say a word or two about what we are trying to do. We are doing a great deal. Our maternity homes have gone up 50 per cent.—and that is a big figure—during the war time, and we have 108 other maternity beds that we might use, which have been kept in very rural areas. If the women of the
  312
  country want the use of these 108 maternity beds they will get them. Lastly, the local authority associations, which have been consulted, are doing everything they can, and have promised to do everything they can, by increasing the intakes of orange juice, vitamin tablets and the rest of it, and by requisitioning more of the large houses in particular areas—
  It being half an hour after the conclusion of Business exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order, as modified for this Session by the Order of the House of 25th November.

ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Malta (Officers, Declarations)
  Malta (Officers, Declarations)
  Bombers (Losses)
  Bombers (Losses)
ROYAL NAVY
  Shore Leave
  Shore Leave
  L.C.Ts. (Production and Costs)
  L.C.Ts. (Production and Costs)
  PREFABRICATED HOUSES
  PREFABRICATED HOUSES
  SPAIN (COAL EMBARGO)
  SPAIN (COAL EMBARGO)
  FRENCH COMMITTEE OF LIBERATION, ALGIERS (HIS MAJESTY'S REPRESENTATIVE, SALARY)
  FRENCH COMMITTEE OF LIBERATION, ALGIERS (HIS MAJESTY'S REPRESENTATIVE, SALARY)
BRITISH ARMY
  Italy (Parcels)
  Italy (Parcels)
  Naples (Restrictions)
  Naples (Restrictions)
  Home Guard
  Home Guard
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Spanish Oranģes and Onions (Payment)
  Spanish Oranģes and Onions (Payment)
  RAILWAY ACCIDENT, ILFORD
  RAILWAY ACCIDENT, ILFORD
  ADVANCED MUSICAL TRAINING AND EDUCATION (COMMITTEE'S REPORT)
  ADVANCED MUSICAL TRAINING AND EDUCATION (COMMITTEE'S REPORT)
  BOTTLES (SALVAGE)
  BOTTLES (SALVAGE)
CIVIL DEFENCE
  Air Raid Warninģ (Improvements)
  Air Raid Warninģ (Improvements)
  A.R.P. Controller, Camberwell
  A.R.P. Controller, Camberwell
  Anti-Aircraft Barraģe (Casualties)
  Anti-Aircraft Barraģe (Casualties)
  BRITISH COUNCIL, STOCKHOLM
  BRITISH COUNCIL, STOCKHOLM
  FARMS (ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES)
  FARMS (ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES)
POST OFFICE
  North-East Suffolk (Postal Delays)
  North-East Suffolk (Postal Delays)
  Closed Rural Post Offices
  Closed Rural Post Offices
  Express Parcel Post, London
  Express Parcel Post, London
  ORDNANCE SURVEY MAPS
  ORDNANCE SURVEY MAPS
  ALLOTMENTS (POST-WAR POSITION)
  ALLOTMENTS (POST-WAR POSITION)
  CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT PROSECUTION (FUEL ECONOMISERS)
  CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT PROSECUTION (FUEL ECONOMISERS)
SCOTLAND
  Infant Mortality
  Infant Mortality
  Glasģow Housinģ Schemes (Cinemas)
  Glasģow Housinģ Schemes (Cinemas)
Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LORD GRETTON.
The Right Honourable John Gretton, C.B.E., having been created Baron Gretton of Stapleford in the County of Leicester—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD ROYDEN.
Sir Thomas Royden, Baronet, C.H., having been created Baron Royden of Frankby in the County Palatine of Chester—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
JEWISH COLONIZATION ASSOCIATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed.
ASCOT DISTRICT GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

INDIA (ATTACHMENT OF STATES) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The measure which I invite your Lordships to approve is intended to place beyond all manner of doubt the right of the Crown Representative, who is, of course, the Viceroy, to provide for the most suitable administration of a large number of small and very small States, or really, in fact, estates. More particularly is it concerned with the position of some four hundred petty States in Kathiawar and Gujerat, an area north of Bombay and lying between the Gulf of Cambay and the Gulf
804
of Cutch. I think that there is no necessity for me to delve into the past history of the origin of the British connexion with these petty States, but I can tell your Lordships what has occurred since just before the outbreak of war, when a comprehensive plan was drawn up for the attachment of the smaller States to the larger States in their particular neighbourhood. I hardly think it is necessary for me to emphasize the disastrous effect produced upon the 800,000 inhabitants of these States by the present multiplicity of jurisdiction and the fragmentation of their territories. That would be quite obvious to everyone.
Any dealings between them had to be conducted through the political officers and their staffs, who were fully occupied in settling difficulties arising between so many of these petty authorities. These Chiefs had been accorded certain personal privileges, which will be maintained to them under the new arrangements. Their territories of course have never been annexed to British India and their peoples are not British subjects, and they exercise practically no administrative powers. On the other hand, the political officers had neither the time nor indeed the administrative machinery to ensure that the Chiefs or Taluqdars, as they are more commonly known, employed their resources to the best possible advantage. The Crown Representative in April last year declared his intention to relinquish his jurisdiction over these petty States and authorized its assumption by larger neighbouring States, but subject to guaranteeing to the Taluqdars their existing rights, with a right of appeal to the Crown Representative officers, who will continue, as hitherto, to be responsible for their supervision in the interests of all concerned. By this arrangement the inhabitants of those States would secure the administrative benefits which are normal in British India and in the larger States, and which until now the Crown Representative has been unable to extend to the petty States through the lack of financial resources and personnel to furnish them on a scale which your Lordships would consider compatible with requirements. Law and order has been assured but public health, communications and education have not been established on a really modern basis.
In August last year a Taluqdar who had been attached to Gondal State filed a revision application in the Court of the

805
Judicial Commissioner, alleging that the order of attachment was illegal and beyond the powers conferred upon the Crown Representative by the Government of India Act, 1935, by the India (Foreign Jurisdiction) Order in Council of 1937, and by the Crown Representatives' Letters Patent. The Court delivered its judgment at the beginning of December allowing the appeal, and stating that the scheme contravened the proviso of Section 1 (2) of the Government of India Act, which states:
"Provided that any powers connected with the exorcise of the functions of the Crown in its relation with Indian States shall in India, if not exercised by His Majesty, be exercised only by, or by persons acting under the authority of, His Majesty's Representative for the exercise of these functions of the Crown."
Having given the House a brief story of what has occurred in the past, let me now endeavour to interpret the proposals which are contained in the small Bill before the House to-day. The measure only affects those States which arc not named in the First Schedule of the principal Act, that is, the Government of India Act, 1935. It will therefore only apply to the very small States which lack those administrative resources. Clause 1 (2) of the Bill declares that the Crown Representative may give such directions as he thinks fit in his relations with the States, and in fact shall always be deemed to have had that authority. The Bill as it is drafted takes nothing away from the Taluqdars which they have possessed in the past; it maintains all the rights which they have held by agreement or by usage. I venture to think that the beneficial forms and government which are in operation in such States as Nawanagar and Baroda, to which the majority of these small petty States will be attached, are well known to most noble Lords who have taken an interest in the great Indian Empire. I have heard it suggested that it should have been possible to attach these petty States to a British Province, but in point of fact that is utterly impracticable from a geographical point of view alone. Critics in the Indian Press have amply recognized that fact. This general scheme has been before the small States for a long time, and the States to which they will now be attached—but not annexed—have High Courts with a very long history of first-class judicial procedure behind them.
806
In view of the other important matters on the Paper, I think I have said sufficient to show the House that the association of these small States with larger entities, without any degree whatever of annexation, has long been regarded as an important and useful step in the development of better administrative rule and modern social reform. It is a measure which I submit quite confidently to your Lordships for Second Reading this afternoon. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Munster.)
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, this is a Bill which deals with a comparatively small matter, yet not an unimportant one. It does not touch the wider questions relating to the connexion between the Provinces and the Indian States, nor the questions relating to future Indian Federation, but it deals with one part of one of the most obvious defects in the structure of Indian government—namely, the existence of a very large number of extremely small and quasi-independent States which have grown up in the course of Indian history, and which retain powers that date from a different state of society. There is undoubtedly a very strong case for combining numbers of these States together in order to secure proper systems of administration for their inhabitants. They are too small in area, too lacking in personnel, and too poor in revenue to provide the proper services of a progressive administration. It is almost as if we required a rural district council in our own country, or even a parish, to perform all the county services, and indeed the national services as well, with regard to higher education, agricultural training, irrigation, public works, judiciary, police, and all such matters. These entities are far too small to be able to deal adequately with such matters in the interests of their inhabitants.
The question arises whether the small States ought not to be absorbed in neighbouring Provinces of what is called British India, but, as the noble Earl has said, in this case that is geographically impossible. Besides, there are ancient treaties and agreements with the Chiefs and the Princes, or Maharajahs and Rajahs, of these States which are a a barrier in the way. Secondly, there is

807
the question whether they ought not to be grouped amongst themselves. That is probably the best solution, but very frequently there are personal jealousies and local rivalries which have rendered that impossible. The only other course open is that they should be absorbed into States of which they are geographically neighbours. Baroda, for instance, which is very much concerned, is a State with a first-class administration, as everyone who has visited India knows, comparing not unfavourably with any other part of India. The Government are wise not to contest the judgment of the Court in the higher Courts, because if it went against them they would still have to come to Parliament for legislation since the matter dealt with is one for which this Parliament is responsible; it arises out of a clause in the Government of India Act, 1935.
There is only one point I should like to make with regard to the details of this Bill. The second subsection of Clause 1 says "This section shall be deemed always to have had effect." That is retrospective legislation, which, in itself, is vicious in principle, and if it is to be applied in this particular instance I submit that the Government ought now or at some future stage to give reasons why there should be this rather extraordinary provision that the Bill shall apply as though it had been previously enacted and was already in force. Both Houses of Parliament are always very jealous of passing any clause of that character, and perhaps on some suitable occasion the noble Earl will be able to give us some reassuring reasons on that point.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I am afraid one cannot agree wholly with the noble Viscount and the noble Earl in their description of this as a very little matter. It does not seem to me such a small matter since it concerns between 800,000 and 1,000,000 persons. Whilst fully appreciating the great difficulties of this situation from an administrative point of view—the noble Earl and the noble Viscount were perfectly correct in what they said about these difficulties—I cannot view with anything like equanimity the handing over of these States to other neighbouring States, and for a very good reason. It is true that the two States mentioned by the noble Earl—Nawanagar
808
and Baroda—have, as Indian States, quite admirable records of administration, but what must be borne in mind when dealing with Indian States is the fact that these States are all of them absolute Governments. Their monarchs are absolute, and it has yet to be seen whether, for example, the present young Maharajah of Baroda will carry on the same admirable tradition founded by his grandfather, and whether the new Jam Sahib of Nawanagar carries on the equally good tradition of that State. This is a doubt which immediately brings into our minds the disadvantages of such absorptions as are proposed in the Bill.
The noble Viscount clearly thought that the grouping of these States together under British administration would be satisfactory. It is in that connexion important to remember that up to the present time, unsatisfactory though the position of these tiny States—and estates, as the noble Earl said—may have been, the administration has, on account of their small size, been in the hands of the British officers acting as Crown Representatives in these areas. On the other hand, in the bigger States—in Baroda, for example—the British Resident is in a far different position. It is not his business—indeed it would be contrary to his rights and powers and contrary to our treaty rights with the Maharajah—to interfere in the internal administration of the State unless, of course, that gave rise to definite scandal. These States, therefore, will be removed from the fairly direct administration of British officials, and will be put under the administration of the States' officials. These States' officials may be highly efficient, they may be admirable in every way, but they are the officials of an absolute monarchy.
When I say it is yet to be seen whether the new Maharajah and the new Jam Sahib will carry on the good traditions of their States—and we hope that they will—one feels and sees at once the danger of this position. It does seem to me a definitely retrogressive step to hand over at the present juncture of affairs a considerable population to an absolute administration. I cannot view this present Bill with anything but alarm and despondency, and that is an attitude which I know is shared by the inhabitants of these tiny principalities. I am

809
not pleading the case of the Taluqdars, who perhaps have been in communication with some other members of your Lordships' House. Their position is clearly an anachronism, but if it is to be swept away, or at any rate tidied up, then I do suggest that at the present time, when we are all of us, and the Government also, committed to a policy of Indian progress, it would be correct surely to give to those States the advantages of a representative administration and not hand them over to a type of administration which is in itself an anachronism in the modern world. I suggest that before this Bill be proceeded with further the peoples in these tiny States should be consulted. Their view should be taken into consideration. I am convinced that unless this is done we are liable to commit a very great injustice and certainly we shall be acting directly in contradiction to everything that we at present believe we are fighting for.
This is a dictatorial Act. If some such provision is clearly necessary in this case it may be a beneficial one, but I cannot believe that at this present time it is wise, proper or just to hand over a considerable population to an absolutism which is completely uncontrolled. Were some arrangement to be made whereby these States could set up representative institutions in their territory at the price of this annexation—though the noble Lord has made a slight difference as between absorption and annexation there will in fact be very little difference—there might be, and I believe probably would be, quite considerable administrative advantages from which the peoples of these States would benefit; but these benefits must all depend upon the whim of the Sovereign and that, I submit, is not a thing which this Parliament, the mother of democratic institutions, has any right to do in justice to her own reputation.
LORD HAILEY: My Lords, if I intervene at this stage, it is because I feel there must be many people in this country, as certainly there are in India, who share some of the apprehensions which have just been voiced by the noble Lord. Let me, if I may, put the case as some of them will undoubtedly see it. Here you have a large number of scattered units, some of them very tiny in size, all of them completely isolated from areas of British administration, and for the most part con-
810
sisting of insets in territories of larger Indian States. They are controlled for the moment by authorities who have the character perhaps of the medieval lord of the manor rather than of the great barons or great fief holders of the Mogul Empire who subsequently became rulers of the independent Indian States.
At a certain stage we decided, purely for the sake of maintaining law and order, to exercise some control over these scattered units. We based our authority on the extension of the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, and we gave to our Political Residents the power to try offences committed by their subjects. But I think we exercised no other type of administration. Geographical difficulties and the absence of any machinery made it impossible to extend our social services to them or to improve their communications or the like. We now propose to hand over to the neighbouring major States the jurisdiction which we formally exercised under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, but at the same time to place those major States under the obligation to supply these areas with the social services and the like which we ourselves have been unable to extend to them. To this extent, therefore, we shall undoubtedly be handing over to the "attaching States" that amount of direct protection for law and order which we formerly exercised, and we Shall retain only indirect control over the conduct of the major States in their administration of these attached areas. That amount of indirect control we continue to exercise by virtue of our authority as the paramount power.
There will no doubt be some in Great Britain who will view that proposal with apprehension and, if I may say so, with the dislike that the noble Lord has just expressed. They do not view the Indian States with favour, partly, of course, because they are autocratic in constitution. It is true that many of them have of late years made a great advance in liberalizing their Constitutions by the creation of representative bodies, but it still remains true that they have not brought themselves within the orbit of those democratic institutions which we have during the last generation endeavoured to establish in British India, not always, one is bound to say, with immediate happy effect. That is one reason for apprehension. There is of course another reason which we cannot overlook. Some of the independent

811
Indian States have not in the past had a record which has been marked by progressive administration. There have been instances—and it is no use overlooking the fact—in which we ourselves, as the paramount power, have had to remove some of their rulers for gross abuse of their powers. There is now fortunately a growing number of these major States which are distinguished by a progressive and an efficient administration. They have instituted Courts of Justice which have, by this time, established a tradition of their own. It is also fortunate that some of the States to which we propose to attach these small and scattered units arc amongst the most progressive and the most advanced of the Indian States. I do not discuss further the merits of the Indian States at this stage; I am merely examining the reasons for the impression of apprehension which the proposed measure of attachment has inevitably created in the minds of certain persons in Great Britain.
But this seems to me peculiarly one of those cases which we have to decide not so much in the light of the disadvantages the proposition may appear to present, but in the light of the alternatives that are open to us. There are four alternatives. We might, in the first place, annex these areas to British India. There is nothing in the nature of treaties or obligations in our past relations with these small units which would prevent us doing so. Of course I need not say that annexation is the only method by which we could secure for them that measure of representation which the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, desired to achieve. But if they were annexed, there would still remain the original problem caused by their geographical detachment and by their isolation in the midst of independent territory. We should still have the difficulty of the maintenance of law and order which is created by the existence of a multitude of jurisdictions. We should still fail to be in a position to do anything for their social and economic improvement, and we should of course create additional difficulties—difficulties perhaps too obvious for me to detail—in the creation of the future Constitution in India.
We might in the second place cancel the order of attachment which has been passed by the Representative of the
812
Crown and restore the position which existed before that order came into being. That might be satisfactory to the Thakurs or Taluqdars now in control, but it would still leave unsolved the problem of ministering to the social needs of their inhabitants. It would also place on the future Government of India the obligation of providing the finance needed for maintaining the Courts of Justice in those areas, an obligation which it might not be willing to undertake. Then we might in the third alternative withdraw any attempt to maintain law and order in these units, and leave the people concerned to make their own arrangements on any terms they could achieve with the neighbouring major States. That is a proposition so undesirable that I think it carries its own condemnation.
We might finally adopt the course suggested in this Bill. It is admittedly one which the Thakurs, who at one time seemed prepared to accept it, now view with antagonism. But we have not merely to consider their feelings. We have to consider the welfare of the 800,000 people concerned, and I feel myself that the proposal in this Bill offers greater possibilities for ministering to the welfare of this population than any of the alternatives I have just mentioned. It offers them the guarantee that they will share in the system of higher education, the health services, and the improved system of communications which exist in the attached States; and let me repeat again that some of them are among the most progressive States in India. The existing tribute paid by these somewhat small units, which is in some cases heavy, will be reduced to a maximum of 10 per cent. of their revenue. We shall still retain the power of supervising the manner in which the "attaching States" carry out the administration of their attached units. For the latter will retain the right of appeal to the paramount power. As I said, this is one of those difficult cases which we have to decide in the light of the different alternatives that are open to us, and I believe that the proposal embodied in the Bill offers the best prospect of benefit to the peasant population of these somewhat unfortunately situated areas.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, are we to have no reply from the noble Earl on the matters which have been raised by the

813
three noble Lords who have spoken? There was the question raised by my noble friend Lord Faringdon, and the question of retrospective legislation which I think all your Lordships dislike—not more than I do—raised by the noble Viscount on my right. There should be some reply from the Government.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, if your Lordships will allow me, I will say a word or two in reply, out of courtesy to the noble Lord and to the House. I had the idea that the arguments to which we have just listened with so much attention from my noble friend Lord Hailey would satisfy your Lordships that the considerations which have been properly raised were effectively answered, and I would be most unwilling with much less knowledge to go over the same ground. The considerations put forward by Lord Hailey were exactly those which were before the Government when they decided to introduce this Bill. It is not from any want of respect that I refrain from going into detail, with less knowledge of these matters. I can assure your Lordships that the matters which have been referred to have been duly weighed and considered. The actual situation of these small isolated areas is pitiable. They are without roads, they are without social services, without any of the things they ought to have, and it appeared on weighing all the alternatives that there is no way which is to be preferred as a practical matter to that which is found in the present Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PRESERVATION OF HISTORICAL AND ART TREASURES.
LORD LANG OF LAMBETH LORD LANG OF LAMBETH had the following Notice on the Paper: To call attention to the importance of preserving objects of special historical or cultural value within the theatres of war, and to ask His Majesty's Government what measures they have taken or propose to take for this purpose; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the importance of preserving objects of historic or cultural value within the theatres of war. Perhaps I ought to have added to the Motion the
814
words "subject to overriding military necessity," but I hope that those words will be regarded as governing anything that I may have to say. I assume with confidence that your Lordships realize the importance of this matter. Indeed, how could it be otherwise? I am speaking to-day mainly of Italy—of Italy as a country rather than as a nation with its somewhat chequered political history. As a country Italy has inspired not only the interest and admiration of all who have known her, but love. I do not suppose there is any country in the world that has been the object of such love for centuries as Italy. Indeed, its monuments of the great past, its architecture, its sculpture, its pictures are among the noblest expressions of the human spirit. Think of Rome itself. Rome does not belong to Italy; it belongs to the world. It does not belong to any particular time; it belongs to all time. It justifies its title as the Eternal City. I need not remind your Lordships that it is the object of veneration by millions of our fellow Christians in all parts of the world. I notice that last week in the debate which your Lordships will remember, my noble friend Viscount FitzAlan, though he described himself as an out-and-out bomber, said that it would be deplorable both on religious grounds and also on cultural grounds if any damage were done to the city of Rome. It must have been a satisfaction to him to hear the assurance given him by my noble friend the Leader of the House, that it was not the intention of His Majesty's Government to drop bombs on the Vatican City nor so far as it could be avoided on the city of Rome.
But Rome does not stand by itself. I wonder whether anywhere in the world there is such a constellation of lovely cities, towns and villages as in the north of Italy, into which the devastating tide of war must sooner or later flow. May I venture to remind your Lordships of some of them and the great monuments in them? There is Assisi with its memories of St. Francis and the pictures of Giotto; Siena with its memories of St. Catherine and its lovely buildings; Florence, of which I need not speak because Florence abides in the memories of all who have seen it; Padua, Perugia, Pisa, Ravenna, retaining in the twentieth century in its mosaics the austere splendours of Bizantine art, and perhaps most of all, Venice, that

815
Queen of Beauty enthroned on the seas. All these places are beautiful in themselves. Most of them contain treasures whose value it is impossible to measure. Must we not think with dismay of the possibility of any of these wonderful creations and expressions of the human spirit being damaged or destroyed by the ravages of war?
In this matter, as in so many others, there are always two extremes, and wise men will try to find a just mean. On the one hand, there are those who ask impatiently, and rather contemptuously: "What is the worth of these dead stones and dead pictures in comparison with the life of one single soldier?" But these things are not dead. They are always alive; they have, as has been truly said, the quality of enhancing life, of giving fresh vitality to the mind and spirit of successive generations. And it must not be forgotten that they are part of that humane civilization which it is one of our aims, in this war, to protect against barbarians. On the other hand, there are those who, in their zeal for history and art, tend to forget the inexorable necessities of war. Just because the issues involved in the war are so great, just because it is being waged for the whole of civilization and not only for this aspect of it, just because from all the enslaved and oppressed countries a cry for liberation is rising, it is impossible to sanction anything that would seriously hinder the one essential thing—that the enemy, who is prepared to bring all this evil on the world, should be defeated rapidly and completely. It must never be allowed, for one moment, to be supposed by the enemy that if he chooses to occupy any of these centres of history or of art and to use them as posts for his own operations, he will be allowed to remain immune from attack.
We have a crucial instance at the present time before our eyes. Monte Cassino, as your Lordships are very well aware, is crowned by one of the most famous monasteries in the world. It was founded by St. Benedict; he was buried there; and it has always been the central home of the Benedictine Order, renowned through all these centuries for its scholarship and devotion. It contains priceless manuscripts and books of its own, and many which, I believe, have been sent there from other parts of Italy. Orders
816
were given to our gunners and airmen that, so far as and so long as possible, it should be spared, and I have nothing but admiration for the patience with which, hitherto, these orders have been observed. But now we learn that the Germans are in possession of this place, that they are using it for their own purposes, and it is not thinkable that they should be allowed to use it as a safe sanctuary for themselves from which they can seriously hinder the advance of our Armies or deal destruction upon our soldiers who are fighting the grim battle below. Therefore, I am sure that the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack, who, I am glad to say I understand is to reply for the Government, will be able to assure us that the Allies and their Commanders will observe that just proportion, will recognize the two-fold obligation—not by our care for these objects of interest and value and beauty, great as that care must be, to play into the hands of an unscrupulous enemy, and (I emphasize the word "and") to see that, subject only to quite overriding military necessities, these objects, these things of beauty, will be preserved from the ravages of war.
I think I have spoken enough on the importance of the subject. I turn for a moment to the second part of my Motion, to ask His Majesty's Government what measures they have taken or propose to take in connexion with this matter. Some measures from the very beginning have been taken. I think it is admitted that in the North African campaign they were defective. Not unnaturally, there was very little available information, and the swiftness of the campaign made it extremely difficult to stop and think as to what exactly was being done with the monuments of a very ancient civilization through which the Armies were rushing. When the area of war was tranferred to Italy and Sicily greater care was taken. Officer experts were sent out, mostly by the United States but partly by our own Government, and the efforts of these officer experts have been in many ways successful, particularly, I like to recall, at Palermo, where most fortunately that wonderful cathedral and arcade at Monreale were never touched, and where these officers, and others connected with Amgot, have been able to repair already some eighteen buildings against further deterioration. Above all, General

817
Eisenhower has issued instructions to all the Commanders reminding them of their great responsibility in this matter. But I think it must be admitted that in South Italy it has been found that the organization, however excellent in intention, has not been conspicuously successful in practice. The experts have not been distributed, it seems, in the areas where they were most needed. They have had too little authority to back their recommendations and their advice. When Sir Leonard Woolley, who has been appointed adviser in archaeology to the War Office, was sent out to report, he was obliged, I think, to say in his report that the organization, such as it was, was greatly in need of strengthening.
In these circumstances, last January, at the request of the Standing Committee of the British Museum, I ventured to approach the Prime Minister direct, knowing the interest he has always taken in these matters, and I sent to him a memorial signed by the three principal trustees of the British Museum, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker of the House of Commons, by myself as Chairman of its Standing Committee, by the Chairman of the Trustees of the National Gallery, Mr. Vincent Massey, and by the Chairman of the Advisory Council of the Victoria and Albert Museum, Lord Harewood. In that memorial we set forth strongly, but I hope temperately, the great need of doing everything that could be done, beyond what had already been done, to carry out more perfectly what had already been begun. In reply, the Prime Minister sent a full and careful memorandum, drawn up on the instructions of the War Cabinet. As that is a Government document, I propose to leave it to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack to deal with it as he sees fit. Incidentally, I should like to say how glad I am that it is he who is to reply for the Government, because he has always taken a special interest in this matter.
There is one question which I desire to ask him, and it is this. Last August the President of the United States of America, to show his sense of the immense importance of this matter, appointed a strong Commission, with one of the Judges of the Supreme Court as its Chairman, to co-ordinate the work of the experts in his own country and at
818
the Fronts and to make recommendations to the military authorities, and particularly to help in dealing with that most difficult question, which can only be dealt with after the war, of the salvage and restoration and restitution of objects of art which have been appropriated by the Axis Powers and by individuals. My question to the noble and learned Viscount is whether the Government propose to appoint here a similar Commission with similar functions. If so, I venture to hope that its duties will not be confined to those which will arise after the war in the most difficult matter of restitution; I hope that it may function during the war as a body with authority to survey what is happening on the various Fronts, to make representation to the military authorities—who alone, of course, can take executive action—and to give advice and information on particular matters about which it may be consulted.
I feel sure that there will be need of some such body. There must be a tendency on the part of many of our keenest officers and men, when they are in the middle of fighting, to regard the orders of the Higher Command in particular cases as irksome and embarrassing. They may tend to forget the reminder given by General Eisenhower in his instructions to the Commanders, a reminder which I think goes to the root of this matter, that the term "military necessity" is sometimes used when it would be more truthful to speak of military convenience, or even of personal convenience. We can all understand those who are in the heat of conflict finding it irksome to be obliged to have remembrance of considerations which obviously and naturally cannot be of special interest to them. I am sure, therefore, that there will be need of constant vigilance lest the excellent orders and instructions of the Higher Command may prove to be a façade behind which, through ignorance, carelessness and heedlessness, much damage may be done.
These are the points which I wish to lay before your Lordships. I feel confident that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will be able to assure your Lordships and all those outside your Lordships' House—and they are many—who are deeply concerned about this matter, that so far as possible everything will be done to preserve these

819
treasures which are the pride and glory of the Old World for the New World which will arise when the war is over. I beg to move for Papers.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I think that it is not a misinterpretation of this Motion if it be regarded as a continuation of the debate which took place in your Lordships' House last week.
LORD LANG OF LAMBETH: My Lords, may I remove a misapprehension? I said in that last debate that I was particularly anxious that this subject should not be considered in connexion with anything said in that previous debate.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I should be the first to desire to respect the wishes of the noble and most reverend Lord, but the circumstances governing the debate this afternoon will be regarded by the public here and by our Allies as a continuation of the debate which took place last week. I think that it is a thousand pities that the saving words which the noble and most reverend Lord used at the commencement of his speech—namely, "subject to overriding military considerations"—were not included in the Motion when it was put on the Paper. This Motion has gone out to the world as it stands on the Paper, without that reservation. I am not a Philistine or a Vandal, but I wish to enter a strong protest against any policy being adopted by His Majesty's Government, whether as regards the strategy of aerial bombing or as regards military operations, in which proper military decisions and necessities are affected by considerations of culture or of aesthetics.
I cannot help feeling that no more unfortunate time than this could have been chosen to raise this issue. It has already brought comfort to our enemies. Goebbels has not been slow to seize upon some of the statements made by the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Chichester. It has spread alarm and perturbation among our people and among the people of the United Nations. It has spread dismay among the Fighting Forces of the United Nations. I may speak with some feeling in this debate, but, if I do, I am persuaded that I shall do no more than reflect the feelings of people outside. I was told at lunch-time to-day in this House of a conversation which took place in an East London train yesterday between three airmen. One
820
turned to the others and said, "This is funny. These Bishops think buildings are more important than we are." And that is the issue. Let us be perfectly candid; that is the issue.
Now I was a little disturbed last Wednesday at some remarks of the noble and most reverend Lord, Lord Lang. No one would contest the facilities—sometimes unwelcome perhaps—that he has for ascertaining the feelings of the people of this country, but there are some of us who are also not without facilities; and I confess that, to judge by the people of London, for whom I have an undying respect, I can perceive no desire to gloat or to exult over the heavy bombing of Germany. That is not a characteristic of our people. They are undaunted in adversity and they are modest in achievement. If they are open to any criticism it is that they sometimes show themselves too modest as regards their achievements, and notably the achievement of saving culture and civilization for the world in 1940. I can find no trace of a rather truculent spirit among the people. They are, happily, steadfast and resolute, and I would not have them otherwise. It docs not fit in with the character of our people that they should be supine, and civilization and culture—life itself—cannot be saved from our present enemy by turning the cheek to the smiter. Civilization can be saved only by the exercise of paramount and supreme force. Anything that is likely to impede the efforts of our Fighting Forces, anything which is likely to delay for one hour the achievement of victory, is to be deprecated, and I cannot approve it.
I was struck last Wednesday by the almost complete absence of any reference to the little homes of the little people. Nobody seemed concerned about what happened in the East End or in Coventry; and let us understand that these little men's dwelling are more important to the people who live in them than the glories of Northern Italy, which they have not seen and which they are not likely to see. And I really was disturbed when the right reverend Prelate said, I thought with some little—I must not say cynicism, but with some little lack of feeling perhaps, that you can replace damaged houses and flats by mass production. I do not view the destruction of the dwellings of the people in that

821
way. To them their little homes are their pride. The Russian village and the Russian hut are the pride of the Russian peasant, and are as important to the Russian peasant as any cultural or historic building. I was also disturbed that the right reverend Prelate seemed to regard the bombing of industrial targets as being outside his ethical censure. Surely the right reverend Prelate knows that it is in the industrial districts that the people live, it is around factories that the people's, homes are; and if the destruction of the life of the people is what it is desired to avoid, then by the text of the right reverend Prelate's submission, industrial districts ought to be exempt as a first priority.
I was amazed that the right reverend Prelate, having referred to Hamburg and Berlin, having condemned what he described as the policy of obliteration, should use the words, "This is not a justifiable act of war." Those words ought not to be used against those gallant men who day and night risk their lives to save something which is much more precious than any buildings—to save life, liberty and freedom. We are all as much concerned about the American soldier or the soldier of any of the United Nations as we are about our own soldiers. The fighting men of the United Nations will resent, and will justly resent, words of that kind being used in connexion with their activities. After all, it is the United Nations alone which will save civilization itself from being sacrificed. The right reverend Prelate submitted that certain of our arguments smacked of the doctrine that might is right. Well, when might is employed to defend light, it is right. How otherwise can Right be preserved and maintained except in the final analysis, by the exercise of paramount and dominant Might? And I do not regard the exercise of that Might as being a reflection upon our people or upon our Government.
I want to say frankly that I would not be willing to sacrifice my son for any building there is in the world, and I believe when I say that I am expressing the views of the people, of the wives, the sweethearts, the mothers and the fathers of all the Forces of the United Nations. It is a false analogy to seek to excuse the attitude which I am criticizing by saying that people will on occasion risk their lives to save a work of art. That is true, but that
822
is a voluntary action. Then some wise people point out that it is unwise and it is the function of the fireman very frequently to prevent a person from risking his life in order to save something in a burning building. That situation is here, and it has been proved as regards Monte Cassino. I assure Lord Lang that I profoundly appreciate the courage that has been shown by those who sought to preserve that monastery, but I cannot and I will not withhold my regret for any lives which may have been unnecessarily lost because we did not take the appropriate action against that monastery at the appropriate time.
It is a small consolation to hand out to the bereaved to say that courage was shown and patience was exhibited. There can be no culture and no civilization except for life. I know it is argued that life can be replaced, whereas works of art cannot be. I submit that that is a false statement. Life renews itself, it is true, but life which is destroyed is never replaced. The generation that we lost in the last war, and the infinite number of generations which that generation could have begotten, can never be replaced. We know in the years between the wars how much we suffered as the result of the loss of that generation. We are now in the process of losing, maybe, another generation. No one can justify adding to the dreadful toll in this war by one single life in order to save a building. I regret I cannot subscribe to this doctrine of "Culture über alles." I accept the definition of Ruskin that there is no wealth but life—life, with all its powers of love and joy and admiration. It is to preserve this that this terrible and indeed shaming conflict is being waged, and nothing must be permitted to interfere with its prosecution or to delay securing final victory at the earliest possible moment.
I have one further comment to make upon the speech of the right reverend Prelate last week. It seems to me that he quoted with some satisfaction a telegram that he had received from a well-known Anti-Nazi Christian leader who had to flee from Germany for his life long before the war. It was, he said, sent from Zurich, and "puts what millions inside Germany must feel":
"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?"

823
I could have attached more importance to that telegram if it had been sent when Rotterdam was destroyed, when Belgrade was destroyed, when we learnt of the almost unbelievable tortures which had been visited upon the Poles and the Jews and the others oppressed in Europe. I think of the language of Dr. Johnson, in his famous letter to Chesterfield, "Had it come earlier it would have been appreciated." There is nothing in that telegram which condemns the frightful conduct of our enemies.
I realize that a person can be a strong Anti-Nazi and still be a strong Pan-German—still believe in Germany's destiny to rule the world as a dictator. I cannot subscribe to the doctrine of the right reverend Prelate that you can separate the people of Germany from the crimes of Germany. I am sorry; I wish I could; I have tried; but the facts are against it. The people of Germany, by and large, must be held responsible for the dreadful things, the almost unendurable misery and torture, they have inflicted upon the world. I ask the Government, therefore, not to falter. The people of this country will not understand a repetition of what happened at Monte Cassino. The people of this country will not submit to their boys being sacrificed—even one of them being sacrificed—unnecessarily to save whatever building it may be. When America came into the last war President Wilson, who was not a Philistine, who was not without cultural appreciation, said, "We are at war, we must make war without stint." That is our business to-day. We must make war without stint, and bring this dreadful thing to an end, to preserve liberty and freedom for mankind. There is nothing else that matters. I do not wish to see Europe stocked with cultural monuments to be venerated by mankind in chains and on its knees. It has been said that he who lives by the sword shall perish by the sword. All right. The enemies of mankind in Europe and in the Far East have chosen the weapon. Let them have it. Let us go on unfalteringly to the final end of complete victory, which alone can save culture and civilization for mankind.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, there is no doubt that this topic has aroused intense interest throughout the country and is the subject of widespread public dis-
824
cussion. There is every reason to believe that, amongst large numbers of the public, the issue is regarded as the perfectly simple one which has just been put to the House by the noble Lord who has spoken with so much sincerity and eloquence—the simple question: Are we to sacrifice the lives of our soldiers, sailors, and airmen, are we to risk victory in a battle or, perhaps, in a whole campaign, because some building or town of artistic or historic interest may be damaged or destroyed in the course of warlike operations? To that question there is, of course, only one answer—namely, that military considerations must prevail. On that we are all agreed. The noble and most reverend Lord, Lord Lang of Lambeth, clearly stated at the outset of his speech that that is his own doctrine. Therefore the whole of the speech of the noble Lord who has just spoken, in so far as it was an attack on or criticism of Lord Lang, is beside the mark.
In the particular instance of Monte Cassino, where you have a very venerable and highly important monument at stake, that has been the rule which has been adopted. As soon as it was clear that this was being used by the Germans as an observation post and machine-gun emplacement, orders were given for the destruction of the monastery, no matter what hurt might be done to our historic feelings. The noble Lord who has just spoken said that if this had been done sooner it would have saved more lives, and suggested that some false sentimentality had resulted in delay. I do not know whether the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will be able to give any answer to that, but so far as I am aware there is no evidence that the military authorities on the spot were delayed in any action that they would wish to take before the moment when, two days ago, they were bombarding all along the line, possibly on the eve of a general attack. However, the principle which is adopted and which we all support is that if it had been a military advantage at an earlier time to have undertaken this bombardment certainly that should properly have been done. It was believed that many precious manuscripts belonging to the learned Benedictine Order had been sent for safe refuge to this monastery and that they might also be destroyed. Clearly it was the duty of the Germans occupying

825
the place to remove them to safety as soon as they were in real danger of being subject to the swaying tides of battle. This monastery came within the zone of military operations and it is now claimed, I see, by the Germans that they had done so. I am sure that fact will be a great relief to all who care for the interests of history.
LORD STRABOLGI: By taking them away to Germany.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Well, they will be recovered afterwards. But when that has been said not all has been said. That does not end the matter, as apparently the noble Lord who has just spoken thinks it does. At all events it is not General Eisenhower's opinion, for General Eisenhower issued, it will be remembered, a general order quite recently which has been published in the Press and was given verbatim in the other House on 1st February. General Eisenhower said:
"If we have to choose between destroying a famous building and sacrificing our own men, then our men's lives count infinitely more and the buildings must go. But the choice is not always so clear-cut as that."
The noble Lord thinks it is, but General Eisenhower does not think so. He said:
"In many cases the monuments can be spared without any detriment to operational needs. Nothing can stand against the argument of military necessity. That is an accepted principle."
He went on:
"But the phrase 'military necessity' is sometimes used where it would be more truthful to speak of military convenience or even personal convenience. I do not want it to cloak slackness or indifference."
Therefore he gave orders that certain considerations should be taken into account, and he has established a large organization, as part of the campaign, for the protection of ancient monuments and buildings of historic and artistic interest which may be imperilled in the fighting.
Does the noble Lord condemn General Eisenhower for that? Apparently he does, according to the whole tenor of his speech. These points should be disposed of he says because, he says with a flourish of rhetoric, everything must be sacrificed to the importance of our winning the war. I must say the speech of the noble Lord seemed to me to be simply a confusion of counsel. When the Goths, the Vandals and Saracens swept over Roman civilization the loss to the cultural treasures of
826
mankind was incalculable. The noble Lord would apparently think it is not a matter which we need consider whether similar consequences are to follow now the war is creeping up through Italy.
LORD LATHAM: I said we could not set those things against life.
LORD SAMUEL: We quite agree on that, but the noble Lord would dismiss the whole matter. He says he greatly regrets that the noble Lord, Lord Lang, should have brought the matter before the House so that it could be discussed here. Now the contending Armies are moving up Italy; they will pass over Rome and, as the noble Lord, Lord Long, has suggested, through Tuscany, Florence, Pisa, Assisi, Perugia, Ravenna, Venice. All these places may be theatres of violent campaigns, and yet the noble Lord thinks that it is not a matter which need attract the slightest attention in any way in this country or anywhere else. The noble Lord should not have spoken in the strain he did and should not have made those very sweeping assertions without saying that care should be taken so far as possible that these ancient monuments may be spared. The noble Lord, Lord Lang, has asked for nothing more than that.
LORD LATHAM: I am sorry I must intervene. The noble Viscount must remember that I addressed most of my remarks to what was said by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester who was concerned with aerial bombing.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: But this debate is not concerned with aerial bombing. The debate upon that took place last Wednesday, and I am not sure that the whole of the noble Lord's speech or the larger part of it would not have been ruled out of order in another place.
LORD LATHAM: This is not another place.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: No, I know, I did not suggest it was. The noble Lord has been a member of the other place.
LORD LATHAM: The noble Lord has not been a member of the other place.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: No, I forgot, you have not. However, without entering into this personal and somewhat historical wrangle any further, I would merely point out that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester last week raised a

827
quite different matter, and the noble Lord who moved this Motion to-day said that it was his desire and intention that his Motion should have no relevance to the previous debate, that all this was entirely separate from it. Indeed, he spoke in the previous debate, and informed the House he was not going to speak on the occasion of the Motion of the Bishop of Chichester upon the subject raised by his own Motion to-day, because his Motion would deal with a different topic. Now the noble Lord sweeps that aside and prefers to reply on this day in this week to a speech made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester in the previous week on an entirely different Motion.
LORD LATHAM: Is that unusual even in another place?
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: It would not conduce to the dignity or efficiency of this House if each week we reply to speeches made in a previous week upon a different Motion. What many of us are concerned about is that the reputation of this country and this nation for caring, and caring deeply, for matters of art and culture should not be lightly cast aside even under the exigencies of war. When we look back on these years from the years that are to come and to the history of this war, we want to take pride in the victory that will have been won by the steadfastness and valour of this nation without any feeling of regret and without having to make any apology for disasters that may have fallen upon our human heritage through carelssness or neglect in the course of the campaign. Of course this matter does not rest only with one of the contending parties. The Germans also are deeply concerned as to what will happen during the remainder of this campaign in Italy. Suppose they decide to defend Rome and defend it by fighting from street to street and from house to house, as they have defended Nikopol or, now, the town of Cassino. Suppose they make fortresses out of the massive ruins of the Colosseum and the Baths of Caracalla and Diocletian, and other historic buildings defying anyone to turn them out. Then these ancient monuments will be made centres of conflict, not through our fault, but through theirs, and if there is blame for destruction in such circumstances as those the disgrace will fall upon them and not upon us.
828
One may think it would be impossible for people such as the Germans to take such a course, but one cannot have any confidence in that, seeing what has happened already in this campaign. The Germans have always had the reputation of being a highly cultured nation, and of being proud of their culture; their museums and picture galleries were visited by millions from all over the world and have been the admiration of all other nations. But the German Army has a kind of malignity which is terrible. Mark what happened at Naples in this campaign. It was again given by the Government in the House of Commons where the Secretary of State for War mentioned the case of the burning of the Royal Society's Library in the University at Naples. He said:
"That outrage was committed by troops acting under orders and was carried out methodically; the Italian guards who attempted resistance were shot, armed pickets in the streets kept the Italian fire brigades away from the scene, the bookshelves were soaked with petrol and the troops having flung hand grenades into the rooms remained in the vicinity until the fire could be seen to have taken thorough hold."
That is one of the most famous libraries in Europe and one of the most valuable. An Army which could commit crimes like that, and crimes like the burning in the last war of the University and Library of Louvain in Belgium, may commit any cultural atrocity.
Again, though it is not precisely in point, your Lordships will remember another action of the German Army in Naples. They placed an extremely powerful delayed action bomb in the principal public post office in Naples, so that some days after the Germans had quitted Naples that bomb exploded when ordinary members of the public in crowds were doing their normal business in the post office, resulting in the death, I believe, of hundreds and the wounding and maiming of a further number. That action was one of the most shocking in the whole history of war, so purposeless and so cruel. Therefore we should not be surprised if in the later stages of this campaign Germans deliberately use some of these ancient monuments of the greatest possible interest as armed posts so as to put the blame on the British for the necessity—as there will be necessity—for attacking them even at the risk on certainty of their destruction.

829
One of the key words of the Nazi vocabulary is "ruthlessness." If you remember Hitler's speeches, and if you remember the literature of the modern Germany, you will know that ruthlessness is always exalted as a great virtue. It is not a British word. I do not know any British statesman who would sing the praises of ruthlessness. By this practice of ruthlessness Germans have gained for themselves the hatred as well as the contempt of civilized mankind. They are in the position of the man of whom Dr. Johnson said "He is a man who has the hiss of the world against him." That is a terrible thing, as they will find, for any nation.
No British officer could conceivably give an order such as the order for the burning of the great library and university at Naples or for putting a delayed action bomb in the cellars of a post office of a town they were going to quit. But not all British officers and men realize the importance of objects of historic or artistic interest. Not all of them have any keen sense of history or any special care or knowledge of the arts. In the turmoil and violence and disturbance of a military campaign they may undoubtedly sometimes forget that these things are of any importance at all. That is why General Eisenhower has issued an order which apparently the noble Lord, Lord Latham, would regard as unnecessary, if not contemptible. That is why the British Government have established an organization under Sir Leonard Woolley to take steps on the field of battle and throughout the campaign in order to do what is possible—always recognizing the supremacy of military exigencies—to preserve these monuments for the generations that are to follow.
As the noble and most reverend Lord, Lord Lang, has said, this organization was not very successful in one theatre of war. There is reason to believe that in the towns in North Africa, in Sicily and in the case of Pompeii it did not function very efficiently. In Pompeii, where unfortunately a good deal of damage was done, I am told that buildings were left unrepaired for months, exposed to all the damage of weather in their dilapidated condition. The reason for that is apparently that there has not been enough officers recruited for this duty in the forward areas, that they have been lacking
830
in means of transport, and that they have not been supplied with sums to pay for work urgently necessary. General Eisenhower provides for the setting in proper cases of military police and military guards especially for protection of particular buildings. It is a question whether that in fact has been sufficiently done.
It is very difficult to find the right officers for special tasks of this kind. The men who are needed are not men of the professorial type but men who have military experience and who have military aptitudes. They should have also a knowledge not only of archaeology but of renaissance and modern art. Moreover, they should have a knowledge of the language of the country, personality and authority. That is a combination of qualities not easily found. Fortunately, among the American forces there are available a number of men of very high qualifications in these regards. But we ought to have our own officers among our own troops and I hope the Government will see that there are appointed a sufficient cadre of officers to take proper measures in this matter.
One other question I would like to ask is whether, when the Second Front is opened on the Continent of Europe and no doubt the same procedure will be taken so far as possible to save places of historic and artistic interest, the Governments of other countries, France, Belgium, Holland or wherever it may be will be invited to appoint liaison officers with the knowledge of the facts in order to co-operate with our Army. I do not ask of course that the Government should give any general assurance of immunity for particular buildings or particular towns whether from bombing or other attack. That would be merely an invitation to the Germans to put their most important headquarters and the nerve-centres of their organization in those very towns and those very buildings. Nor do I ask—I would repeat what the noble and most reverend Lord, Lord Lang, has said in contradistinction to the noble Lord, Lord Latham—that this consideration of the value of monuments should have priority over all else. That is not asked. I would repeat that military necessity must in all cases prevail. The fact remains that at this moment, in this year 1944, some of the most treasured possessions of mankind are in peril by the course of military operations, and we would not have it thought that the British Army, or the British

831
Government, or the British Parliament is careless or indifferent as to their fate.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: My Lords, the noble Viscount who has just spoken seemed to object very strongly to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Latham. I equally disagree entirely with the noble Viscount. When he reads the report of his speech to-morrow he will see he asked for officers of the best type to look after monuments. He talked about troops as well. I disagree, with that. The noble Viscount said that Lord Latham's speech was totally irrelevant. I thought that in this House our debates were generally irrelevant. I do not know that the noble Lord's speech was any more irrelevant than that of anybody else.
Having said that I would like to turn to the speech of the noble and most reverend Lord, Lord Lang. He informed the House last week that he was going to put down this Motion. I thought he told us that before the noble Viscount the Leader of the House had replied to the debate initiated by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester, and I imagined that after hearing the speech of the noble Leader—or after reading it if he was not here to hear it—he would have thought fit to withdraw his Motion. I must say that when I saw that it was still on the Paper I could not understand it. I have listened to the speech of the noble and most reverend Lord, Lord Lang, and I must say that I am now more than ever surprised that he did not withdraw his Motion. He asks that new orders and new regulations should be issued to all troops. I suppose he looks upon our airmen, soldiers and sailors as though they were vandals, as though they were men who wanted to knock down every monument.
LORD LANG OF LAMBETH: If the noble and gallant Viscount will forgive me interrupting, may I point out that I never suggested anything about new orders? I called attention to the orders which had been issued.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: Well, he wanted those orders repeated, and seemed to speak as if the troops, airmen and sailors did not know of them and were, as I say, anxious to knock down all the monuments which he wishes to protect. They are not. Then the
832
noble and most reverend Lord referred to the question of military necessity. He said that he hoped this would not be taken to mean military convenience.
LORD LANG OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I am sorry, but that was not my word; it was General Eisenhower's.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: But the noble and most reverend Lord did refer to the feeling that there might be military inconvenience. I think that when he reads the Official Report of his own speech he will see that I have not interpreted it wrongly. And now I would like to point out the effect that debates of this sort in this House have not only on Germany but also on our Allies—notably the United States—and in this country. More particularly I feel that I am competent to say a word for the young men who are called upon and ordered to carry out this absolutely necessary work of destroying the power of the enemy's resistance. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House, replying the other day to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester, referred to his eloquent, moving and sincere speech. I do not wish to, and I do not, cast any doubt on the sincerity of the right reverend Prelate or the noble and most reverend Lord who has raised this Motion to-day. But sincerity, I fear, may sometimes cover a multitude of sins. I feel that they have not asked themselves—and do not ask themselves—whither their sincerity leads them. They cannot have thought enough of what their speeches would mean. They have not gone into the subject with sufficient care, in my opinion, for it is surely palpable to all that, although we want to preserve all we can of the old buildings, and spiritual institutions and other monuments which have associations with great days of the past, we do not wish to do it at the cost of young life.
The world progresses through the spirit that moves the young, and not so much through the spirit of the older people. Think of the feelings of the young men who go out on these great bombing battles day after day and night after night. Do the noble and most reverend Lord and the right reverend Prelate realize what the pilots and the air crews feel, and what they endure in order to carry out their danger-

833
ous, hazardous and important work? Do they realize what they feel in the long hours of flying, being attacked every minute, through a terrific barrage of antiaircraft guns and awful weather? Think, too, of our soldiers advancing up a difficult valley in order to carry out their difficult and perilous task. Do the noble and most reverend Lord and the right reverend Prelate realize what it means when the men whom they look to for help and advice and counsel publicly declare that their work is all wrong and that they should not be ordered to do it?
LORD LANG OF LAMBETH: I never said or thought anything resembling what the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Trenchard, is now suggesting.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: I am sorry if I have misinterpreted anything which the noble and most reverend Lord said. Certainty a great many other people seem to be interpreting his remarks in the same way as I am doing. Do the noble and most reverend Lord and the right reverend Prelate realize what it means when the men to whom I have been referring see that it is the bearers of such names as theirs who raise these questions? Do they realize—or are they living in a gone-by age—that this is total war? Total war is a horrible thing, there is no doubt about that. Total war means that nations are pitted against nations—the nations of right and freedom against the nations of evil. Do the noble and most reverend Lord and the right reverend Prelate really mean to imply that the men who make the rifles that kill the young men of this country and our Allies are not just as much combatants as the men who fire them? I, anyhow, cannot see the difference, and if anybody can then I say he is not realizing what modern war is.
The noble and most reverend Lord, Lord Lang, in a letter to The Times on January 31, referring to Rome, wrote:
"Preserved as it has been through the vicissitudes of thousands of years, it may truly be called the Eternal City. It would indeed be lamentable if, by the action of our Armies and Air Force any of its incomparable treasures of history, of art and of religion were destroyed or even seriously damaged."
Not a word about the action of the enemy damaging this wonderful property. Nothing about their causing this destruction. We all want to save Rome; there is not a man in the country who does not
834
want to save it; but I ask your Lordships at what cost? Is it at the cost of prolonging the war in Europe for years and sacrificing millions of lives? Do they not know, do you not know, that every pilot, member of an air crew, soldier and sailor does not want to kill women and children, least of all? These men know, and they know full well, that if they can shorten the war they will save lives of women and children and men, too.
In their speeches neither the noble and most reverend Lord, Lord Lang, nor the right reverend Prelate has stated the meaning of what they want, in terms of lengthening the war and increasing suffering. The noble Viscount who has just sat down, too, with his demand for officers and troops to look after the monuments when they get into new territory in the course of this invasion which is talked about, does not seem to realize that by the taking of and separating man-power for the special work of protecting and guarding these places, the war would Be lengthened. My Lords, I have inadequately described what I feel in this matter. I feel that the last debate and this debate have been given undue prominence because of the people who raised them and because the Government have thought it necessary to put up people of the calibre of the noble Leader of the House and, now, the Lord Chancellor, to reply. These questioners know that nothing they say will alter the Government's policy or the nation's policy. Therefore why have they raised the question? I would ask them sincerely to withdraw the Motion even before the Government reply and thus show that they have a sense of the realities amid which we are all living.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I fear that I shall draw upon my head the same strictures from the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, as those which he addressed to Lord Latham, because with your Lordships' permission I certainly propose also to reply to a speech which was made in this House last week. I defer with genuine respect to the noble Viscount's knowledge of political procedure, but it certainly is news to me that one may not take a suitable opportunity to reply to a speech which has been made on an earlier occasion, particularly if one believes that that speech has done a considerable amount of mischief. If the

835
noble Viscount is so anxious upon these nice points, may I say that I am surprised that he devoted so many remarks to the post office at Naples on a Motion which is dealing with objects of historical or cultural value? I have frequently visited that post office, and have never discovered anything of historical or cultural value about it.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Latham that this debate to-day will certainly be regarded by the public and by the Armed Forces—and he might well have added by the enemy—as a continuation of the debate which took place last week. The principal speech made in that debate last week was an effort to induce the Government to modify or suspend their present bombing policy. That is a most serious responsibility for any one to take upon himself, and must provide food for enemy propaganda, as we know that it has done. It must also have a very disheartening effect upon our bomber personnel. If such a case is to be brought forward and argued, however, it should at least be argued upon firm ground and facts; and in my opinion the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Chichester, was not on firm ground in the case which he presented, as I shall endeavour to show. The noble and most reverend Lord, Lord Lang, speaking in the debate last week, praised the sincerity, the courage and the impressiveness of the Bishop of Chichester's speech. I shall certainly not subscribe to the word "impressiveness." I never wish to question any man's sincerity or courage, but in a matter of this nature to be judicious is perhaps even more important than to be courageous and sincere.
The implication in the speech was that we bombed civilian non-combatants and non-military and non-industrial objectives, including ancient buildings and art treasures and museums, as a matter of deliberate policy. What evidence is there for making such a statement as that? We are told that some agreement was entered into as the result of an appeal to bomb only military objectives, and that both sides accepted this agreement. What is this agreement? It would be interesting to know. Is it intended to convey that Germany entered into such an agreement but that the Allies broke it?
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, the agreement which was underwritten by His Majesty's Government and by the French Government, and also by the German Government, was an agreement in answer to an appeal made by President Roosevelt just before the war broke out.
LORD WINSTER: Is it contended that, having entered into this agreement, Germany has kept it but we have broken it?
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: Certainly not.
LORD WINSTER: Then I think that that point might very well have been made clear.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: I said at the beginning of my speech that the Germans had broken this agreement; I left no sort of doubt about that.
LORD WINSTER: I accept that, of course, but I think it is equally unfortunate to convey the impression that the Allies have broken an agreement of this nature, because I know of no evidence that they have.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again, but this is a point of principle. I did say in the course of my speech that His Majesty's Government gave notice in May, 1940, that they no longer considered themselves bound by it. That was quite proper notice to give, and I mentioned it.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I accept that, but the right reverend Prelate said that there are recognized limits to what is permissible. It would be interesting to be told of any such limits which are being recognized by Germany. Why are the Allies to be blamed for doing things which they agreed not to do only if others did not do them? Who began these breaches of what was at one time accepted? That seems to me to be an important question. We were told by the right reverend Prelate that to obliterate a whole town because certain parts of it contained military establishments is wrong. If you know that a certain town is producing a large volume of munitions, how can you possibly tell which parts to bomb and which parts to leave alone in order to destroy that production? It may be the case that activities which are

837
essential to that production are being carried on right alongside a museum or an art gallery.
How, for instance, is it thought that targets ought to have been selected in Hamburg? It is all very well to be concerned over the fate of Hamburg and the 28,000 people who were killed there, but why not mention the 30,000 killed in Rotterdam, a neutral and perfectly innocent city? We are asked to express some regret about 600,000 books destroyed in a university library. What about all the books which have been wantonly destroyed by the Nazis in the countries which they have occupied? I have been given a figure of the number of books destroyed in London. It is so huge that I shall refrain from quoting it, because I have not yet had time to check the information; but, if what I am told is true, 600,000 books is a very small affair compared with the number of books destroyed in London. I would also remind your Lordships that perhaps the principal agents in destroying books in Germany have been the Nazis themselves, for I am sure that we all recall those public bonfires in which the Nazis burnt some of the best books in the country.
We were accused of deliberately destroying museums and art galleries in Berlin, and we were told that our bombing of Berlin is not a justifiable act of war. I should like to ask the right reverend Prelate whether he will repeat those words to-day, and say that our bombing of Berlin is not a justifiable act of war. If the contents of these art galleries and museums have been destroyed in Berlin, that is the fault of the German Government, who should long ago have removed such treasures to a place of safety. From what I have been able to observe and to read, however, I think that the main interest of the rulers of Germany in art matters is; to steal what is valuable in other countries for their personal enrichment. We had better get a list of what has been looted in this way from other countries before shedding too many tears over what has been destroyed in Berlin. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, has on several occasions called your Lordships' attention to this looting of art treasures and valuables from other countries.
It may be true that 74,000 people have been killed in Berlin and 3,000,000 ren-
838
dered homeless, but Berlin is the city from which the extermination of a whole race was proclaimed as a definite political aim of German policy. That is Berlin. It is Berlin from which the murder of millions has been planned and directed. I think if we have these statistics of casualties in Berlin, we might as well have some statistics about the number killed and rendered homeless, for instance, in Warsaw. The right reverend Prelate dwelt on the beauty and historical interest of Dresden, Augsburg, Munich, Regensburg, Hildesheim and Marburg and he asked these vandals who have destroyed Mainz and Hamburg to spare these other cities in the interests of European culture.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: May I object to the use of the word "vandal." I never used or suggested that word.
LORD WINSTER: That is my word. I did not use the word as having been employed by the right reverend Prelate; that is the implication of the right reverend Prelate's words. But there was a great deal of culture in Naples, and in the parts of Russia which have been visited by these art-loving persons the Germans. I remember when the Germans were invading Russia they did not hesitate to defile and desecrate and destroy the home of Tolstoy, one of the greatest apostles of peace who have ever lived. The culture in the occupied countries has not survived the visit of the Germans, and in my opinion European culture is and always has been in far more danger from Germany than from the bombers which aim at preventing a German victory.
The right reverend Prelate said:
"The destruction of the main Roman monuments would create such hatred that the misery would survive when all the military and political advantage that may have accrued may have long worn off."
I am really at a loss to know what is intended to be conveyed by those words. Is it contended that we ought not to try to take Rome, but that we ought to leave the city to the art-loving, cultured Germans? If it is agreed that we are entitled to try to take Rome, then Rome is a military objective. Are we to understand that the Commander-in-Chief charged with achieving that objective ought to be mainly guided by

839
care for ancient monuments? Is it the view that British lives would be well lost if some of the ancient monuments of Rome were preserved? I would not like to try to tell that story to an industrial audience of men and women whose sons are being conscribed for service in the Armies in Italy. The hatred that I should rightly incur if I did so would certainly survive as long as the misery caused by the loss of life involved. We know that, British commanders being what they are, there will be no wanton destruction of any ancient monuments or of any works of art. But surely the first duty of a commander in the field is to achieve his objective in the minimum time at the minimum cost of life, and he would only be justified in not acting upon that principle if he had received direct orders not to do so from the Government as a matter of high policy, dictated by political or religious considerations. That being so, why couple the name of our commanders in the field with the Goths and the sack of Rome, and talk about blame falling on those who are professing to create a better world? If that phrase is not meant to convey the suggestion of hypocrisy what is it intended to mean? Why are the words used? In my opinion, simply to imply hypocrisy on the part of the Government—that while professing to wish to create a better world their actions in this matter are quite contrary to their pretentions.
The right reverend Prelate referred to the argument that area bombing is designed to diminish the sacrifice of British lives and to shorten the war. He dismissed that as an argument of expediency smacking of the Nazi philosophy. He dismissed that contention, that bombing would save lives and shorten the war, as speculation. Those who have access to information not available to the public certainly do not regard that argument as speculative. But note how this argument about speculation is sustained. The right reverend Prelate quoted a statement by the Prime Minister made in August, 1940, to the effect that one of the surest, if not the shortest, of all the roads to victory is bombing. The right reverend Prelate comments: "We are still fighting." The Prime Minister did not say that bombing would bring us victory soon. His words
840
were that it was one of the surest roads to victory—quite a different thing. Over and over again the Prime Minister has reminded us that all the roads to victory are long. The point at issue is this. Should we be as far along those roads as we are to-day but for the bombing policy carried out by the Government? In any case, the intensive bombing of which the right reverend Prelate complains had not begun in August, 1940; it only really began last year. And if the right reverend Prelate says that in spite of it German production is going forward, that is not the question. Of course it is going forward or the war would have stopped. The question is how far has German production been retarded by the bombing, and I think the answer to that is "Very considerably indeed."
Again, the right reverend Prelate mentioned "certain military quarters" which questioned the value of bombing. He gave no indication whatever of what those "certain military quarters" are, and until we are told who they are I think we can dismiss them as hearsay. The effect of bombing upon morale was also dismissed by the right reverend Prelate as pure speculation, and in support of that statement he gave us two quotations from Swedish newspapers. Well, I think we can be quite sure that the War Cabinet and the Chiefs of Staff dispose of far better information on this subject than the Swedish Press. It is really not good enough to found a case of this serious nature upon hearsay and quotations of that kind from the Press. It is the same flimsy evidence that led to the quotation of the telegram from Zurich, to which my noble friend Lord Latham referred, from the man who fled from Germany long before the war and yet claims to be able to tell us what millions inside Germany feel. What is the value of such evidence as that in support of a serious case? The right reverend Prelate thinks the war can be shortened if only the Government would speak a word of hope and encouragement to the tortured millions of Europe. Our bombers every night when the weather serves are speaking the only word of that nature which is likely to be heard for a very long time to come. The noble and most reverend Lord, Lord Lang, described this speech as one of courage, sincerity and impressiveness of which he did not wish to diminish the effect.
LORD LANG OF LAMBETH: May I point out that those are exactly the words that the Leader of the House used?
LORD WINSTER: Well, I am sure the Leader of the House will answer for his own words. I am pointing out that the noble and most reverend Lord did not wish to diminish the effect on the public and on the world of a case brought before your Lordships upon such flimsy and unsubstantial evidence. The noble and most reverend Lord spoke about exultation and gloating. Where is the evidence of this exultation and gloating of which he spoke as existing in large sections of our people, and of which he said there were many signs to-day? It is a slander upon the spirit of our people to use such language without producing the evidence in support of it. The noble Lord spoke of correspondence he had had in which his correspondents said, "Let them have it, they did it to us, let us do it to them." That is not a spirit of gloating and exultation, to my mind. I share in these sentiments whole-heartedly. I could quote good Scriptural authority in support of that except that I should be afraid that a proverb referring to the danger of quoting Scripture might be brought against me. I see nothing to take exception to in the spirit of such remarks as these: "Let them have it, they did it to us, let us do it to them." The enemy began this thing. But when he began it he did not foresee the end, and it is we who are going to drive this matter through to the end and make the enemy regret he ever began it. Where is the improper stimulation, spoken of by the noble Lord, by the Press, of feelings leading to what he called "real moral deterioration"? That is a very serious charge to bring against the Press and a very serious charge to bring against the British Broadcasting Corporation which was also included in that remark. Where is the evidence of improper stimulation by the Press or by the B.B.C. of matters which, as the noble Lord said, "will lead to real moral deterioration amongst our people"?
No case whatever for asking the Government to vary their policy in this matter has been made out. The case advanced has been based upon error, upon hearsay, and upon bad history. The truth is that those who are opposed to bombing will not face the facts. They are humane men who avert their eyes from what is un-
842
pleasant and uncomfortable, like the anemone which curls up when you prod it with a stick. They avert their eyes from what is unpleasant to them, and they are prepared to run the risk of Germany winning this war. If that is what is in their minds, let them come forward and say so, and come out straightforwardly as conscientious objectors. The military advisers advise the War Cabinet that our bombing policy will enable us to win, and that to abandon it might mean that Germany would win. What Prime Minister is prepared to say to the nation, because of the doctrine that we must not do harm for fear that evil will come out of it, "I am afraid I must advise the country to give up this bombing policy and run the risk of Germany winning the war"? I am glad that the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack is going to reply to this debate because I recollect upon one occasion, when the independence of Abyssinia was threatened he said—I think I have his words correctly—that he was not prepared to run the risk of losing a single British warship on behalf of Abyssinian independence whilst such great dangers threatened us at home.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: With this necessary addition—"if what was called for was isolated action by this country." I think that is rather important.
LORD WINSTER: I agree, and that being so, I feel sure that the noble and learned Viscount will not be prepared to run the risk of the loss of life, or imperil the chances of victory, in order that ancient monuments or art treasures may be preserved. The last word I want to say is this. I feel that the speech of the noble Lord was most unfortunate in its effect on the personnel of our bombers. Why attempt to make them feel that their work is unchristian and morally wrong? Was it a speech calculated to encourage the personnel of the bombers who fight these great battles? Why endeavour to represent them as robots, blindly carrying out orders which are repugnant to their moral sense? I hope that, as the result of these debates, a message will go out to them from this House of admiration and gratitude for what they are doing to ensure that victory which will save the civilization we love and care for.
LORD GEDDES: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for long, but it

843
seems to me that in the debate that has gone forward to-day the point of view which I myself would hold has not been expressed. There is no doubt whatever that every one of us, without exception, deplores the loss of great churches, great pictures, and all the other cultural possessions of Europe. We all hate to think that that is going on, but that it not the predominant hatred in our minds. The thing that we hate most and fear most is not that these material creations of the human spirit, as the noble and most reverend Lord calls them, should be lost. Our greatest fear is that the greatest creation of the human spirit—the whole of the Christian civilization of Europe—should be lost. That is a thing of the spirit and not of the material. Its preservation, as the guiding force of Christendom, must depend upon our victory and upon the victory of all who think and fight with us. If we are to allow that great heritage, that great creation of the human spirit, to be destroyed, of what value are these material creations of the human spirit? They are gone. They are milestones, indeed they are caddis cases, of the evolution of our Christian civilization. Yet we do not want to use any expression here that would discourage in any way whatever or limit the initiative of our commanders, soldiers, airmen, and sailors in winning that victory which we know to be essential, which we know we cannot do without, without which we know, if we were not to win the war, there would be no value left in any of the cultural monuments of Europe for our time and probably for any time.
That is the difficulty of these debates. I thought that the debate last Wednesday, at the time, showed two things—first, that the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Chichester, refused to face facts, and the other that the spirit of tolerance, the acceptance of the right of man to live without men's leave underneath the law, was very strongly represented in your Lordships' House. I thought it marked a very high level of tolerance and of the exercise of freedom. I feared at that time that it would have the effect which we now know it has had. We know that it has encouraged the German propagandists. We know from direct contact that it has done much to disturb the minds of many of our fighting men. That will pass off.
844
Now we come to to-day's debate, and we have got it coming at the end of a period of intense discussion of this question of possible damage to cultural monuments. A great deal of what has been said and of what has been written in the Press shows a failure to face the facts. It is suggested that the preservation of these material cultural monuments is more important than the preservation of the essential facts of our civilization, and that is where I think we have to get the balance right. Of course we want to preserve the cultural monuments if they can be preserved, but I am sure not one of your Lordships would wish that anything should have been said in this House which would have the slightest effect in inhibiting the action of a military commander to take those steps which are necessary to secure victory. The danger is in continually harping upon these things of lesser importance—because the actual physical, cultural monuments are of lesser importance—and not keeping steadily before our own eyes the great importance attaching to the victory which we are going to win. I think if we fail to keep that steadily before us we apply a brake to the process of winning that victory. What I am sure we want to send out from this House is a message to all the men who are fighting for us, our own flesh and blood, that they will not wantonly do any damage and that we support them in everything they do to gain victory, support them whole-heartedly with all the power and with all the energy that this great Chamber of your Lordships can bring behind them in the perilous work which they have to perform.
THE EARL OF HAREWOOD: My Lords, I venture to detain your Lordships for two or three minutes as one of the signatories of the letter which received so sympathetic an answer from the War Cabinet, and which was drafted by my noble and most reverend friend. I venture to think that the present debate has wandered a long way from the point to which we wished to draw attention in that letter. When I read the Motion which stands in the name of the most reverend and noble Lord, I note that hardly a word has been said in this debate which really has any bearing upon its wording. The Motion reads:
"To call attention to the importance of preserving objects of special historical or cultural value within the theatres of war and

845
to ask His Majesty's Government what measures they have taken or propose to take for this purpose."
I think that is far from being a matter which ought to persuade noble Lords to talk purely upon the advantages of bombing. That is very far from being the only way in which objects of historical and cultural importance can be destroyed. I am the last person who would venture to question the very sincere speech which we have heard from the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Trenchard, on that subject. It was limited to the fact that bombing is eventually going to assist us to win the war. He did not deal with the other means by which buildings are damaged.
I would draw your Lordships' attention to one aspect of this question and hope to get a sympathetic answer in regard to it from the noble and learned Viscount who will reply, and that is to the damage which is frequently done by troops billeted in a newly-occupied town. Many of your Lordships must have been in the same position that I was in as a platoon and company commander in the last war. We became intimately acquainted with—I do not quite like to use the word wanton—the negligent damage that was done quite unnecessarily by troops who occupied a building. Your Lordships must also be well aware that that even happens in this country from time to time. In Northern Italy, of which we hope we are very soon going to be in occupation, there are a number of buildings which should be preserved if possible. The number is very much greater there than it is even in our own country and very much greater than it is in any other part of Europe with which I am acquainted. The matter is of very serious importance. Without in any way limiting the activities of the Royal Air Force or any other of His Majesty's troops who destroy buildings behind the line, perhaps inevitably, I wish to draw the special attention of His Majesty's Government to the number of buildings that can be saved without in any way endangering the lives of our soldiers.
I am the last person who would suggest that you should assess the life of a British soldier against the preservation of an Italian building. The thing seems to me quite unthinkable. That is not at all the object of the Motion as it stands on the Paper. It does not bear upon it.
846
A tremendous lot can be done to preserve these ancient monuments. I know that something has already been done under the guidance of Colonel Sir Leonard Woolley, and I hope we may get an assurance from His Majesty's Government that even more may be done in the future. As we get further into the north of Italy, and therefore into a country which is more full of these important buildings, I hope the number of his staff may be increased in order that he may adequately perform the duties with which he has been entrusted. I venture, therefore, to support the words which are to be found in the Motion that has been moved.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I cannot but think it a little unfortunate that so sustained an effort has been made by some of those who have taken part in this debate to treat the subject under discussion as though it was the same subject as that which was raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester last week. I am not one who desires to see introduced into this House any stricter rules of order. We govern ourselves, which is a very good way of proceeding. But that really does not excuse anybody from failing to appreciate that the two questions raised are quite distinct. The question that was raised last week by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester was this. He attempted to persuade us that the Government should modify its bombing policy and practice. That is what he was attempting to do, and I was not in the least surprised that it aroused the indignant, though somewhat postponed, protest of my noble friend Viscount Trenchard, and also of two other members of the House who have spoken this afternoon on the Motion of the noble and most reverend Lord, Lord Lang. Their intervention really illustrates the principle of the delayed action bomb. They have heard a speech which they greatly resented from a right reverend Prelate last week. They did not take part, I think, in that debate. They have reflected upon it and read reports of it and, it may be, the views of other people upon it, and here, a week later, like a delayed action bomb, they have gone off with tremendous noise and effect. But the result is merely to produce a rather sulphurous atmosphere in which there is danger of

847
your Lordships not seeing what the present question is.
As regards the question raised by the right reverend Prelate last week, the answer for the Government was made by the Leader of the House Viscount Cranborne, and I must say I thought he carried the warm approval of those who have protested so loudly on the present occasion. If it is material, I entirely agree with what he said and I should have been quite prepared, though not in such choice language I dare say, to have resisted what I think was the pernicious suggestion contained in the speech last week. But with the greatest possible respect, what has that to do with the matter which the noble and most reverend Lord, Lord Lang, raises now? It has absolutely nothing to do with it at all. He told us in his first sentence that in putting forward this Motion he was of course in his own mind inserting and he wished he had inserted in print "subject to overriding military necessity." I am free to confess I wish those words were there, but really nobody in his senses supposes that the noble and most reverend Lord or anybody else was advocating that our military operations should be in some way restricted out of respect for ancient monuments. I entirely agree with what was said on that point by the last speaker, the Earl of Hare-wood. It is unthinkable, and really it is a rather insulting proposition to suggest, that there is any man among us or any one in this country who would say—I am borrowing the words of the noble Lord, Lord Winster—"British lives would be well lost if an ancient monument be preserved." That is really the height of misrepresentation of what is the universal feeling of every decent, sensible, honourable man in this country.
The question which the noble and most reverend Lord, Lord Lang, raised is quite a different question, and I do not feel any difficulty in answering because the answer I am going to give is the answer of the War Cabinet in a personal letter signed "Winston Churchill." It is not a private idiosyncrasy coming from a distorted view or a disturbed mind. Nobody suggests, of course, that the necessities of war are not the primary consideration. I will put the proposition in two very, simple sentences. It is universally
848
accepted and everywhere understood that the necessities of war must be put far in front of any consideration of special historical or cultural value at all. The fierceness of the struggle, the cause for which we are fighting (as the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, said just now) the necessity of getting victory—victory as complete and as quickly as possible—make it ridiculous to compare the needs of that claimant with any artistic or cultural matter whatever. But with equal firmness I wish to assert that that is no excuse for saying therefore it does not matter how little attention is paid to the preservation of valuable works of art.
Let me point out to your Lordships that a large part of the work of preservation is generally behind the lines. Suppose the case of a beautiful building which has been damaged—inevitably damaged—in the course of the advance of our troops, and it has been left in a precarious state. If it is not protected it will go to rack and ruin. Is there anybody in your Lordships' House who would say, "Let it go to rack and ruin. Who cares?" Yet I must say that that was the impression, no doubt not intended, but certainly left on my mind when the noble Lord, Lord Latham, spoke. It is not a question of comparing the importance of the things that are most precious to us, the little home, the life of the husband or son, or the safety of those brave people who are fighting our cause in the air—it is not a question of weighing their importance against some ancient building. As Lord Geddes said, there would not be much use in saving these valuable buildings if we lost the lives and liberties of the very men and women which alone make them monuments valuable to preserve. I should have thought those were the sentiments of all sensible people and it was a distortion of the present debate to suggest the contrary. Yet I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Winster, mentioned the subject of the present debate in one single sentence. I do not think it is good that in this House, with its long traditions of free debate, we should show ourselves unwilling to consider the question that is raised merely because we prefer to spend our time in denouncing opinions previously advanced on a quite different question.
I hope your Lordships will forgive me for these words of introduction which are

849
intended to clear the air which has become somewhat confused by this delayed action bomb. Now that the sulphur has, I hope, to some extent been dissipated, may I call attention quietly and calmly to what the question is? It is not necessary to get into any great heat about it. It is a question which General Eisenhower has thought it worth while to deal with in detail; it is a question which the War Cabinet with all its work has thought it well to discuss, and it is a question about which Mr. Churchill has thought it worth while to reply to this distinguished body of artistic authority in a letter and a document drawn up by the War Cabinet. I hope therefore I shall not be thought to be asking too much indulgence when I ask for a few moments in which to deal with the question asked. The question is this. Granted, as of course we all do, that the achievement of quick and complete victory and the support of our fighting men is the very first object, far in front of anything else, are the arrangements made the best that could be made for preserving buildings of the greatest artistic value?
Let me first deal with the matter generally. I would say, on behalf of the Government, that while the necessities of war stand out miles ahead of everything else, still every practicable step should be taken, consistently with the exigencies of war, to avoid and prevent needless destruction, and especially there should be done all that the Allied Commanders can do consistently with military necessity to avoid damage to monuments and to collections which are part of the inheritance of civilization. I would assure the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, that during the brief period now almost thirty years ago, when in a very modest capacity I had the honour of serving under him as well as I could, I learnt to know very well the nature of the terrific risks and the dangers which flying pilots are constantly facing when they are sent out on an excursion. I know very well that in these matters we must recognize that a terrible task is placed on the shoulders of the flying service, and that a man cannot be expected in the midst of a crisis, and noise, darkness and danger, to obey little instructions about not hitting that or avoiding if you can hitting something else. That is not the point. The point is whether there are
850
any decisions which can properly be made on this subject.
I am going to read again the order which was issued by General Eisenhower, which was, of course, an order issued to troops of all arms, and which shows, at least, the view which he took of the matter. I will read it from the beginning. It is addressed to all Commanders in Italy:
"To-day we are fighting in a country which has contributed a great deal to our cultural inheritance, a country rich in monuments which by their creation helped and now in their old age illustrate the growth of the civilization which is ours. We are bound to respect those monuments so far as war allows."
Does anybody challenge that? Is that evidence that the author of this document does not understand the necessities of war, and needs to be taught them by some of those who have spoken in this debate to-day?
The order goes on:
"If we have to choose between destroying a famous building and sacrificing our own men, then our men's lives count infinitely more and the buildings must go."
There is nothing wrong in saying that, surely. "But," General Eisenhower says,
"the choice is not always so clear-cut as that. In many cases the monuments can be spared without detriment to operational needs. Nothing can stand against the argument of military necessity. That is an accepted principle. But the phrase 'military necessity' is sometimes used where it would be more truthful to speak of military convenience or even personal convenience."
I apprehend that he is referring quite as much to the misuse of buildings behind the line as to the case of buildings exposed to the risk of immediate attack. The order continues:
"I do not want it to cloak slackness or indifference.
"It is a responsibility of higher Commanders to determine through A.M.G. officers the locations of historical monuments whether they be immediately ahead of our front lines or in areas occupied by us. This information passed to lower echelons through normal channels places the responsibility on all Commanders of complying with the spirit of this letter."
Is it the case, my Lords, that there is anybody in this House who is prepared to say: "What utter nonsense!" It is not nonsense at all. It is recognizing, of course, that the safety of the life of a single man stands in front of any con-

851
sideration of beautiful antiquities, but it is saying at the same time: "Consistently with all this it is our duty, as civilized armies, to do the best we can."
I am very glad to know that although something has been said in this debate about the action of the enemy in this regard, nobody has suggested—and it is a doctrine to which I would not for a moment subscribe—that because the enemy has acted with the most deliberate wickedness in dealing with monuments in Italy we should do the same. I cannot conceive that anybody will say that that would be a proper revenge to take. I was not here for a few moments when the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, was speaking, and I am not sure whether he called the attention of the House to two instances of German practices which are so shocking that really I must be excused for relating them. The first of these outrages was committed at the great library of the Royal Society in the University of Naples. The particulars which have been given of this state:
"That outrage was committed by troops acting under orders and was carried out methodically; the Italian guards who attempted resistance wore shot, armed pickets in the streets kept the Italian fire brigades away from the scene, the bookshelves were soaked with petrol and the troops having flung hand grenades in the rooms remained in the vicinity until the fire could be seen to have taken thorough hold."
That is not an operation of war at all. It is merely a most monstrous example of deliberate and wicked arson committed by these savages who destroyed that great library without any sort of excuse.
Details of the other outrage were also given in reply to a question which was asked in the House of Commons. In this instance it was the Villa Montesano at Livardi near Nola which suffered. It is an isolated country villa, and it was not, at the time, in the area of active operation at all. The Italian authorities had deposited a quantity of art treasures from Naples there, a great many cases of selected documents from the State archives, a quantity of pictures and so on; and what was it that the Germans did? This is the statement which has been officially made:
"On 28th September a German foraging party discovered the deposit and on the following day a German officer with about six men arrived from Nola, and in the presence of the archives official opened selected cases and veri-
852
fied their contents. On that day the Chief Superintendent of South Italian Archives wrote to the German Command at Nola pointing out the importance of the archives deposit to European history."
That was on September 28.
"On 30th September a German incendiarist squad arrived, produced and tore up the Superintendent's letter, saying that the German Command knew everything and had given the order to burn the deposit. They put straw and incendiary powder in the various rooms of the villa and set fire to it. They then went off but returned an hour later to inspect progress."
It is no good selecting epithets about such conduct.
But nobody is going to say that because that monstrous conduct is perpetrated by our German enemies we are going to regard it as a matter of indifference whether valuable libraries and books and the like are burned or not. The claim is made, and quite rightly made, by Viscount Trenchard, I think, and by Lord Winster and one or two others, that these things are things which it is inconceivable that any British soldier would put his hand to. And we know that that is true. At the same time, what is there that is ignoble or misguided in asking the Government, as these learned bodies did, "What are the arrangements which you have made, or that can be made, for the purpose of preserving these monuments—always treating military necessity as the first and overriding consideration?"
I have to say that the War Cabinet entirely approves General Eisenhower's document. I have to say that the Secretary of State for War entirely approves it. I have to say that those who are the heads of the British Army in that area are doing their best to act in the spirit of it, as General Eisenhower was at the time Commander of the Allied Forces. It is on that simple principle that any action that can be taken is being taken—namely, that subject to this one essential proviso—the insertion of which I well understand under the harsh condition of war—that success of our military operations overrides everything else, none the less it is important, as far as we can, to protect works of art and historic buildings. That is fully appreciated.
LORD TEVIOT: May I interrupt for one moment with great respect? Was not General Eisenhower's order issued before the debate of last Wednesday? I think I am right in saying that it was.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, I think that it would be, but I am afraid that I have not appreciated my noble friend's point. Perhaps he will explain it further.
LORD TEVIOT: With your Lordship's permission I will explain. There was this order by General Eisenhower, and I think there was a reference in the Press to the other order before the debate of last Wednesday. Therefore, it seems to me that the debate which took place last Wednesday and the one to-day were unnecessary.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I understand my noble friend to suggest that, because these documents existed before, it was not necessary to have the debate last Wednesday. Does he also suggest that there is no occasion to have a debate now? I would ask by noble friend to exercise a little patience and to listen, because I have been asked a question and am answering it on behalf of His Majesty's Government. Perhaps I had better repeat the question. I am asked to say what measures His Majesty's Government have taken, or propose to take, for this purpose.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I was referring only to the want of necessity for last week's debate and that of to-day, in view of what was already known by all of us. I am not criticizing what the Government are saying, or what the noble and learned Viscount is saying.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am asked what is the method by which His Majesty's Government are endeavouring to carry out these admirable directions. I understand my noble friend to think that they are quite admirable. It is right and important that we should do all we can in this matter, and I am going to tell your Lordships what we have done, because that is the question which I am asked and therefore the question which I should like to answer. The answer is this. The importance of doing all that is possible to conserve the art monuments of Italy was recognized by our own War Office before the invasion of Sicily began in April last. The invasion of Sicily, like all sea-borne operations, was conditioned by the availability of shipping and by the priority of its use for strictly military purposes. Nothing could be spared beyond
854
what was really necessary for that purpose. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Trenchard is not here at the moment, because that is the point which he made in his speech. The inevitable result was that the service devoted to art preservation, which had already been set up as part of the War Office scheme, suffered in the opening stages of the campaign. Something of the sort was said earlier by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and it is true that some things were damaged in Sicily in the course of military operations because there was really not an adequate system for taking care of them. In the same way the very exacting circumstances in which the advance from El Alamein was made to clear North Africa did not permit of much attention being given at first to the preservation of monuments.
On the American side an initiative was taken and in August, 1943, a special Commission was appointed by President Roosevelt to correlate the work of the independent Committees formed to supply the United States Army with advice, and in particular "to aid in salvaging and restoring to their lawful owners such objects of art as have been appropriated by the Axis Powers or by individuals acting under their authority or consent." In this country we at first put this question of preserving art monuments in war areas under the Civil Affairs branch of the Service. The agreement between us and the United States gave the United States the principal authority; I think that there were twelve American officers as against three British. The organization was on the lines devised by this United States Commission. The object was to provide as far as we could for the protection of monuments in occupied areas, for the application to damaged monuments of such "first-aid" measures as might prevent their further deterioration, and for the collection of evidence of appropriation or wanton destruction of works of art by the Germans. That was all in line with the British view, and indeed a similar arrangement was in course of being made by ourselves.
As I think the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said, when Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Leonard Woolley went out as the special adviser of the War Office on this subject, he came to the conclusion that the arrangements were not altogether satisfactory, mainly, I think, because the officers on whom reliance had been placed were, to

855
a large extent, grouped in areas at the back, and it became a question of whether more could not be done in areas where they were most needed. At any rate, Sir Leonard Woolley saw General Eisenhower, and it was General Eisenhower who made the order to which my noble friend has just referred and which I have read. The organization was remodelled, and under the new arrangements some officer experts are attached to the Fighting Commands, while others in the rear of the battle areas are available for posting wherever required. Moreover, the officers in question now exercise a higher authority than before. I think that I shall be confirmed by anybody with experience of soldiering when I say that the only effective machinery to use in the midst of fighting or in an area of active war, is the executive authority of the responsible Commander. The orders have to be given by those who are really responsible as officers commanding troops. The orders which have been given of late are of that character, and we believe that they are working well, and that as far as anything can be done it is being done.
The Secretary of State for War, who takes a very great interest in this subject and does not at all regard it as outside his duties and responsibilities, hopes from time to time to be able to make reports to Parliament as to what has been discovered and the extent to which damage has been done by the Germans, and on what has been done in the way of saving monuments and the like from further deterioration, and so on. I cannot but think that your Lordships, on reflection, will hold that that is a perfectly sensible plan. It does not in the least interfere with the primary function of our troops, and nobody in his senses suggests that these considerations should for a moment interfere with the military necessities of the position.
The noble and most reverend Lord, Lord Lang, asked me a question about a Commission. It was part of the communication made by the War Cabinet to my noble friend. The authorities for when he spoke offered to find, if it was desired, a number of people who might form a Commission for certain useful purposes, and the answer was that His Majesty's Government quite approved of that and hoped that the names which were suggested would be sent forward, I
856
think to the Prime Minister, but at any rate to the Government. The suggestion was that a Commission parallel to that set up by the President of the United States might be formed to deal with the post-war problem of the restitution of stolen works of art. The problem of how to recover loot is a most difficult one, but it manifestly has nothing to do with interference with military operations; it is a post-war question.
I understood my noble friend to ask whether or not those who were appointed to this Commission might have useful work to do at an earlier period, during the war, and the reply which he got, and which I must repeat, is that the Government agree that the selection of names should be made at once. I must not, however, be misunderstood; I do not wish to be misunderstood about this at all. I am not promising, and the Government are not promising, that these doubtless most skilled experts can make what may be called surveys on the spot in time of war. The only people who can really look after an area of warfare are the soldiers, sailors and airmen who are under the orders of the Commanders in the different areas. The idea that we should leave the most eminent experts who have high artistic or archaeological qualifications to walk about the late battlefields for this purpose is really one which I think would not be accepted as at all suitable. But, though the machinery during the war must be the executive authority of the Commander-in-Chief and the officers under his command, questions may arise—they will arise—and His Majesty's Government hope, and the War Office hope, that he will be able to make use of the Commission to which my noble friend referred as advisers in suitable cases.
I have spoken in general terms, and I hope I have satisfied the House that the question which my noble friend has raised is one which he is quite justified in raising, and has nothing to do with the proposition introduced here last week on another Motion.
The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, asked me whether, when the time came, we would not do our best to associate with this Commission suitable experts who would come from Belgium, from the Dutch, the French and so on. I am quite sure that is the spirit in which the proposal is made.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: What I was thinking of was whether similar steps would be taken as are now being taken in Italy, when these officers are moving behind the troops in France, Belgium or Holland.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The proposals which the Government have in mind are not necessarily confined to Italy, but that was the occasion when the matter was raised.
I will end by giving to the House a little information, rather more detailed information about the actual case of Monte Cassino. In the first place the buildings themselves are of small importance. Most of them date from the nineteenth century. They are decorated with frescoes by German artists. The great church inside the abbey is of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. I believe the objects of most interest artistically in the church are its bronze and silver doors. The most important feature of the monastery is the library, which contained over ten thousand printed volumes, some of them extremely rare, and thousands of manuscripts. Early in the war the Italian authorities sent to Monte Cassino for safety the finest objects from the National Museum at Naples, including a unique collection of bronze statues and busts from Herculanæum and Pompeii, all the treasures from the convent of Montevergine near Avellino, and all the objects from the San Martino Museum at Naples—ivories, majolicas and a number of other things. I hope I shall not be suspected of not being a thorough-paced supporter of bombing; when I say that it would be a misfortune if those things were to perish.
But they are no longer at Monte Cassino. I am relying on three or four extracts from German newspapers, which in these highly exceptional circumstances may, I suppose, be trusted. The Berliner Börsenzeitung of November 7 announced that all the treasures of art and antiquity had been removed by the Germans from the monastery and handed over to the Vatican authorities in Rome. On December 9 the Pester Lloyd said that the art treasures had gone first and had been followed by 20,000 volumes of books and quantities of manuscripts. On January 20 the Berliner Börsenzeitung gave the total of books removed as 70,000 volumes and a number of archives. Then you
858
have a superb example of the way in which Goebbels controls the Press. The paper added that "enough of art objects were left in the monastery to satisfy the lust for destruction of an uncultured gang-sterdom." On the same day the Völkische Beobachter reported that the monastery was already being shelled by the Allies and had suffered severely. There you see the Germans were playing a double game. It was perfectly within their power to remove all these treasures. First they claimed they had done so; then there was a revised version that they had removed a lot of them, but they left some in order to be able to make accusations of vandalism. On the other hand they wanted to use the monastery as a fortress, and if possible to profit by its reputation as a sacred storehouse of art. So they invented a story, which was not true, that Monte Cassino had been attacked nearly a month before the first shell was fired at it, and this, according to them, entitles them to use the place as a fortress.
I think that that story is quite sufficient to show that we had better not be too squeamish in this business. It is perfectly plain that the Germans proceeded without any regard to the history or character of the monastery; they deliberately turned it into a fortress and fired from it on our own men, seeking to delay their advance. I do not accept the proposition—as far as I know it is not based on any official information—that anybody was ready to attack the monastery before it was attacked. I believe the decision to attack the monastery was made at a time when military necessity required it. It is unlikely that amateurs are in a position to assert that it would have been attacked before if it had not been for General Eisenhower's order. I made inquiries from the War Office to find out when the time came to attack and was informed that that was of course decided by reference to military considerations. I will only add one other matter about the monastery. The monks are not there. They have retired to Rome.
I would have thought in those circumstances that Cassino was a very good example of the proposition that the military requirements of the Allies come far in front of everything else, and are inexorably met according to the directions of the Allies as soon as they can

859
be. On the other hand, when we once enter that great building, where I believe there are the remains of the tomb of St. Benedict, I cannot think there would be anything wrong in the commander on the spot directing that a guard should be posted to see that the tomb of the saint had not become a place from which you could collect small trophies to send home to your wife and neighbours.
Here then, my Lords, is the conclusion. I do not believe that when this matter is thrashed out there could be the slightest doubt that the question put by my noble friend is perfectly reasonable, and I hope the answer to it has been perfectly plain. Let it be understood, once and for all, that we are the very last to suggest that military considerations have not the first place, but, on the other hand, within the limits within which it is possible, if only behind the lines, to protect that which is part of the inheritance of the ages is not outside our duty. Both the American Commanders and the British Commanders have thought that that was the right course to take, and that is the answer which I have to give to the noble and most reverend Lord. I hope it gives him some satisfaction.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BIRMINGHAM: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack naturally desired to speak on behalf of the Government at not too late an hour, but I trust that for a few minutes I might address this House as I cannot think that the Christian position has been quite adequately understood by some noble Lords who have spoken; notably Lord Latham and Lord Winster. Christian people throughout the country are gravely troubled by the direction which the war is taking. The noble and most reverend Lord, Lord Lang, has brought up to day the question of the cultural monuments of Italy, and especially those of the early Christian Renaissance. Such things as Giotto's tower at Florence and the great cathedrals At Siena and Assisi bind all Christians together. Too often in the past we have quarrelled with one another, but these magnificent buildings, some of the finest achievements of European civilization, are Christian, and we cannot forget it.
Then there are others of our people, the people in the little homes. I know something of little homes, perhaps more
860
intimately than all but the few who sit on the Benches opposite. There is among the Christian men, and especially the Christian women, great sadness, much searching of heart, pride in their boys and their courage, sorrow at the work they are given to do. It is total war, you say. It may be that there is no other way out than the destruction of great industrial areas and of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of little homes, but the people living in the little homes in this country, for the most part, do not like that aspect of total war, and they would that it could be avoided. The noble Lord spoke of the necessity of retaliation—an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. We have been taught otherwise. He spoke of "They that draw the sword shall perish by the sword." I am not going into the question of who drew it first. I think, as does probably everybody here, that the responsibility for this war rests with the present German Government, but a question comes of the command, "Put up thy sword into its sheath." You say that this is not practical politics, that Might is Right, that Might defends Right. Yes, and then the Christian remembers, "Not by might nor by power but by my spirit, saith the Lord of Hosts."
We are hoping against hope that somehow or another the Christian spirit will lead to an ending of this war otherwise than by complete collapse of the other side, for we look to a future when we must live in friendship with those who are now our enemies. We wish a free Europe, but we wish also a Christian Europe. I put this point of view. I know many of your Lordships think it is foolishness, and indeed it has been said that the ultimate outcome of that point of view is conscientious objection—Christian pacifism. Yes, but Christians for the first three centuries of the existence of the Christian Church adopted this policy of passive acceptance of wrong, and in the end, against the whole might of the Roman Empire, they won. Is it not possible that there are powers from on high who can join in the conflict, and that if we try to keep our ideals pure, if we do all that we can to avoid the implications of total war, we may yet find a help that at present we do not expect?
LORD LANG OF LAMBETH: My Lords, may I thank the noble and

861
learned Viscount on the Woolsack most warmly for the reply he has given to my question? He has abundantly shown that the importance of this matter is not a fad of my own, but is the concern of the Prime Minister and the War Cabinet, which is sufficient justification for my having brought it before your Lordships to-day. With regard to the Commission which I mentioned in my remarks, which appeared to have been mainly forgotten, at the beginning of to-day's proceedings, I particularly note what the noble and learned Viscount said about the necessity of orders of every sort being given only by the military authorities. I think I said that they and they alone could take executive action, but I hope it may be possible for any such Commission as this to give information and advice on any matter that may be referred to them with regard to the conduct of this particular responsibility of our Armies. Therefore I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for what he has said.
I should also like to thank him for having cleared what he justly called the somewhat sulphurous atmosphere which, somehow or other, seems to have been imported into the House this afternoon. I must not trespass on my privilege of saying a word in reply, but I think I am entitled to a certain measure of sympathy for having spent the greater part of three hours in listening to vehement criticisms of a speech made by another person at
862
another time and on another Motion. When recall was made occasionally to my own observations and the purpose of my own Motion, I can only say I had here again to listen to criticisms of a speech which I had never made. But that is by the way. The main point is that the House has been able to realize, from the reply of the noble and learned Viscount, how very real is the concern of the War Cabinet in this matter. It justifies what I said at the beginning that it is following the wise mean—on the one hand, of not giving any chance to the enemy and, on the other, of not ignoring the importance of this responsibility. I shall not say more. Had he been here I should have liked to reply to the words spoken by Lord Geddes which also showed that he had forgotten what I actually said. He stressed the value of the whole Christian civilization as justifying this war. That is precisely what I said—not this aspect only, tout the whole of civilization—and therefore the necessity of immediate and complete victory.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

ROLL OF THE LORDS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had prepared and laid it on the Table. The same was ordered to be printed.
House adjourned.