Sitting of 8 June 1944

PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  I.L.O. CONFERENCE (DECLARATION)
  Mr. Manderasked the Minister of Labour if he can now make a statement with refrence to the work of the recent conference of the International Labour Organisation and the adoption by 41 nations of the Philadelphia Charter.
  The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): As I have already indicated, a statement with regard to this Conference generally will be made in due course. I can say at once however, that the Government welcome the Declaration referred to by my hon. Friend, in which the International Labour Conference reaffirms the fundamental principles on which the International Labour Organisation is based. I am circulating the text of the Declaration in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. Mander: May I ask the Minister if a statement will be made in the course of the Debate about it, embracing the whole position?
  Mr. Bevin: It will be some little time before all the translations of the reports are received from the International Labour Office.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: Will the Minister be good enough to see that the Philadelphia Charter is not torpedoed by our Government like the Atlantic Charter?
  Sir Patrick Hannon: May I ask whether an appropriate tribute has been paid to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour for the admirable work he has done in Philadelphia?
  Following is the text of the Declaration:
  DECLARATION CONCERNING THE AIMS AND PURPOSES OF THE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION.
  The General Conference of the International Labour Organisation, meeting in its Twenty-sixth Session in Philadelphia, hereby adopts this l0th day of May in the year nineteen hundred and forty-four, the present Declaration of the aims and purposes of the International Labour Organisation and of the principles which should inspire the policy of its Members.
  I.
  The Conference reaffirms the fundamental principles on which the Organisation is based and, in particular, that:

  (a) labour is not a commodity;

  (b) freedom of expression and of association are essential to sustained progress;

  (c) poverty anywhere constitutes a danger to prosperity everywhere;

  (d) the war against want requires to be carried on with unrelenting vigour within each nation, and by continuous and concerted international effort in which the representatives of workers and employers, enjoying equal status with those of Governments, join with them in free discussion and democratic decision with a view to the promotion of the common welfare.

  II.
  Believing that experience has fully demonstrated the truth of the statement in the Preamble to the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation that lasting peace can be established only if it is based on social justice, the Conference affirms that:

  (a) all human beings, irrespective of race, creed or sex, have the right to pursue both their material well-being and their spiritual development in conditions of freedom and dignity, of economic security and equal opportunity;

  (b) the attainment of the conditions in which this shall be possible must constitute the central aim of national and international policy;

  (c) all national and international policies and measures, in particular those of an economic and financial character, should be judged in this light and accented only in so far as they may he held to promote and not to hinder the achievement of this fundamental objective;

  (d) it is a responsibility of the International Labour Organisation to examine and consider all international economic and financial policies and measures in the light of this fundamental objective;

  (e) in discharging the tasks entrusted to it the International Labour Organisation,

  1483
  having considered all relevant economic and financial factors, may include in its decisions and recommendations any provisions which it considers appropriate.

  III.
  The Conference recognises the solemn obligation of the International Labour Organisation to further among the nations of the world programmes which will achieve:

  (a) full employment and the raising of standards of living;

  (b) the employment of workers in the occupations in which they can have the satisfaction of giving the fullest measure of their skill and attainments and make their greatest contribution to the common wellbeing;

  (c) the provision, as a means to the attainment of this end and under adequate guarantees for all concerned, of facilities for training and the transfer of labour, including migration for employment and settlement;

  (d) policies in regard to wages and earnings, hours and other conditions of work calculated to ensure a just share of the fruits of progress to all, and a minimum living wage to all employed and in need of such protection;

  (e) the effective recognition of the nigh` of collective bargaining, the co-operation of management and labour in the continuous improvement of productive efficiency, and the collaboration of workers and employers in the preparation and application of social and economic measures;

  (f) the extension of social security measures to provide a basic income to all in need of such protection and comprehensive medical care;

  (g) adequate protection for the life and health of workers in all occupations;

  (h) provision for child welfare and maternity protection;

  (i) the provision of adequate nutrition, housing and facilities for recreation and culture;

  (j) the assurance of equality of educational and vocational opportunity.

  IV.
  Confident that the fuller and broader utilisation of the world's productive resources necessary for the achievement of the objectives set forth in this Declaration can be secured by effective international and national action, including measures to expand production and consumption, to avoid severe economic fluctuations, to promote the economic and social advancement of the less developed regions of the world, to assure greater stability in world prices of primary products, and to promote a high and steady volume of international trade, the Conference pledges the full co-operation of the International Labour Organisation with such international bodies as may be entrusted with a share of the responsibility for this great task and for the promotion of the health, education and well-being of all peoples.
  V.
  The Conference affirms that the principles set forth in this Declaration are fully applicable, to all peoples everywhere and that v bile the manner of their application must be determined with due regard to the stage of social and economic development reached by each people, their progressive application to peoples who are still dependent, as well as to those who have already achieved self-government, is a matter of concern to the whole civilised world.
  Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Minister of Labour whether he will place in the Library of the House a copy of the full Report of the proceedings of the I.L.O. Conference recently concluded at Philadelphia, U.S.A.
  Mr. Bevin: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Leslie) on nth May last.

  NATIONAL WAR EFFORT

    Domestic Workers (Farm Households)
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the acute shortage of agricultural labour and, in particular, the scarcity of domestic help which is essential to efficient farming, he will now direct an increasing number of young women to domestic service on the farms.
    Mr. Bevin: Farmers' households are included amongst those to which priority in the supply of domestic help has been given as explained in my reply to the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Mr. A. Edwards) on 20th April.
    Mr. Boothby: Is the Minister aware that, although they may have priority, there is an immense shortage of domestic help on farms to-day, and that, without some more domestic help, the efficiency of our agricultural industry must be impaired?
    Mr. Bevin: I am aware of the shortage, and, until the battles are finished on the Continent, I of afraid the shortage will continue.
    Mr. Boothby: I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

    Discharged Prisoners of War (Civil Reinstatement)
    Mr. Hewlettasked the Minister of Labour whether arrangements are in hand

    1485
    to plan the rehabilitation and resettlement in civil life of the recently discharged prisoners of war at the end of their period of leave.
    Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir. These discharged prisoners of war are dealt with under the current scheme for the training and resettlement of disabled persons. My officers have been instructed that special steps should be taken to see that everything is done by way of help and advice for such men.

    Unemployed Actors, London
    Mr. Liddallasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that, as a result of the closing down of two West End stage productions on l0th May, a number of young male actors have since been totally unemployed; that these men do not register at the employment exchange; and to what extent his officers have any record of their employment or whereabouts and what purpose such record serves.
    Mr. Bevin: Under the Notice of Termination of Employment Order, the details of such persons should have been communicated to one of my local offices. I am making inquiries to see whether this was done, and will write to my hon. Friend.

  HOME GUARD
  Lieut.-Commander Hutchisonasked the Minister of Labour whether he will institute a compulsory medical examination for men who are directed into the Home Guard.
  Mr. Bevin: No, Sir. There are adequate arrangements for securing that men who object to enrolment on medical grounds should be examined, or, if necessary, re-examined, by a Medical Board.
  Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Is the Minister aware that a great many of the men who are directed to the Home Guard are unaware of their rights in this matter?
  Mr. Bevin: I cannot believe that to be true, because they are told, when called up, what their rights are.
  Lieut.-Commander Hutchisonasked the Minister of Pensions the approximate number of disability and dependants' pensions which have been paid
  1486
  in respect of members of the Home Guard since its inception.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Mr. Paling): Up to 1st April last rather more than 1,100 disability and dependants' pensions had been granted to or in respect of members of the Home Guard.
  Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Does the Minister not think that this shows the need for a stricter medical examination before these men are taken into the Home Guard?

  PENSIONS AND GRANTS
  Mr. T. J. Brooksasked the Minister of Pensions if he will take steps to ensure that where there is a possibility of a claim on his Department for disability, all persons discharged on medical grounds from His Majesty's Forces shall be given a leaflet, setting out in concise form, the Regulations governing awards made by his Ministry.
  Mr. Paling: In view of their comprehensive character it is not, I am afraid, possible within the limits of a leaflet to set out the Regulations governing awards made by my Department. The documents of all members of the Forces who are discharged on medical grounds are referred automatically to my Department for consideration and no action by the discharged person in the nature of a claim is, therefore, required.
  Mr. Brooks: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of these people, before they are granted a pension, can only appeal to charitable organisations and public assistance, and could not something be done for them during this period?
  Mr. Paling: If that is so, I do not know that it arises from lack of knowledge that they have the right to make application.
  Mr. Buchanan: Is the Minister aware that there is often a time-lag between the man's case being considered and the grant of pension, and that, during that period, the man is incapable of work and his only resort is the poor law or public assistance? Is that a good thing?
  Mr. Paling: I hope that the number of cases is very small. We do try, in the time allowed us, to pay pensions before the other allowance has ceased.
  Mr. Buchanan: Can the Minister not, at least, represent to the Assistance Board that, in the interval, they might take over, rather than the poor law?
  Mr. Paling: I will consider that.
  Lieut.-Commander Hutchisonasked the Minister of Pensions the approximate number of cases in which a rent allowance is paid to widows under Article 29 of the Royal Warrant and the average amount of this allowance.
  Mr. Paling: I regret that separate figures for Army cases alone are not available. Up to 1st April last a rent allowance of an average amount of 4s. 8d. a week had been granted in nearly 19,000 cases under the various instruments administered by my right hon. Friend.

  EX-SERVICE MEN (ARTIFICIAL LIMBS)
  Mr. Hewlettasked the Minister of Pensions how many fitting centres exist in this country to meet the requirements of ex-Service men needing artificial limbs.
  Mr. Paling: There are 13 limb-fitting centres in this country, in addition to three in Scotland and one each in Wales, Northern Ireland and Eire.

  INDIA

    Firewood Allocation, Madras
    Mr. Edmund Harveyasked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the unsatisfactory effect of the allocation of firewood for household consumption in Madras on the basis of family income instead of the size of families and the hardship to the poorest section of the community involved in this; and whether a different basis has now been adopted.
    The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): The rationing of firewood in Madras City is a matter for the Madras Government and is not one which would ordinarily be brought to my notice. I understand that a special officer has recently been appointed to organise the supply arrangements, and that certain costs of supply are being borne by Government to avoid increasing the price
    1488
    to the consumer. The basis of the ration—which has been carefully considered by the Government of Madras so as to accord with local conditions—is related to the size of the family as well as to the income, which of course is largely governed by the numbers in the family.
    Mr. Harvey: Has there not been hardship in the last cold season owing to the size of income being the governing factor? Did not that result in great distress?
    Mr. Amery: I have given all the information at my disposal.

    Electricity Industry
    Wing-Commander Grant - Ferrisasked the Secretary of State for India what practical steps the Government of India is taking to encourage the electricity industry in India now; and what long term plans are envisaged in this connection.
    Mr. Amery: Additional capacity amounting to 200 megawatts has been supplied to India since the outbreak of war, and a further 150 megawatts are on order. The Government of India have the development of electricity supply in the forefront of their post-war reconstruction plans. They 'have already scheduled additional plant requirements for the addition of 560 megawatts to the existing capacity of public utilities and have further requirements under consideration. In addition, Provincial and State Governments are considering a number of important projects and the Government of India propose to set up a Technical Power Board to scrutinise and co-ordinate all schemes.
    Sir Stanley Reed: Will the Minister not circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT, or in some other appropriate way, a statement showing the enormous developments in India, and the active part the Government have taken therein?
    Mr. Amery: I will consider that.

    Broadcasting Services
    Wing-Commander Grant-Ferrisasked the Secretary of State for India whether he can say if the Government of India has any long term plans for the development of the broadcasting services in order to ensure expert information on education, health, agriculture and weather reports.
    Mr. Amery: I understand that a longterm plan for the development of broadcasting services in India is now in course of preparation by the Government of India.

    Department of Education, Health and Lands
    Wing-Commander Grant-Ferrisasked the Secretary of State for India whether he has given any thought to, or received any recommendation from, the Government of India on the advisability of dividing the Department of Education, Health and Lands, into three separate departments, namely, Education, Health and Agriculture.
    Mr. Amery: The subjects covered by the title of the Department referred to are primarily the responsibility of the Provincial Governments and the functions of the Department at the Centre are mainly those of co-ordination. It would be for the Government of India to consider whether the work likely to fall on the Department for these purposes will in future be sufficient to require its division into three separate departments.

    Service Canteens
    Miss Wardasked the Secretary of State for India whether he can make any statement on his discussions with the Government of India on canteens for the services.
    Mr. Amery: I am glad to inform my hon. Friend that the Government of India have now agreed to exempt from customs duty all canteen stores whether for the India Command or the South East Asia Command with the exception of wine, spirits, beer and tobacco. The prices of beer and tobacco in Indian canteens already compare favourably with N.A.A.F.I. prices in this country and in overseas Commands. Gift parcels of tobacco sent from this country to India are already exempt from duty.
    Miss Ward: May I ask if the beer and tobacco are as good?
    Mr. Amery: That is a matter of taste.
    Mr. Bellenger: May I ask the Minister whether the tobacco prices, which he says compare favourably with N.A.A.F.I. prices, are for Indian tobacco or American tobacco; if it is not the case that they compare unfavourably with American tobacco, and why it is that the India
    1490
    Government will not allow American tobacco—which is what the troops want and not Indian tobacco—to come in free of duty?
    Mr. Amery: I fully appreciate the fact that our troops, on the whole, prefer American to Indian tobacco, but for shipping reasons we decided some time ago that American tobacco could not be imported into India in large quantities, and the proportion of American tobacco in Indian cigarettes had to be cut down.
    Mr. Astor: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there is complete equality of treatment betwen the American Red Cross and British canteens as regards tobacco, spirits and everything else?
    Mr. Amery: I understand that the American Red Cross canteens look after their own arrangements.
    Mr. Astor: I am afraid that I did not make myself clear. Are the American canteens getting their tobacco and spirits in duty free or not?
    Mr. Amery: I believe that they are getting them duty free. As I have just pointed out, with the exception of the particular articles mentioned, they are duty free into India.
    Sir Herbert Williams: Is not this a breach of the Atlantic Charter?
    Mr. Colegate: May I ask my right hon. Friend not to overlook Rhodesian and other Empire tobaccos?
    Mr. Amery: The shipping difficulty stands in the way there as well.
    Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that we have ceased issuing or supplying those horrible and unpopular "V" cigarettes in India?
    Mr. Amery: I have given answers in recent weeks showing that there has been a complete cessation of the issue of the "V" cigarette, but as to its quality I have no information.
    Mr. Stephen: Does the right hon. Gentleman assert that the shipping difficulty does not apply in regard to tobacco going to American Forces?
    Mr. Bellenger: I beg to give notice that owing to the completely unsatisfactory nature of the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, I shall raise the matter at an early opportunity on the Adjournment.

    Censorship
    Miss Wardasked the Secretary of State for India whether he can now make a statement on censorship in India.
    Mr. Amery: I must ask the indulgence of the House for a somewhat long reply.
    In regard to censorship of Press messages leaving India the Government of India have assured me that they are anxious to accord to correspondents of reputable newspapers and news agencies overseas the greatest possible measure of freedom to transmit news and views on the situation in India. The two main grounds on which Press messages from India are liable in war conditions to interference are, firstly, if they are likely to convey to the enemy information of military value, including news of events in India of which the enemy could take immediate military advantage; or secondly, if they contain information which, particularly if exploited by enemy broadcasts heard in India, would be likely gravely to threaten peace and tranquillity there.
    As regards the first, the House will recognise that with the Japanese on the frontier of India military security is vital. Moreover the Government of India cannot be unmindful of the danger of presenting the enemy with information and material which he can exploit directly to his advantage in his wireless propaganda services to the Indian public and to Indian troops. Censorship on the second ground will continue to be exercised only in exceptional circumstances and under the policy control of competent higher authority. Whenever feasible correspondents will be informed of the reasons for the censor's action. The Government of India wish to make it clear that their censorship of messages leaving India is not applied on political grounds, and that they appreciate the importance of free transmission from India of the messages of news agencies and correspondents.
    The Viceroy, who had looked into the matter personally, assures me that although there may have been some mistakes and errors of judgment, the censorship has not been applied in such a way as to hinder the presentation of a fair picture of the Indian situation. He points out that the censors had had to work in difficult conditions but he is having the
    1492
    departmental machinery overhauled so as to provide better safeguards against official over-caution. What I have just said does not of course relate to Censorship of Press messages handed in for transmission at the Headquarters of the r4th Army or of the South East Asia Command, responsibility for which now rests with that Command.
    As regards postal and telegraphic communications other than Press traffic, I have already explained the general arrangements and principles of the Indian Censorship in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for East Fulham on the 18th of May. From a report subsequently received from the Government of India I find that certain allegations regarding the Postal and Telegraph Censorship which have recently been given currency here are either unfounded or grossly exaggerated. In particular I find that wide liberty is given to political comment and that indeed there is no political censorship, except where commerce exceeding a fair and reasonable explanation of views have to be treated as matter inimical to the national interest or providing valuable material for enemy propaganda.
    Mr. Tinker: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? When an answer is very long, would you not consider leaving it until the end of Questions? There are 89 Questions on the Paper and it is very difficult for hon. Members to get their Questions put, when long answers are given.
    Mr. Speaker: There is already one answer which is to be given at the end of Questions. It is, however, more convenient when there is a very long answer to have it at the end of Questions.

    War Effort (Financial Contribution)
    Sir Irving Alberyasked the Secretary of State for India the nature of any financial contribution which has been, or is being, made by India towards the present war effort.
    Mr. Amery: In accordance with the agreement announced in the House in February, 1940, India has borne during the war the cost of her pre-war forces increased by rises of pay and prices; the normal cost of the external defence troops, plus a contribution of 10,000,000 rupees towards their extra costs while employed overseas. India has also borne the cost

    1493
    of local measures of defence, including the cost of raising, training and equipping large bodies of Indian troops the pay of all British Forces at present in India, the cost of aerodrome construction and military works, and of the Royal Indian Navy. In addition Reciprocal Aid has been afforded to the American forces in India and supplies of foodstuffs and raw materials are being furnished to America for war purposes. The sums borne by India under these heads to 31st March last are estimated to amount to approximately £600 million and the costs are now running at about £225 million a year. India's pre-war defence budget was £34 million.
    Mr. Stephen: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether Mr. Gandhi and other popular leaders in India were consulted before these contributions were made?
    Mr. Amery: They had their opportunity, of raising the matter in the discussions on the Indian Budget.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: In view of the great interest which is taken in the financial relations between this country and India, will my right hon. Friend consider the issuing of an explanatory White Paper; and will he also take advantage of the presence in this country of a high Indian financial authority to see that that individual places his opinions before Members of this House?
    Mr. Amery: I will keep these matters under consideration.

    Parliamentary Franchise (Service Register)
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Secretary of State for India what instructions have been issued to troops in India and adjacent Commands concerning the method of registering as voters and the appointment of proxies.
    Mr. Amery: Copies of the relevant Army Council Instruction were sent to the India Command who will take the necessary steps to give effect to it. As regards adjacent Commands the matter is one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War.
    Mr. Ballenger: As the right hon. Gentleman is not very informative, may I ask him whether he has seen the Army Council Instruction in which it is stated that steps will be taken by overseas
    1494
    Commands themselves to provide these facilities? I am asking the right hon. Gentleman what facilities are being provided by these oversea Commands, and not for the Army Council Instruction, which I know.
    Mr. Amery: I have not had an opportunity of discovering precisely what detailed facilities the overseas Commands, have given. I have no doubt that they have done their best to carry out the instructions of the War Office.
    Mr. Bellenger: Is not the right hon. Gentleman himself, at the India Office, personally responsible for the Indian Command carrying out those instructions? Has he taken steps to see that they have done so?
    Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir, there is no doubt that the responsibility of the Indian Command does rest with the Secretary of State, but these instructions were sent out by the military authorities here to the military authorities in India, and, presumably, the military authorities have done their best to carry out those instructions.
    Mr. J. J. Lawson: Are serving soldiers being encouraged to fill in the necessary forms, and have all proper steps been taken?
    Mr. Amery: I presume that the military authorities, in corresponding with each other, have dealt with that matter.

  ARMED FORCES (ALIEN REFUGEES, NATIONALITY)
  Mr. Vernon Bartlettasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will ensure that all Austrian or German refugees now serving in His Majesty's Forces will automatically be granted British nationality if they are drafted for military service overseas.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): If the hon. Member's suggestion is prompted by a belief that the acquirement of British nationality would afford some protection to such a person should he fall into the hands of the enemy, this is a mistake. Such protection as is afforded by the Prisoners of War Convention applies to any member of the Armed Forces whatever may be his nationality. Should the enemy, in

  1495
  spite of the Convention, seek to differentiate against such a prisoner, the fact that he had accepted British nationality, so far from being advantageous to him, would, in the eyes of the enemy, aggravate his offence. There is no ground on which I should be justified in selecting for automatic naturalisation those to whom the Question refers out of the numerous classes of aliens who are assisting the war effort.
  Mr. Bartlett: Is it not at least probable that these men would fight still better if the threat were removed from them that, as soon as they were discharged from the Forces, they would have to revert to the status of aliens?
  Mr. Morrison: I do not know, but I really cannot see any reasonable ground why there should be automatic naturalisation in these cases; the question of naturalisation must be carefully considered in each case.
  Sir H. Williams: Do I understand from the answer that if a British national is serving in the German army and is taken prisoner, he is not guilty of treason?
  Mr. Morrison: I think my hon. Friend is on a point there, and it is a point which, no doubt, would be exploited by the enemy in cases of this kind.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman look further into this matter, and find out whether it is not the case that the United States of America grant naturalisation automatically on the entry of an alien into their Forces?
  Mr. Morrison: I do not know whether that is so or not. I am the British Home Secretary responsible to the British Parliament; I must act in accordance with what I conceive to be British interests.
  Mr. Price: Would it not be better if these men were encouraged to return to Germany after the war to help to civilise their country?

  PRISON SENTENCE REMISSIONS (WOMEN)
  Major Sir Jocelyn Lucasasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department by how many women's organisations he has been approached with a view to equalising the good conduct remission of
  1496
  prison sentences as between men and women.
  Mr. H. Morrison: I think my hon. and gallant Friend must be under some misapprehension. All prisoners whether men or women, can earn by good conduct and industry remission not exceeding one-third of their sentences. I have not received any representations on this subject.

  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE (SERVICE REGISTER)
  Mr. Quintin Hoggasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for registration for the Parliamentary franchise have been received from the respective Services; and whether he is satisfied with the progress in registration of the Services.
  Mr. H. Morrison: The figures could only be obtained by calling on each electoral registration officer to examine his records and to make a return of the Service applications received up to a specified date. As many electoral registration officers are finding difficulty at the present time in coping with the work of preparing the new system of registration, I am reluctant to put this additional burden upon them, especially as the process of transmitting Service applications is still far from complete and new batches of applications are being received from day to day. I fully sympathise, however, with my hon. Friend's desire to ascertain to what extent members of the Services are taking steps to get on to the electoral register, and I will at a later date consider what useful information can be obtained.
  Mr. Hogg: May I have a reply to the second part of the Question, whether the Home Secretary is satisfied with the progress which is being made?
  Mr. Morrison: I think it would be premature to express a firm opinion on that, but the Service Ministers are doing what they can in the matter.
  Mr. Hogg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in point of fact, a relatively small proportion of the men in the Services are registering? Is he not aware, also, that there will be really serious trouble if at the last moment, for any reason, they find they have not a vote?
  Mr. Morrison: If any trouble is coming it ought to come to the Service Ministers and not to me, since they are responsible. The House will appreciate, however, that at the moment the Armies in Italy and France are pretty heavily engaged.
  Mr. John Wilmot: Would the Home Secretary later on call for a return of the number of registrations in order that the House may be informed as to the total registration of the Forces?
  Mr. Morrison: I will certainly consider that, Sir.
  Mr. Bellengerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements have been made to set up a central index of all persons who have made Service declarations; and whether the index will be available for inspection by candidates or their agents.
  Mr. Morrison: The central index of persons qualified to be included on a Service Register will be maintained at the Central National Registration Office and is for the purpose of ensuring that changes in electoral status of those concerned can be communicated to the appropriate electoral registration officer. This central index will not be arranged on a constituency basis, and is quite distinct from a Service Register, which is to be compiled for each constituency and published when an election is initiated. Copies of this Register when published will be available to candidates or their agents.
  Mr. Bellenger: Then may I ask my right hon. Friend whether machinery has already been set up, in view of the applications which are coming in from the Services, to compile a Central Register and then to pass that information on to the constituencies?
  Mr. Morrison: I understand that is so, Sir.

  CHIEF CONSTABLE, WOLVERHAMPTON (APPOINTMENT)
  Sir Robert Birdasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the reasons why he has refused to approve the appointment of Superintendent Ballance as Chief Constable of Wolverhampton.
  Mr. H. Morrison: I will make a statement at the end of Questions.
  Later—
  Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir; I am glad to have this opportunity of making a statement which will, I hope, clear up any misconceptions there may be about this incident. In March last I came to the conclusion that it was my duty to withhold from Wolverhampton the half-yearly instalment of the Exchequer grant in aid of their police expenditure because I was not satisfied that the police force was efficiently maintained and properly administered. My reason for this conclusion was the failure of the watch committee to appreciate their responsibilities as the disciplinary authority for the Wolverhampton police force. At about the same time, the watch committee selected Superintendent Ballance, the deputy chief constable, to fill the vacant post of chief constable. The appointment of a chief constable is, under the provisions of the Police regulations, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, and I had to consider whether it would be in the best interests of a force of which the efficiency had necessarily been affected adversely by the unfortunate errors of judgment of the watch committee in the administration of discipline, that the post should be filled by an officer whose experience was comparatively limited and had been entirely confined to service in the Wolverhampton force. I came to the conclusion that this would not be desirable, and so informed the watch committee. Subsequently, I received a deputation from the watch committee and discussed with them fully and frankly both the withholding of the grant and the question of the appointment of a chief constable. The watch committee resigned, and I am glad to say the town council took the proper course of appointing a new watch committee. To a deputation from the new committee it has been explained—as had been explained to the former committee—that the reasons which led me to the conclusion that it would not be right to approve Superintendent Ballance's appointment as chief constable were quite unconnected with my decision to withhold grant (except, of course, that this general state of affairs made it more than ever desirable that the best officer available, and preferably one from outside the force, should be appointed) and, therefore, that the decision was unaffected by the resignation of the old committee. I have considerable sympathy with Superintendent Ballance's

  1499
  position and I am glad to have this opportunity of making it clear that my decision does not imply any reflection whatever upon his reputation or his personal or professional qualities; the position is simply that I regard it as essential in the circumstances that the new chief constable should be a man possessing wider experience than Superintendent Ballance can claim.
  Sir R. Bird: Whilst thanking the Home Secretary for his very full reply, may I ask whether he has been informed that, over a period of several months, Superintendent Ballance has been carrying out the duties of chief constable, to the general satisfaction; and, furthermore, whether he realises that the statement which he has just made is a denial to Superintendent Ballance of the hopes of promotion founded upon this emergency service, and upon an honourable record of some 25 years in the Wolverhampton Police Force?
  Mr. Morrison: In reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I was informed that that was so by the watch committee, when the deputation was received. On the second question, I am sorry about this, but I am perfectly clear in my own mind that it is desirable, in the particular circumstances of Wolverhampton, that there should not be a promotion from within the force and that it is desirable to have the appointment from outside.
  Sir R. Bird: Will the Home Secretary do his best to see that, in all the circumstances, the career of an esteemed and competent officer does not suffer by what has happened?
  Mr. Morrison: I did make it clear in my answer that there was no reflection on the professional career or abilities, or upon the character, of Superintendent Ballance. It is for the local police authority to settle, in the first instance, who their chief constable should be, but the circumstances leading to my decision in this instance are based upon the peculiar situation in Wolverhampton, and, in my judgment, ought not to prejudice the fair consideration of Superintendent Ballance elsewhere.
  Mr. Mander: Would the right hon. Gentleman say something about the future of the withheld grant?
  Mr. Morrison: On that, as I have explained in my reply, the stoppage of the grant had nothing to do with the appointment of the chief constable, but was decided upon because the watch committee had failed to administer the force efficiently. Restoration of the grant as from a current date must depend upon my being satisfied that the force is now in a state of efficiency. Any further long delay in appointing a chief constable may have a material bearing upon this question. I can make no promise about the instalment for the past year when the administration of the force was manifestly inefficient, but I would, of course, consider anything the watch committee might wish to say to me about that.

  WOMEN POLICE
  Sir P. Hannonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has given further consideration to the increase in the strength of the women police force with the object of securing increased vigilance for the promotion of public morality and the safeguarding of women and especially young girls against the dangers to which they are exposed in our cities and congested industrial areas.
  Mr. H. Morrison: As I explained in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) on 6th April, I have called the attention of police authorities and chief constables throughout England and Wales to the need for an adequate number of policewomen in those parts of the country where large numbers of troops are concentrated. As a result, proposals for the appointment of extra
  women for police work have now been submitted by many police authorities, and I have already approved a substantial number of new posts. The difficulties of finding women suitable for these appointments are, however, proving to be serious, and although all possible steps are being taken, it is unfortunately clear that there is no immediate prospect of its being possible to fill all the new posts.
  Sir P. Hannon: How many local authorities have complied with the right hon. Gentleman's proposals?
  Mr. Morrison: I think on the whole the response has been satisfactory.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Are any local authorities still holding aloof?
  Mr. Morrison: I could not say without notice.
  Rear-Admiral Beamish: Does not the necessity for protection also extend to the male sex?
  Mr. S. O. Davies: Would the right hon. Gentleman make representations to his colleague the Minister of Labour, in favour of not withdrawing women, who have served very well in the Women's Auxiliary Police, for other forms of labour?
  Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, we are constantly in touch with the Minister of Labour on this problem.

  COAL MINES (DIRECTED YOUTHS)
  Sir I. Alberyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the recent advice given by him to magistrates dealing with the cases of lads conscripted for the mines was given.
  Mr. H. Morrison: The circular to Clerks to Justices which my hon. Friend no doubt has in mind, and of which I am sending him a copy, was issued on 25th April, 1944.

  REGULATION 18B (DETENTIONS)
  Sir I. Alberyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now prepared to give to Members of this House, on request, the names of any of their constituents who are at present detained under Regulation 18B after having appeared before an advisory committee which recommended their release.
  Mr. H. Morrison: No, Sir. I regret that as I explained in answer to my hon. Friend on 17th December, 1942, I am not prepared to comply with this request.
  Sir I. Albery: I can only hope that this House will take full note of the implications of that refusal.

  EDUCATION

    Single-School Areas (Council Schools)
    Mr. Stokesasked the President of the Board of Education (1) how many council schools have been built since
    1502
    1902 in areas which were hitherto single church school areas;
    (2) how many proposals have been made for the building of council schools in single-school areas since 1902; and how many such proposals were turned down by his Department or by the local education authority on account of Church opposition and through the opposition of the ratepayers, respectively.
    The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): Some of the information for which he asks is not available and the rest could be obtained only by a scrutiny of the Board's records since 1902. I should find it difficult to justify the expenditure of time and labour on this task, especially in view of the impossibility of giving information which exactly tallies with the hon. Member's request.

    Teachers
    Mr. Colegateasked the President of the Board of Education whether he accepts the recommendation of the McNair Committee with regard to arrangements for the secondment of teachers throughout the education service; and what action he proposes to take.
    Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. The principle of this recommendation is one with which I am in full agreement, and I propose, at the appropriate time, to call into consultation representatives of the various interests concerned.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman in favour of seconded teachers receiving equal pay for equal work?
    Mr. Butler: I have been caught on that before, and I do not propose to be caught now.
    Mr. Edmund Harveyasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the difficulty experienced by qualified teachers and lecturers over 40 years of age in obtaining appointments; and whether he is taking steps, in view of the shortage of teachers, to facilitate the appointment of such teachers and the re-entry into teaching of suitably qualified persons whose teaching careers have been interrupted.
    Mr. Butler: My information is that, so far from qualified teachers experiencing any difficulty in obtaining employment,

    1503
    local education authorities are in many cases unable to fill vacancies in their teaching establishments for lack of qualified applicants. If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of any cases he has in mind, I will gladly look into them.
    Mr. Harveyasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will take steps to allow experienced graduates teaching in secondary schools who have a good teaching record to transfer to posts in elementary schools without being treated as uncertificated teachers.
    Mr. Butler: The whole question of the recognition of teachers will require review in the light of the reconstruction of education contemplated in the Education Bill and particularly the proposed operation as from 1st April, 1945, of Part II of the Bill, under which public elementary schools as such will cease to exist. In the meantime I am aware of no graduate teachers in secondary schools who are in fact desirous of a transfer to elementary schools and who are being deterred by present conditions of recognition.
    Mr. Harvey: Would it not be desirable, in the meantime, to encourage the transfer of teachers by removing the existing obstacles?
    Mr. Butler: I am always ready to consider any such proposal. Perhaps my hon. Friend will have a word with me about it.

    Evacuated Children (United States)
    Mr. Windsorasked the President of the Board of Education what action he proposes for those children and young persons who have been evacuated to the U.S.A., by private firms, at their own expense, and who have provided good educational facilities for their employees' children; and will such children return to the same or similar standard of education they are now receiving in the U.S.A.
    Mr. Butler: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) on 2nd May, a copy of which I am sending him.
    Mr. Thorne: Who is responsible for seeing that the children who have been evacuated to America are properly educated?
    Mr. Butler: Those who are in charge of them.

  PRIVATELY-OWNED CEMETERIES
  Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Minister of Health how many cemeteries in this country are privately owned; and whether the number is increasing.
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): I regret that the information is not available.
  Mr. Davies: Can the Minister say whether there are any cemeteries which are privately owned and run for private profit in this country?
  Mr. Willink: I find it difficult to understand the purport of the hon. Gentleman's Question, and I cannot answer his supplementary. Perhaps he will put a specific question on the Order Paper.
  Mr. Davies: But can the Minister say that there are no cemeteries privately owned and run for private profit?
  Mr. Willink: I can say neither one thing nor the other.
  Mr. Mathers: Is the Minister aware that there are privately-owned cemeteries in England which are disgracefully kept?

  BELGIAN GOVERNMENT, LONDON (STATUS)
  Sir Edward Griggasked the Prime Minister whether he will inform the House of the present attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the Belgian Government in London.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): I avail myself of this opportunity to assure my hon. Friend that there is no change of attitude on the part of His Majesty's Government towards the Belgian Government in London. They have been recognised as the legal and constitutional Government of Belgium; and it was in this capacity that we have recently signed with them an agreement similar to those concluded with the Netherlands and Norwegian Governments in regard to the administration of the liberated countries.

  GERMANY (REPARATIONS)
  Mr. Kirkwoodasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that, after the last war, German reparations resulted in serious unemployment in the shipbuilding, engineering and other industries of

  1505
  this country; and if he will give an assurance that steps will be taken at the peace settlement with Germany to make certain that no reparations will be exacted which may have the effect of injuring either our home or export trade and thus causing unemployment in Great Britain.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I want to ask the Prime Minister if he will see to it that at the peace settlement there will be no reparations such as those we had after the last war. Is he aware that we took not only the German Navy but the whole of the German mercantile marine and that the Government of that day sold that mercantile marine to the shipowners of this country for £5 a ton when we could not build ships at that time under £28 a ton, with the result that the whole of the shipbuilding engineering industry in this country was thrown out of gear?
  The Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friend that that is most fully in our minds. He and I both had vivid experience of those days.
  Mr. Kirkwood: The right hon. Gentleman was a good friend to the men, too, at that time.
  The Prime Minister: Thank you very much. I am sure that the mistakes of that time will not be repeated; we shall probably make another set of mistakes.
  Mr. Bellenger: Will the Prime Minister not allow himself to be pressed by the Tory Party as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was pressed last time about the peace with Germany?
  Sir William Davison: In connection with the peace settlement with Germany, referred to in the Question, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that full use will be made of German nationals to make good the wholesale destruction which has been so unnecessarily carried out in Europe by Germans?

  AGRICULTURE

    Veterinary Surgeons
    Mr. Colmanasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the serious situation which is arising owing to
    1506
    the shortage of veterinary surgeons; and what steps he is taking to prevent further members of this profession being called up for military service.
    The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The question of the allocation of veterinary surgeons to meet the requirements of agriculture and of the Army is receiving the consideration of my right hon. Friends the Minister of Labour and National Service and the Secretary of State for War and myself.
    Mr. Colman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the shortage of veterinary surgeons is already seriously affecting the welfare of all kinds of high class British livestock? Does he appreciate how extremely serious the matter is?
    Mr. Mathers: Will the Minister try to make sure that only qualified persons are allowed to practise in this field?

    Tractors (Spare Parts)
    Mr. Priceasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that considerable difficulty has been experienced by farmers in obtaining spare parts for Massey-Harris and Allis-Chalmers tractors; that there is apparently no stock of these parts in this country at the present time and that tractors are standing idle owing to inability to repair them; and whether he is taking steps to remedy the situation.
    Mr. Hudson: The hon. Member will appreciate that at the present time there are special transport difficulties which may delay delivery of spare parts. Nevertheless, my information shows that it is rare for wheeled tractors to be immobilised for more than a few days. Very substantial stocks of parts for both Massey-Harris, and Allis-Chalmers tractors are held at the main depots of each of the two firms concerned as well as by their dealers. Suitable provision has been made in our programme of imports and a steady flow of parts is reaching us from the U.S.A. I should be glad to look into any instances which the hon. Member may be able to give me provided that he furnishes full details of the parts that are required.
    Mr. Price: Is the Minister aware of the serious delay in field work owing to the absence of spare parts?
    Mr. Hudson: No, Sir.

    Weather Forecasts
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the disastrous consequences of the frost on 6th May and the inability of the agriculturalists to take adequate safeguards owing to the lack of reliable weather forecasts, he will confer with the appropriate authorities with a view to some relaxation of the existing regulations.
    Mr. Hudson: I am in consultation with the authorities concerned.

    Prices (Guarantee)
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to amplify the last announcement of a four years' guarantee of present prices for milk and fat cattle, so as to include wheat, oats and barley, in view of the fact that cereal farmers throughout the country have spent large sums on agricultural implements which they have had to purchase out of taxed profits to meet the compulsory orders for these staple foods and are anxious to know what prospects there are for them for the future.
    Mr. Hudson: No, Sir.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement of a four years' guarantee is only part of the picture? Is he aware of what the people who provide the machinery for growing corn have done? Ought they not to be protected in future?
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Does the Minister also recollect the very pressing just claims of the horticultural industry?

    Soil Fertility
    Mr. Wootton-Daviesasked the Minister of Agriculture to what extent his advisers have reported any depreciation in the soil during the war.
    Mr. Hudson: My information is that, taking the country as a whole, the fertility of the soil has during the war been maintained.

  PUBLIC HEALTH

    Kinmel Bay, Rhyl (Sanitation)
    Sir Henry Morris-Jonesasked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the documents sent to him by the
    1508
    hon. Member for Denbigh about the township of Kinmel Bay, near Rhyl; whether he is aware of the conditions under which many of the residents live there, with impassable roads, inadequate drainage and lack of proper sanitation; and what steps he intends to take to see that the necessary amenities are provided for its inhabitants.
    Mr. Willink: The answer to the first two parts of the Question is "Yes, Sir." As regards the third part, the primary responsibility for securing that provision is made for such sewers as may be necessary for effectually draining this area and that private streets are repaired or made up rests with the district council and I am prepared to consider any proposals for the purpose submitted by them.
    Sir H. Morris-Jones: Will the Minister be prepared to send down an inspector to investigate conditions, since in this area the problem is beyond the powers of the local authority, in view of the expense involved and the impossibility of recovery from the estate company?
    Mr. Willink: As regards sewerage, I have taken the matter in hand and asked the local authority to submit a scheme, and there will be a public inquiry. With regard to the improvement of the estate that, of course, is a matter in which the expenditure of public funds on a private estate must be one for inquiry. When the council make proposals I shall order a local inquiry into that as well.
    Mr. John Wilmot: Will the Minister examine again the origins of this most unsatisfactory estate, and see that the necessary steps are taken to prevent a recurrence?
    Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir.
    Rear-Admiral Beamish: Will my right hon. and learned Friend extend his attention to a similar set of circumstances which exists in East Sussex?
    Mr. Willink: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put that point to me by means of a Question on the Order Paper.
    Sir H. Morris-Jones: In view of the difficulty of ventilating this matter at Question time I give notice that I shall raise it again on the Adjournment, at the first opportunity.

    National Health Insurance (Service Personnel)
    Mr. T. J. Brooksasked the Minister of Health if he will consider amending the National Health Insurance regulations to ensure that no person shall forfeit any degree or percentage of benefit by reason of service in any of His Majesty's Forces; to make it obligatory upon approved societies immediately to restore such persons, on discharge, to the same degree of benefit to which they were entitled before such service, or such greater degree of benefit as he may direct and to ensure that Service men and women are fully informed, upon discharge, as to their position under the regulations.
    Mr. Willink: As the answer is somewhat long I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take good care that no liability will be thrown on friendly societies and approved societies which ought to fall, in respect of ex-Servicemen, on the Ministry of Pensions?
    Mr. Brooks: Why should they not be paid national health benefit even though they are in receipt of pensions? They are paying their contributions even though they are in the Service. Are they not entitled to the benefits?
    Mr. Willink: It would appear from these supplementary questions, that this is a controversial matter. Perhaps the hon. Member will look at the long answer which will be circulated.
    Following is the answer:
    Persons discharged from His Majesty's Forces are in general entitled to National Health Insurance benefits under the normal conditions, and there is special provision to ensure that they shall suffer no loss of benefits on account of arrears of contributions which may have been outstanding when they joined the Forces. Where, however, a war disability pension or allowance is in payment, sickness or disablement benefit may be subject to reduction or suspension until certain requalifying conditions have been satisfied since discharge. These modifications
    were imposed by Sections 6 and 7 of the National Health Insurance and Contributory Pensions (Emergency Provisions)
    1510
    Act, 1939, the object being to safeguard National Health Insurance funds from risks which those funds were not designed to cover, and which were not taken into account in fixing the rates of contributions. Experience has shown, however, that the provisions of Section 6 of the Act of 1939 (which relates to the postponement of sickness and disablement benefits in cases of war injury) sometimes operate with harshness in relation to persons discharged from the Forces, and steps are being taken to make a Regulation under the emergency powers conferred by Section 8 of the National Health Insurance, Contributory Pensions and Workmen's Compensation Act, 1941, which will have the effect of excluding such persons from the operation of Section 6. All persons discharged from the Forces are supplied with special leaflets explaining their position under the National Health Insurance and Contributory Pensions Schemes.

    National Health Service
    Dr. Russell Thomasasked the Minister of Health how frequently routine and special inspections of voluntary hospitals participating in a national health scheme will take place.
    Mr. Willink: No, Sir. Details of the arrangements for inspections are clearly matters to be considered at a later stage.
    Dr. Thomas: Is it not clear that the inspection of voluntary hospitals is calculated to be the first step towards the servitude of these great and free institutions?
    Mr. Willink: No. I am sure that if the system of visit and inspection is well devised all hospitals will welcome it.
    Dr. Russell Thomasasked the Minister of Health if he has estimated what average proportion the Exchequer grant and the payments of joint local authorities towards the cost of maintenance and treatment of patients would be to the total cost of such maintenance and treatment of patients in voluntary hospitals participating in a national health scheme.
    Mr. Willink: No, Sir. In the White Paper it was contemplated that, in the hospitals' interests, the aggregate of the central and local payments would be such as still to leave an opportunity for voluntary support. How this may best be arranged remains for discussion with the hospitals' representatives.
    Dr. Thomas: In view of the fact that legacies and gifts to hospitals are already falling off since the publication of the White Paper is it not clear, too, that the under-payment of public funds will destroy public generosity altogether and complete the process towards servitude to which I have just referred?
    Mr. Willink: The hon. Member may not have noticed that the British Hospitals Association themselves seem to think that an opportunity for voluntary support is desirable.
    Dr. Howittasked the Minister of Health in view of the postponement of the annual representative meeting of the British Medical Association at the request of the Government, will he give an assurance that legislation on a national health service will not be introduced by him until after negotiations have taken place between him and the medical profession, bearing in mind that under its constitution only the representative body of the association can determine the policy of the British Medical Association.
    Mr. Rhy Davies: On a point of Order. May I call your attention, Sir, to the matter contained in this Question, where it is suggested that Parliament should abandon, its work of legislation merely because the annual conference of the British Medical Association has been postponed? Are we to shut down altogether in view of the fact that so many conferences have been postponed?
    Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with me. Any hon. Member can put down any Question he likes.
    Mr. Willink: My hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot give an assurance quite so absolute as he suggests. It is still my wish to have full discussions with the profession before introducing legislation, and I see no reason why I should be prevented from doing so by the delay which will be caused by the profession's inevitable postponement of its conference.

  HOUSING

    Agricultural Workers
    Mr. Edgar Granvilleasked the Minister of Health what progress has now been made with the promised 3,000 rural
    1512
    houses; and if he can give the number completed for occupation.
    Mr. Willink: Approximately 80 per cent. of the building work involved in the construction of the 2,838 houses for which tenders have been approved has been done. 1,534 of those houses are completed and another 967 are roofed-in or at a later stage.
    Mr. Granville: In view of the fact that some small builders gave up their labour and equipment for the construction of aerodromes and camps, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman see that they get their labour returned?
    Mr. Willink: I am glad to say that there is quite a nice measure of return of such building labour to small builders going on at present.
    Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: How many of these cottages are occupied?
    Mr. Willink: Of the 1,534 completed houses, 1,111 are occupied.
    Sir William Davison: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Members on all sides are getting a great many letters from small builders saying that they are being entirely overlooked in these contracts and that they are much better able than big contractors to deal with local building?
    Mr. Willink: I am not quite clear what my hon. Friend is referring to but I can assure him that we are very fully aware of the importance of small builders.
    Mr. James Griffithsasked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the concern felt among local authorities in the rural areas of Wales at the prohibitive costs of constructing agricultural houses and complaints of prices being forced up by builders' rings; how many houses have been built in Wales under this scheme; the average cost per house; and what steps he is taking to deal with the complaints made to his Department.
    Mr. Willink: I am aware of the concern felt about the high cost of house building at the present time, but no complaints of the nature indicated in the Question have been received by me. The last part of the Question does not therefore arise. Sixty-six houses have been completed in Wales under this scheme. The final costs of these houses are not yet

    1513
    available, but the average estimated all-in cost was £925 for non-parlour houses and £1,010 for parlour houses.
    Mr. Griffiths: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that complaints are being made to the Welsh Board of Health, which is part of his Department, about the very prohibitive cost of tenders?
    Mr. Willink: There are many elements which make high costs inevitable in present circumstances. If any evidence is available as to prices being forced up by rings I shall be happy to consider it, but I have not received such evidence at present.

    Sites (Grouping Scheme)
    Mr. Jewsonasked the Minister of Health whether he will take steps to see that contracts for the advance preparation of housing sites are available to local building contractors and not confined to a relatively small number of large firms.
    Viscount Suirdaleasked the Minister of Health to what extent experienced house building firms are being debarred from carrying out work on the advance housing sites.
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that it will increase the cost of building, place certain contractors in a privileged position, reverse previous Government policy of spreading work among the largest number of contractors and interfere with the rights and powers of the local authorities, he will reconsider the proposals in Ministry of Health Circular 14/44.
    Mr. Willink: The object of this scheme is to carry out this urgent work with the maximum saving in labour and cost. No suitable firm is debarred from tendering and labour will be made available for any approved contract. The Government believe that in present circumstances grouping is the most efficient and economical method of doing this work and that the tenders, when received, will confirm this view. I am glad to say that over 60 groups have already been formed and some are now going to tender.
    Viscount Suirdale: While thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for his statement that small builders will not be barred, is it not true that many medium
    1514
    or small firms are in fact barred by the policy of his Department, as shown in their circular 14/44, in which it is said that each contract should include an enormous area 60 miles wide covering 2,000 houses?
    Mr. Willink: I do not recollect any reference to 60 miles in the circular but the whole policy is to do the greatest possible amount of preparation at this critical period of the war and we believe that it must be done, if it is to be done economically, on a large scale.
    Viscount Suirdale: My reference to 60 miles is due to the fact that in the circular the Ministry refers to a radius of 30 miles, and I assumed that the diameter of the area might well be 60 miles.
    Mr. Loftus: Has my right hon. and learned Friend consulted local authorities?
    Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir.

  POST-WAR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS (CONSTRUCTION)
  Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Health if he has calculated how long it will take after the war ends for industrialists or owners of large commercial properties, who will have to provide new premises which will cost in the neighbourhood of£100,000 to carry on their business, to obtain all the necessary legal permits enabling them to go ahead with their new construction work after they have their working drawings, etc., fully completed.
  Mr. Willink: No, Sir.
  Mr. Bossom: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that pre-war it usually took about a year? Will he endeavour to simplify and standardise procedure in order to avoid long delay in the post-war years?
  Mr. Willink: I shall continue to endeavour to simplify procedure. In the matter of permits for housing I have already simplified it considerably.
  Mr. Bossom: Will not my right hon. and learned Friend endeavour to carry the simplification to large buildings as he says he has already done to small?
  Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Health if he has any estimate of the time

  1515
  that it normally took an architect prewar to prepare complete working drawings, specifications and have quantities taken off for a typical commercial building of the value of approximately £100,000, so that everything might be ready to let a contract for the construction of the building.
  Mr. Willink: No, Sir.
  Mr. Bossom: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this usually takes about a year owing to the complications of the laws? Will he endeavour to simplify these?
  Mr. Willink: As far as I am aware, it is no part of my duty to calculate how long it takes architects to prepare their drawings.
  Mr. Bossom: Is my right hon. and learned Friend not aware that architects are compelled to comply with these complicated laws and therefore he has a great influence on the time they take to prepare their drawings?
  Mr. Willink: I have on an earlier occasion asked my hon. Friend, as a responsible architect, to bring details to my attention.
  Mr. De la Bere: There is great need for clarification.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS
  Mr. Tinkerasked the Minister of Health the number of cases reassessed under the supplementary pensions which commenced on 17th January, the date when completed and the number who have been granted arrears through proving exceptional hardship.
  Mr. Willink: The review of cases under the new Regulations was completed by the 23rd March last. The number of cases reviewed was just over one and a quarter million. As regards the last part of the Question, the Assistance Board inform me that they are not aware of any case in which a pensioner has proved that he suffered exceptional hardship by reason of the plan adopted for carrying out the work of review. Where, however, a change in the pensioner's circumstances was brought to notice the case was reassessed forthwith. The number of cases so dealt with is not known.
  Mr. Tinker: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that his reply to the latter part of the Question goes to prove that an injustice was done to old age pensioners in not dating payments in all cases back to 17th January, as it is difficult to satisfy the Assistance Board in cases of exceptional hardship?
  Mr. Willink: I have discussed that matter with the hon. Member on an earlier occasion. It is difficult to re-open it now.
  Mr. Tom Brown: The whole of the cases have not been dealt with, because in one district they are still proceeding with them.
  Mr. Willink: Perhaps the hon. Member will bring to my notice any case in which my information is inaccurate.
  Mr. Brown: They have been sent to the Department and they are not dealt with yet.
  Mr. Thomas Fraserasked the Minister of Health whether he will extend the provision giving supplementary pensioners, who are householders, a rent allowance of 5s. or 6s. a week where houses are charitably provided, to ensure that no less a sum than 6s. will be allowed for rent even when a rent of less than 6s. is paid.
  Mr. Willink: No, Sir. The Regulations clearly limit the addition for rent to "the net rent payable so far as is reasonable." In the case of houses charitably provided, the Board exercise their discretion in such a way as to place a pensioner who is receiving help in this way on the same footing as if he were receiving an equivalent cash payment from the charity.
  Mr. Fraser: Will the Minister bear in mind that where a rent of less than 6s. is paid few amenities are provided, and the housekeeping expenses are correspondingly higher?
  Mr. Willink: We discussed in December last the principle of abolishing the low rent exceptions, and I thought that it met with general acceptance; but if my hon. Friend has any specific suggestion to make as to the type of case he has in mind perhaps he will send it to me.

  INTERNATIONAL MONETARY CONFERENCE (BRITISH DELEGATION)
  Mr. Edgar Granvilleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer which delegates will represent this country at the Monetary Conference proposed by President Roosevelt; and where and when the conference is likely to be held.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): As already announced in the Press, the President of the United States has invited the United and Associated Nations to be represented at a Monetary Conference to be held at Bretton Woods on 1st July. The names of the representatives who will attend on behalf of the United Kingdom are being circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following are the names:
  The British delegation to the Conference on the International Monetary Fund will be composed as follows:

  Lord Keynes (Leader).

  Sir Wilfred Eady (one of the Second Secretaries, H.M. Treasury).

  Mr. N. B. Ronald (Assistant Under-Secretary of State, Foreign Office).

  Professor Lionel Robbins (Head of the Economic Section, War Cabinet Secretariat).

  Professor D. H. Robertson (Economic Adviser, H.M. Treasury).

  Mr. Redvers Opie (H.M. Embassy, Washington).

  To be associated with the delegation and attend its meetings as a Member as may be convenient:
  The Hon. R. H. Brand (Treasury Representative in Washington).

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Old Age Pensioners (Income Tax)
    Mr. Wilmotasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider a revision of the regulation under which half the small earnings of the husband or wife of a non-contributory old age pensioner are regarded as the income of the pensioner, in view of the hardships entailed and of the incentive thus created for the earning partner to relinquish the employment.
    Sir J. Anderson: The rule to which my hon. Friend refers is statutory, and could not be amended without legislation. The
    1518
    whole future of the non-contributory pension system is now under review in connection with the social insurance scheme, and I cannot see my way to introduce legislation on this subject in advance of the wider plan.
    Mr. Wilmot: While thanking the Chancellor for that answer, may I ask him to consider accelerating this matter as it is inflicting great hardship because pensioners of advanced age are denied pensions because of the paid domestic work which their wives are doing?
    Sir J. Anderson: I will do anything I can.

    Victoria Cross Pensions (Income Tax)
    Mr. Rileyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of persons at present receiving V.C. financial grants; and what the loss to the Treasury would be if all these grants were exempted from liability to Income Tax.
    Sir J. Anderson: I understand that at present 225 holders of the Victoria Cross are drawing a pension in respect of the award of that decoration. I cannot say how much tax is involved but it is obviously very small. The issue is not so much the amount of tax involved as the principle that all income should be taken into account in computing an individual's liability and as I said in reply to my hon. Friend on 27th April last I do not think that we ought to go on considering special exemption in particular cases.

    Overseas Investments
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the value of Argentine's sterling balances is guaranteed by the British Government against a depreciation of sterling by a special gold clause; and if he will reconsider this, in view of the discriminatory treatment accorded over many years to British investors in the Argentine.
    Sir J. Anderson: These balances carry a guarantee based upon the price of gold in London. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the negative; action in regard to discriminatory treatment of our overseas investments has to be dealt with, in cases that arise, as a separate matter.
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that sterling balances can, in

    1519
    many instances, only be satisfied after the war by the export of British goods and services or in gold and acceptable foreign currencies, if available, he is taking all possible steps to ensure that what remains of our overseas investments shall, in order to mitigate the problem of sterling balances, be accorded the fairest possible treatment.
    Sir J. Anderson: I fully agree with my lion. Friend that all possible steps should be taken to ensure that our overseas investments shall be accorded the fairest possible treatment. This is a matter to which His Majesty's Government will continue to devote special attention.
    Sir W. Smithers: In view of the fact that the British investor has helped to develop the countries indicated in these two Questions, will my right hon. Friend consult the Foreign Secretary to see what he can do to put Great Britain's foot down firmly, to ensure that the British investor receives decent treatment?
    Sir J. Anderson: I am very anxious to ensure that he receives good treatment.
    Sir W. Smithers: Will my right hon. Friend consult the Foreign Secretary?
    Sir J. Anderson: I am in constant touch with the Foreign Secretary.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the Business for next week?
Mr. Eden: The Business will be as follows:
Tuesday, i3th June—Committee and, if agreeable to the House, the remaining stages of the Food and Drugs (Milk and Dairies) Bill.
Wednesday, 14th June, and Thursday, 15th June—Committee stage of the Finance Bill.
Friday, 16th June—An opportunity will be provided for debating the operation of Regulation 18B and the detention of a Member of this House, concerning which Motions now stand on the Paper.
[That this House having acquiesced in the detention of an honourable Member without trial or charge, in view of the authority conferred upon the Home Sec-
1520
retary by Regulation 18B, is now of the opinion that such detention for a period of over four years threatens the ancient and well established right of the House to the service of its Members, constitutes a dangerous precedent damaging to the prestige of the House and ought now to cease unless justified to the House, if necessary, in secret session.]—[Sir I. Albery.]
[That this House is of opinion that Me time has come for reconsideration of Regulation 18B and of the practicability of bringing to trial those now in detention on the sole responsibilty of the Home Secretary.]—[Mr. Manningham-Buller.]
The Government do not want to restrict the Debate by dealing with this question on a limiting Motion. It had occurred to me that we might deal with it on the Home Secretary's salary, but I will be in a position to announce to the House, perhaps early next week, how we actually mean to deal with it.
Sir Irving Albery: Would my right hon. Friend consider whether it will be possible to take a Supply Day formally and then proceed with the Motion on the Paper?
Mr. Eden: I think that a very good way, if it were agreeable to the House.
Sir Joseph Lamb: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the whole of the stages of the Food and Drugs Bill will be taken on Tuesday?
Mr. Eden: I said if it proved to be agreeable to the House.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: With regard to the Debate on Regulation 18B, do I understand that an opportunity will be provided for a Debate not only on the Motion in the name of the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery) but on the general operation of that Regulation?
Mr. Eden: That is what I had in mind when I said that I did not want to limit the Debate.
Miss Ward: When will the Government be in a position to state their decision with regard to increases of dependants' allowances? The Secretary of State for War said that he hoped an announcement would be made shortly, but he did not define his meaning of "shortly."
Mr. Eden: I do not know that I can better define "shortly" than my right hon. Friend—not now, anyway.
Mr. Higgs: Is it anticipated that the Committee stage of the Finance Bill will be completed on Wednesday and Thursday?
Mr. Eden: I hope so. It is the same amount of time as we allowed last year.
Commander Sir Archibald Southby: May I ask my right hon. Friend to give further consideration to the question of having the Debate on Regulation 188 on Friday? This is an important matter touching closely this House and its Members. The difficulty about having Debates on Fridays is that the Government are unable to suspend the Rule on that day for obvious reasons. Would it not be preferable that a Debate of this character should take place when there was the greatest possible opportunity for Members to take part in it? Will my right hon. Friend, therefore, have that Debate on Thursday and the second day of the Committee stage of the Finance Bill on Friday?
Mr. Tinker: We object to that.
Mr. Eden: By having the Debate on Friday it cuts both ways. There are no Questions on Friday so that we are no worse off for time. I think that it is a reasonable day.
Mr. Tinker: Stand by your arrangement.
Sir Herbert Williams: Will my right hon. Friend communicate to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the possibility that there will be less interest in Clauses 1–31 of the Finance Bill if the attitude of the Chancellor towards retrospective legislation in Clause 32 is sympathetic?
Mr. Eden: As my right hon. Friend has already explained, we are in constant touch.
Sir A. Southby: On a point of Order. When I asked a question just now the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) objected and called out to the right hon. Gentleman "Stand by your arrangement." Are we to understand that an arrangement has been come to with the other side?
Mr. Eden: My hon. and gallant Friend must not jump to any rapid conclusions. It was the arrangement I announced a few minutes ago, and I do not think the hon. Member for Leigh had the least idea what the arrangement was before I announced it.
Mr. Tinker: The arrangement I meant was the arrangement which the right hon. Gentleman announced in his statement on Business, and I want him to stand by it.
Sir Waldron Smithers: Is the Leader of the House aware that two days for the Committee stage of the Finance Bill are quite inadequate? Are we to assume that it is exempted Business and that we can go on to any hour we like?
Mr. Eden: I am afraid that it is exempted Business. We can only see how we get on, and perhaps it will not be as bad as my hon. Friend fears.
Sir W. Smithers: It will be.

WAR SITUATION
During Questions—
The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): Might I, for the convenience of the House, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, mention that I do not propose to make any statement about the battle to-day, and shall not do so unless something exceptional turns up? As a matter of fact, I think that all the points which have occurred to me are very fully met in the excellent reports furnished by our able and upright Press. But I would say this, as I am permitted by Mr. Speaker and by the House, that if this is the last time I speak to the House before the week-end I earnestly hope that when Members go to their constituencies they will not only maintain morale, so far as that is necessary, but also give strong warnings against over-optimism, against the idea that these things are going to be settled with a run, and that they will remember that although great dangers lie behind us, enormous exertions lie before us.
Sir Joseph Lamb: Is the Prime, Minister aware of the great sense of satisfaction felt by the whole community at the statement made by His Majesty the King over the wireless the other night, and the service which was broadcast?
Mr. Edgar Granville: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the reason why he is not going to make any statement in the immediate future is not that he is going to make a visit to the coast of France?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered:
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Eden.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  RURAL WATER SUPPLIES AND SEWERAGE [MONEY]
  Resolution reported:
  "That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision, amongst other things, as to water supplies, sewerage and sewage disposal in rural localities, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

  (a) contributions made by the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State respectively towards expenses incurred by local authorities after the passing of the said Act in providing supplies, or in improving existing supplies, of water in rural localities and in making adequate provision for the sewerage, or the disposal of the sewage, of rural localities, such contributions not to exceed in the aggregate, in the case of the Minister of Health, fifteen million pounds and, in the case of the Secretary of State, six million three hundred and seventy-five thousand pounds;

  (b) any expenses incurred by the Minister of Health by virtue of any provision of the said Act empowering him to transfer to himself functions of a body in default."

  Resolution agreed to.

  RURAL WATER SUPPLIES AND SEWERAGE BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]

  RURAL WATER SUPPLIES AND SEWERAGE BILL

    CLAUSE 1.—(Government contributions towards expenses of local authorities for rural water supplies and sewerage.)
    Rear-Admiral Beamish: I beg to move, in page 1, line 5, after "such," to insert "general."
    The object of the Amendment is to improve the working of the Bill. As it is at present, the wording is too rigid. It is insufficiently elastic to encourage local authorities, and might make it possible for the Treasury to hamper the Minister. I would remind the Minister that on the Second Reading he was asked about the phrase "such conditions as the

    1545
    Treasury may determine" and he said that the interpretation was that as on the last occasion, certain general conditions would be agreed. If that is his opinion still, I trust that he will not put any difficulties in the way of making this small Amendment.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will not think that I am being in any way discourteous if, on the very first occasion when I have to deal with an Amendment from this Bench, I have to advise the Committee not to accept it. The spirit of what my hon. and gallant Friend has said is entirely in accordance with our intention, and the only reason that I take this attitude is that it is always undesirable to add to a Bill a word which really makes no difference, and might create questions. I would remind the Committee that the phraseology of the Clause is exactly that of the 1934 Act. There was no difficulty about the scope of the conditions and, from contacts I have had with the rural districts, it is clear that the machinery of administration worked very well. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that narrowing conditions will
    not be implied by the Bill as it stands and that the conditions will be general. In those circumstances, I should be reluctant to see a special difference made between this Measure and the earlier Act, and I therefore cannot accept my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.
    Rear-Admiral Beamish: Before I ask for permission to withdraw my Amendment I would recall to the Minister that on the Second Reading of the Bill he did say:
    "Certain general conditions will be agreed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th May, 1944; Vol. 400, c. 408.]
    Mr. Willink: That is so, and that is the intention and will, in fact, be the position. There are general conditions which I think it is reasonable should be arranged between me and the Treasury, but then, of course, there are special conditions in every case, because this is very much a matter in which every case differs from every other. I think, however, that we should be prepared to accept general conditions with regard to the general level of rates below which grants should not be made.
    Rear-Admiral Beamish: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The Chairman: Mr. Molson.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: May I ask, Major Milner, why you have not called my Amendment—
    In page 1, line 20, at end, insert, "or to provide drainage facilities of a major kind."
    The Chairman: The hon. Member's Amendment is not in Order. It is outside the purview of the Bill. His Amendment appears to deal with drainage, and the Bill deals with water supplies and sewerage.
    Mr. Stewart: I must accept your Ruling, Major Milner, but in that case I would later on wish to move the deletion of the provision to which my Amendment refers.
    Mr. Molson: I beg to move, in page r, line 20, at the end, to insert:
    "and that the scheme provides for the economic use of the sewage as a fertiliser or otherwise."
    At the present time we are looking for a great increase in agricultural production in this country, and it is very desirable that we should obtain as much fertiliser as possible from inside this country. Very large importations of fertilisers were taking place before the war, and it is an extraordinary commentary upon the lack of scientific development in this country that very large quantities of sewage were being completely wasted. I understand that this matter has been engaging the attention of the Agricultural Research Council and that reports upon some experiments which have been made have been passed from the Ministry of Agriculture to the Ministry of Health, and I am raising this matter partly because I hope the Government will be prepared to accept this Amendment but still more because I wish to ask for an explanation from the Government of what is being done. Obviously there is immense scope for saving what in the past has always been regarded as waste but could be used to immense advantage in this country.
    Sir R. W. Smith: On a point of Order. Does the word "drainage" not include the word

    1547
    "sewerage," in English parlance? It is very necessary that we should know what meaning is being given to it.
    Mr. H. Stewart: In other words, when is a drain not a sewer?
    The Chairman: The hon. Member cannot raise that question now, when we are discussing the Amendment of the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson).
    Sir R. W. Smith: I apologise, Major Milner, but are we not allowed to refer to a Ruling which has been given by the Chair upon a certain point, in order that we may be clear about what is meant?
    The Chairman: Not on this Amendment, which refers to another matter.
    Mr. Loftus: I should like to support the Amendment which has been moved so cogently by my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) and to express my sincere hope that His Majesty's Government will accept it. I do not propose to elaborate the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend, but I would refer to certain general considerations. We have to maintain the fertility of our soil at the highest possible standard, for the sake both of the quantity and the quality of the food to be produced, and to save our soil being destroyed for lack of manure and lack of care in maintaining its fertility. We are allowing to run down our sewers and out to the sea an enormous amount of material which is of the greatest possible value in agriculture, and steps ought to be taken to preserve it. Wherever in the world we find soil which has been fertile for hundreds or thousands of years, as in China, we find operating the law of returns, with everything which has come from the land going back into the land, and that maintains the fertility of the soil.
    Sir Ralph Glyn: While I am in favour of this proposal I would say to the mover and supporter of the Amendment that I am not sure that this is the right place in the Bill at which to insert it. I am certain that they do not want any scheme to be held up until what they propose has been done. I think that in every new scheme their proposal ought to be one of the factors to be taken into account, because there is
    1548
    no doubt that we are on the verge of very great changes in the use of compost. The engineers are now busy with that problem, but that does not mean that they are yet ready or could be ready in time for some of these schemes.
    Dr. Haden Guest: I am very much impressed with the importance, of the proper use of sewage on the land from various points of view. Let me put the point of view of national security. In this island, with its very large population for its comparatively small area, and with the world in the state it is at the present time, it is a major matter of importance to maintain a very high yield from our agriculture for a long time to come and for that reason it seems to me quite impossible that we should continue to lose all the immensely valuable mineral and organic contents of sewage, as we do at the present time. The sewage from the great cities would not be a relevant subject for discussion upon this Bill, although it is one which will call for urgent attention before very long, but in the case of the countryside it is most important that we should not, under the fallacious idea that we are improving sanitation, do away with one of the chief assets in improving nutrition.
    This may appear to some Members to be a curious subject, but it is one of the utmost importance. There is no doubt whatever that from the point of view of its mineral content, from the point of view of trace elements, to which attention was drawn in an article in "The Times" the other day, and from the point of view of organic matter, the use of human sewage on the land of this country is a matter now of first class importance and will be of even greater importance in the future. Let me put it in another way to those hon. Members who may be inclined to think that that is not an accurate statement of the facts. What would be thought of a proposal, put forward in the name of sanitation, to remove all the manure of cows and horses from the land and from the stables and put it into the sea? All the farmers in the country would be up in arms at once. The use of human sewage on the land will be of almost as great advantage as the use of animal manure at the present time.
    Sir Joseph Lamb: I should like very much to support the object of this

    1549
    Amendment to promote the greater fertility of our soil, and if that could be done their proposal would receive great commendation from agriculturists, but at the same time I would support what has been said by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn), because there is great danger that if this Amendment were inserted it would delay the action which we are hoping to take under the Bill and also add to the cost. In that way it would not be to the interests of agriculture, because of the delay, and in some cases it might even perhaps prevent the adequate provision of water supplies. Therefore, I could not support the Amendment, although I have great pleasure in saying that I agree with the sentiments which are behind it.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: While my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture may find it difficult to accept the Amendment for the reasons put forward by the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) and for obvious technical reasons, I hope that he does appreciate the serious view which Members of the Committee are taking of this matter, and that in his reply he may give us as full a report as he can of the intentions of the Department upon this important matter.
    Mr. Evelyn Walkden: I wish to raise one or two aspects of this matter which have presented themselves very forcibly to local authorities in recent years. I am very much concerned about the lack of recognition of the need for co-ordination of effort on the part of the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Agriculture and one other Department in relation to sludge digestion plants. Many local authorities around London are not able to dispose of their dry sludge on account of vested interests or organisations which will not help them out of their difficulties. I would mention the big sewage plant of the West Kent Sewerage Board, near Dartford. They were able to do a fine job of work in disposing of the sewage over a vast area, but their accumulation of dry sludge presented them with a serious problem. The Minister of Health could not help them and the Minister of Agriculture was not interested at one time, but since the war they have come along and given all the help necessary towards making the fullest use of the dry sludge.
    1550
    It must be recognised that in recent years as regards modern sludge-production plants, local authorities were acquiring knowledge and were acquiring plant, but they were not acquiring help from the Ministries to dispose of the fertilisers which the plants create. I believe, for example, that it should not be a local authority's responsibility merely to set up a plant to convert the sludge into the necessary fertiliser. The basic material is there. I think the Ministry itself ought to recognise the need for collecting everything—that immense fertilising material, the raw material, although I forget the particular name or term given to it—but I believe it should be their responsibility to see that it is all used and not merely dumped, like the pittings have been dumped in the North of England, and left there to rot and decay as it has been doing in the past.
    Mr. Richards: I should like to support this Amendment. I think that it is a most valuable suggestion that we should really make use of this most valuable asset which we are at present allowing to run to waste. I feel that the Minister of Health has a great responsibility in this matter, particularly if we are going to extend, as is the intention of the Bill, the sewerage system to the remote country villages. If some of the villages are treated in the way that many of the smaller towns are treated, it would simply mean that the sewage would be taken away from the towns and deposited all over the countryside. I think that the scientific members of the Ministry of Health should tackle this question in a thoroughly scientific fashion as, otherwise, one result of this scheme of introducing a sewerage system—which is very greatly needed, we all agree—in the countryside will be that certain villages will be entirely inaccessible on account of the stench that would result from such a scheme. If the Ministry will really do something scientific to deal with it, as suggested by an hon. Member on this side, I think we can look forward to a great advance. If it is to be done by the local authorities in the way it is already being done by some of them, I think it will be a great disservice.
    Lady Apsley: I also support this Amendment most heartily from another point of view, on the ground

    1551
    that our rivers are being so badly polluted. Not only in the rivers themselves, but right out to sea fish are being killed by the crude sewage poured out at present. This is very bad for the health of the people, but it is the more deplorable when we consider that such important use could be made of that sewage in agriculture. A doctor friend of mine estimated that the food production in this country could easily be doubled, merely by putting the sewage back on the land where it used to go in past generations, before piped water supplies were available. This is a very important point. Where there is a piped supply, there must be adequate sewerage, and the possibility of the reclamation of the important organic matter that the land requires. Therefore, I heartily support the Amendment and hope that my right hon. and learned Friend, even if he cannot accept the words, will accept the spirit which inspires it.
    Mr. Turton: I only want to point out, as I think the Noble Lady pointed out, that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Richards) is wrong when he talks about no new principle in this Amendment. The trouble in this Bill, excellent as it is, is that in many of the rural areas where at the moment we are putting the waste on to the gardens and fields, that will no longer be possible under the Bill and, therefore, unless either this Amendment is accepted, or the Minister takes some alternative action, we shall lose the fertility in the soil, that we have at the present time.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. Tom Williams): While I appreciate the sentiments of almost every speaker who has intervened, in the desire to add to our fertiliser supplies, I am afraid I must ask the Committee to reject this Amendment. I think most hon. Members will know why, without my developing it to any extent. The need for sewerage, or the disposal of sewage, in a rural locality rests on public health grounds and not on grounds of fertility and, in deciding whether to make a contribution to any scheme, it is perfectly obvious that the Minister of Health will take into account all matters relevant to the point. It certainly would not be proper, however, to debar him from making a con-
    1552
    tribution to any scheme, merely on the score that it did not enable an authority either to obtain revenue from sewage matter or to make some use of the sewage themselves, by turning it into a fertiliser. For instance, there may be no market for it. The cost of treating it in certain areas may be out of all proportion to the price which would be obtainable by the local authority and, surely, hon. Members would not insist that my right hon. Friend could not make a contribution in circumstances such as those; but this Amendment would prevent those areas from having a contribution towards their new sewerage system.
    The treatment of sewage as a fertiliser is still in the experimental stage. It may be true, here and there, that some large, wealthy local authority has been able to make some use of its sewage sludge in one form or another. We all welcome that kind of thing, but when hon. Members suggest that we ought to do this in a scientific way, they must, of course, be the first to admit that it is a question which must be left to the scientist. My hon. Friend below the Gangway said that I ought to say something about what is happening with regard to sewage sludge.
    Dr. Haden Guest: Is it not true that at this present time the question of the scientific use of sewage as a fertiliser is being investigated by Rothamsted and else-where, and that a report is expected on the subject in under two years?
    Mr. T. Williams: If the hon. Member had given me the opportunity I had intended to tell him that, instead of being told it by him. I was just about to say that research is proceeding under the supervision of the Agricultural Research Council, to ascertain the value of sludge, alone or as compost, but no final recommendation is forthcoming yet. We anticipate a report very shortly, and I am sure my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will welcome the interim report if it indicates that even some of this sludge can be made available for fertilising the land of this country. However, until the fertilising value of the various types of sludge is known, with some degree of certainty, it will not be possible to fix a price to the fanner, and we shall not know whether it would be an economic proposition for a local authority. To that extent, therefore, to

    1553
    compel every local authority which desires a new sewerage system to make use of its sewage sludge, by sale or otherwise, economic or otherwise, would be doing it a disservice.
    In the meantime, I think hon. Members will agree, since they now know that this matter is under scientific investigation and that we are anticipating a report very shortly, that it would be wholly wrong to hold up a sewerage scheme which, after all, is a health service, until we know the true value of sewage sludge as a fertiliser. I hope, therefore, that the Mover of the Amendment will feel that, while experiments are taking place it would be wholly inimical to the interests of rural authorities, where they want a new sewerage scheme, to prevent my right hon. Friend from making a contribution under this Clause.
    Mr. Barstow: Is the Minister aware that I can give the name of a big firm where this sludge has been used entirely for many years? It has been used with very great satisfaction too, and in my rural area sludge is advertised by the local authority, which has no difficulty whatever in disposing of it because it is a valuable manure.
    Mr. T. Williams: If the Agricultural Research Council will give us the appropriate advice and guidance, I am quite sure that both my right hon. Friends the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture will take a much wider view of the whole question when contributions are under review. At the moment, however, whatever may be done by one authority is not universally applicable, and unless we are to have the advice of the scientists on a matter of this description, it is conceivable we may do more harm than good to the land of this country.
    Mr. Loftus: May I ask my right hon. Friend to deal with the very important point raised by the hon. Member for Thirsk (Mr. Turton)? He said that in many rural areas we are putting the waste on to the gardens and fields, but that under this Bill that will no longer be possible unless this Amendment is accepted or the Minister takes some alternative action and that when this scheme comes into effect that waste will be lost and the fertility of the land will go down unless some counter-action is taken.
    Mr. T. Williams: I think my hon. Friend will agree that we ought not to abolish all our water systems and collect crude sewage in the streets, as was done in my young days, and cart it off to farms in its pure state. We have moved on a little bit since those days and it is true that the movement is continuous. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree with me when I say that although a change would obviously take place where a sewerage scheme is introduced and where none exists at the moment, it is necessary to secure scientific guidance before preventing my right hon. Friend making a contribution to a new sewerage scheme.
    Mr. Molson: I confess I am somewhat disappointed at the general tone of the reply by my right hon. Friend. There has been quite a remarkable consensus of opinion from all parts of the Committee that it is becoming a matter of urgent importance to arrive at a more economical use of sewage than is customary at the present time. When I drafted this Amendment, I put in the word "economic" in order, expressly, to exclude the point which the right hon. Gentleman made that some local authorities might be obliged to prepare the sewage when there was not a market for it. That, obviously, would not be an economic use of the sewage. I also tried to emphasise, and did not expect that the sewage should be used in its crude form, that I wanted some information as to what the Government are doing to encourage scientific research in order to ensure that there should be no damage to the public health while at the same time retaining the valuable properties of the sewage. The general impression I had of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is that the Government are so much impressed by all the difficulties in the way that they are not really very much interested in what has been put forward by hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the Committee who have spoken. I wonder whether we could not be given this assurance, that the Minister of Health, in considering the making of these grants to the local authorities, will at any rate bear in mind that this is one of the matters where he should encourage the little authorities. Would my right hon. Friend give us that assurance?
    Mr. T. Williams: I am rather sorry to hear that my hon. Friend was disappointed with the reply. I could not, of course, tell him all that has happened or all that is happening with regard to the investigations into the utility of sewage. I can, however, tell him that a tremendous amount of work has been done, but any experiment on a farm takes a very long period of time. You must grow several crops before you can be satisfied that a fertiliser is effective. It would ill become any Minister of Agriculture to take chances until he had some sound authority on which to base his action. I can assure the Committee that my right hon. Friend is not only deeply interested; he is watching very carefully all the progress which is being made by the scientists in dealing with this particular problem.
    Mr. Molson: I am inclined to say that my right hon. Friend's second speech was a great improvement on the first, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided that the contribution shall not be withheld or reduced where the local authority is able to show that responsibility for any default or unsatisfactory work is not that of the local authority."
    This is an Amendment which I am
    moving largely for the purpose of obtaining information and, I hope, an assurance, from the Government. I move it at the direct request of the Fife county council because, on reflection, they entertain considerable doubts as to the meaning of the Bill as it now stands. The Committee will observe that in Sub-section (4) there are three paragraphs. The Sub-section says that the Minister may withhold or reduce the amount of the grant, if it appears to him either
    "(a) that any of the works have been executed in an unsatisfactory manner;"
    meaning, presumably, works executed by the local authority, since the whole purpose of this Bill is to make grants to the local authority to do certain work. As I have indicated, the first provision is that the Minister may withhold the grant if any of the works executed by the local authority are thought to be of an unsuitable type. The Sub-section continues:
    1556
    "(b) that the effectiveness of any of the works is substantially less than as estimated in the proposals submitted to him by the local authority,…"
    or
    "(c) that there has been any default in the carrying out of the transaction."
    These seem on the face of it very sensible provisions. They mean that the Minister makes a certain agreement with the county council that they will do certain things, and in return the Minister will make a certain grant of money. It is quite reasonable for the Minister to say "My grant is subject to your doing what you undertake to do, and to the work in fact being good work." But this is the situation which arises, or the doubt expressed by the Fife county council. Perhaps I should read a passage of a letter I had from the county clerk, which says:
    "Presumably this reference is to default on the part of the local authority. There might conceivably be, however, a situation in which the contractor employed defaults and where the local authority has taken all reasonable precautions to secure the proper carrying out of the work. It is probable that in such circumstances the contribution undertaken to be made would not be withheld, but the Secretary of State, as the Bill is worded, would be entitled to withhold the grant in whole or in part."
    That is the doubt in which at least one important county council in Scotland finds itself placed. If my right hon. Friend can give me an assurance that this is not, in fact, so, and that they will be safeguarded in circumstances in which the fault is not that of the local authority but of the contractor I shall be satisfied.
    Mr. Willink: I shall have to advise the Committee not to accept this Amendment, but I think I shall be able to give the assurance which my hon. Friend hoped I would give. Perhaps I might remind the Committee that, here again, we have a Sub-section which exactly reproduces what was in the 1934 Act. Of course it is necessary, where grant is being made
    by myself, and where the county will become involved, that wherever I make such a grant there should be a proper control over the efficiency and propriety of the conduct of the matter by the local authority, which is the responsible authority for making the arrangements. The work may be being
    done actually by the local authority itself, I suppose by direct labour, but it is more often by contract. There may be what is called a transaction. In a

    1557
    formal sense I must look to the local authority to see that all is properly done. There is one case, which is the case dealt with in Sub-section (4) (b) where, in spite of every care and precaution, something goes wrong, say a scientific or a geological difficulty, which may give rise to the works being less effective than was expected without its being anybody's fault. On the other hand the works may be less effective than was expected and this may be due to lack of supervision and lack of care. I can assure my hon. Friend, and the county council on whose representations he has moved in this matter, of the anxiety which the introduction of this Bill indicates for the improvement of our water supply and sewerage. This discretionary power is there only for the proper protection of the taxpayer and the county ratepayer, and it will be exercised in a most sympathetic way where there is any reason to suppose that a generous view is proper. With that assurance I hope my hon. Friend will see his way to withdraw his Amendment.
    Mr. Stewart: If I could have an assurance that in this matter my right hon. and learned Friend is speaking also on behalf of the Secretary of State, I should be happy to agree to his suggestion.
    Mr. Willink: I can certainly say so.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: I would like, if I may, to deal now with the matter of the Amendment which stood earlier on the Order Paper in my name. It is an important matter and may well have been misunderstood. The Amendment referred to "drainage facilities of a major kind," and you, Major Milner, might possibly have regarded that as land drainage, whereas I was dealing with general drainage. It is the proviso to Sub-section (1) of this Clause to which I take some objection, and here again I am speaking on behalf of the Fife county council, though in the remarks I shall make, I may be representing the concern of quite a number of local authorities throughout the country. This is a very important matter. The Committee will observe that in the Title of the Bill it is set out that the intention of the Bill is to
    "make provision as to water supplies, sewerage and sewage disposal in rural localities.…"
    1558
    Quite clearly sewage disposal is regarded as equally important with water supplies, and I confess I cannot see how you can have one without the other. There can be no sewerage and drainage scheme without a water supply, and I cannot conceive of any situation in which a sewerage scheme would be constructed, if water had not previously been provided. That being so, I find
    it exceedingly difficult to understand the reason for the proviso. If Members will look at the beginning of Clause I, Sub-section (1), they will see that the Minister may undertake to make a contribution towards the expenses incurred by a local authority
    "(b) in making adequate provisions for the sewerage, or the disposal of the sewage, of a rural locality;"
    and here you have this very extraordinary proviso:
    "Provided that the Minister shall not undertake to make a contribution towards the expenses of making provision for the sewerage, or the disposal of the sewage, of a rural locality unless he is satisfied that the need for making the provision is due to anything done or proposed to be done…to supply, or increase the supply of, water in pipes in that locality."
    So that it appears that no grant can be
    made by the Government under this Bill for any sewerage work unless that sewerage work, in the opinion of the Government, is needed to supplement a water scheme. What that means is that unless the Secretary of State for Scotland, for example, is satisfied that every drainage scheme undertaken by the county of Fife is directly related to another water scheme carried out by the county of Fife, he will not be able to give a grant.
    As the Joint Under-Secretary for Scotland knows, we in Fife have spent a great deal of time on this business of both water and drainage schemes. He will recollect that we had a private Act of Parliament in 1940 giving exceptional powers to the Fife county council. This Parliament gave these powers to construct sewers and works connected therewith and to make provision for preventing sewage or polluting or discolouring or offensive liquids, flowing into the Rivers Leven and Ore and the tributaries thereof. I would remind my hon. Friend of the very great importance which the Ministry of Agriculture attaches to the need for avoiding river pollution. In the Debate on 3rd May, the Minister of Agriculture said:

    1559
    "My advisers estimate that the total food production of the rivers of this country would be materially increased if we could get rid of pollution."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1944; Vol. 399, C. 1436.]
    Therefore avoidance of pollution, which is one of the objects of the 1940 Water Act of the Fife county council, is of first class importance, and Fife county council has powers by that Act to do these things. It is estimated that the costs of these works may amount to something like £100,000. I think it is quite probable that when, after the war, materials and labour are available, Fife county council will proceed with these works and apply to the Department for some aid. In the opinion of the county council, as they are at present advised, the Secretary of State for Scotland will be unable to grant any aid to these schemes because of the particular wording of this provision. The county council said:
    "It would seem, from the wording of the proviso, that the Minister would be debarred from making a contribution towards that expenditure,"
    I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be able to give an assurance on the point, but I, as well as the county council, feel the greatest doubt about the form of words now contained in that proviso. If my hon. Friend is not able to give that assurance, I shall desire to secure the rejection of Clause 1.
    Mr. Gallacher: I would like, from the West, to supplement what has been said by my colleague from the East. I am particularly interested in this Clause and in the discussion on it, because in my constituency, which is partly rural, there is a very urgent need for sewerage in several villages. I hope that with the collaboration of the Minister of Health, the Secretary of State for Scotland, and the Fife county council, that sewerage will be obtainable. It is peculiar how this question is approached in this Committee. There are those who see sewerage as something of the greatest value to the health and well-being of the people of the country: others think how some money can be saved on sludge. There are several villages in Fife with no sewerage of any kind. One was condemned before the war, and would have been completely wiped out had it not been for the war. We should not concern ourselves with whether the farmers have
    1560
    been getting sludge, but with how soon we can bring recognised civilised standards to the county districts. Here is a letter, which I received this morning:
    School House, Lassodil, Fife.
    5–6–44.
    "Dear Sir,—May I endeavour to reawaken your interest in this 'deserted' village? Since your last visit the place has gone from bad to worse with regard to housing conditions. The drains have been choked for six months, all sanitary services and refuse collections stopped for over a year, and in desperation the tenants have refused to pay any more rent until something is done."
    It is almost unbelievable that such a situation could exist in a modern community. There are other similar cases. It may be necessary, in one or other of these places, for the Fife County Council to bring relief to these people at the earliest possible moment. Does the Minister say that if that is done they cannot get any consideration from the Ministry? I am glad that the representative of the Ministry of Agriculture here was not sidetracked by the Amendment about sludge. This is not a question of whether sludge can be used or not. It is the deplorable condition of many of these rural areas which should engage our attention, and the local authority should receive every stimulus to get sewerage introduced. Any provision for dealing with sludge can be dealt with afterwards: the big thing is to bring immediate relief to these people.
    Mr. Pearson: I wish to seek an assurance from the Minister that too narrow an interpretation will not be placed on the words "rural locality." It is rather astounding to me that any misgivings should be created on this score, but, under the 1934 Act, it happened in my constituency. There is a joint scheme of sewerage, and the ancient borough where a penny rate will bring in only £20, is a very material authority in the question of proceeding with a sewerage scheme. I have given the Minister certain particulars, and I hope that he will give some assurance that in this case there will be a generous interpretation of those words, so that, when there is any doubt, a small community of that sort will not be looked upon as urban in character, but as coming within the term "rural locality."
    Mr. Willink: Perhaps I may deal, quite shortly, with the point just raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd

    1561
    (Mr. Pearson). The phrase "rural locality" is not defined in this Bill or elsewhere. Its vagueness is deliberate. This Bill is intended to deal with the countryside. I believe that the ancient borough to which my hon. Friend refers must be one of the most rural boroughs in existence, because its population is about 1,000. We shall take a broad view of what constitutes a rural locality, although I cannot commit myself as to the precise size which would take a district from being rural to being urban.
    Mr. George Griffiths: I raised this very point in a previous Debate, and I am not quite satisfied with the answer which the Minister has given. Certain urban authorities may have populations of not 1,000 but as much as 80,000, the populations having been increased as a result of the last redistribution. These authorities may have a lot of rural people brought in. They must have consideration from the Minister.
    Mr. Willink: This is rural.
    Mr. Griffiths: That is why I am raising the point. There is a case in my own division. Our people are watching this matter very keenly. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that, where there are rural portions of urban districts, they will get the same consideration as is given to entirely rural areas.
    Mr. Willink: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance he asks for, at once and in express terms. It does not matter what the statutory type of local authority may be. If my hon. Friend examines this Bill closely, he will find that that is so and there may be rural localities even within the area of a county borough.
    Mr. Griffiths: Thank you.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Chapman): I must advise the Committee to resist vigorously the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) that we should delete Clause r, for the simple reason that if he succeeded in his intention, which I trust he will not press too vigorously, the whole Bill will go down the drain or sewer, as the case may be. I trust that that is not his design. This Bill is related mainly to water schemes. My hon. Friend is right about the limiting factor of the proviso.
    1562
    It has been made quite clear that the main intention of the Bill is the provision or improvement of water supplies in rural areas: and of the sewerage necessitated by that action. My hon. Friend touched upon the question of pollution. That does not come within the scope of this Bill; neither does land drainage; neither does the question of effluents. Those matters will be dealt with later. In fact, if my memory is correct, the Secretary of State is consulting with local authorities on those points. This Bill is designed to get the water into the countryside, and, as my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out, the supply of water necessarily stimulates the need for more drainage, and so on. So the Bill is limited to that. If the major drainage facilities which my hon. Friend has in mind, are necessitated by the provision or improvement of a water supply in a rural locality, quite clearly there is no point in pressing his opposition to this Clause.
    That position is covered by Clause
    1. My hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) gave an interesting account of the conditions in his constituency, and referred to a letter which had followed upon his last visit some time previously. But this Bill is designed precisely to meet the difficulties to which he referred.
    Mr. Gallacher: The Bill provides for assistance for the local authority only if it brings sewerage to these villages in relation to the development of water schemes. The county of Fife has an abundance of water: it has been the cost of bringing a sewerage scheme to these villages that has prevented the introduction of such a scheme. If the Minister would assist the county council, some of these villages could be saved. Otherwise, they will become deserted villages.
    Mr. Chapman: In a case where the water supply is greater than the sewerage capacity, the case would be considered on its merits. The proposal of my hon. Friend from East Fife to reject Clause 1 would defeat the general intention of the Bill. Both my hon. Friends referred to the scheme put forward by the progressive county council in Fife—I think it was by Provisional Order, in 1940. I trust that they will appreciate that it is not possible at this stage to say whether a particular scheme promoted by a local authority will qualify for grant under the Bill. Each scheme will have to

    1563
    be considered on its merits, in the light of all the available information, which the local authority will be asked to submit. The test to be applied is that laid down in this Clause namely, whether the need is due to an increase in the supply of piped water in the locality either before or after the passing of this Bill. Any schemes that will not satisfy that provision will not be eligible for grant.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Suppose that, in the areas mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), the Fife County Council proposed a scheme for proper drainage facilities for a certain part of the county, to take place now, and to be followed in a year or two years by a water scheme. Would that come under the Bill?
    Mr. Chapman: Anxious as I am to meet my hon. Friend, I cannot anticipate what will be decided eventually. It would want almost a latter-day Moses to decide at this stage of the Bill where the water will flow in future. All I can say is that the intention of the Secretary of State is that this water supply, and the sewerage necessitated by it, shall be provided as far as was explained in his speech on the White Paper. Perhaps I could give my hon. Friend this general assurance.
    Speaking of schemes in general, there is no question of any scheme being excluded from consideration for grant, either because it has already been sanctioned by Parliament, or because, in my hon. Friend's own words, "it provides drainage facilities of a major kind." Any scheme would be considered entirely on its merits in the light of the conditions laid down in Clause I, and I think that both my hon. Friends know that the Secretary of State for Scotland is very keen on this Bill. We shall not be unsympathetic to the general schemes put forward. I wish to state, specifically and very clearly now, to both my hon. Friends that we cannot, at this moment, say whether such-and-such a scheme would be approved or not. We must, in the light of subsequent decisions, judge each case absolutely on its merits. I trust, therefore, that my hon. Friends will not feel the need to go to the disastrous length of trying to induce the Committee to reject Clause 1.
    Sir R. W. Smith: With regard to the case of Fife, where there was no sewer-
    1564
    age system, supposing that a village is to put in a new system, and, for the supply part, proposes to put in a pipe one-eighth of an inch larger than the present supply pipe—which would, of course, be increasing the water supply—will it then be entitled to a grant?
    Mr. Chapman: The hon. Member has mentioned a point on which I touched. Where there is an increase in the facilities for supplying water, under an agreed scheme, then they would be eligible for consideration under the Bill. I am not committing myself in any way, because it is quite impossible to do so at this stage. The letters "M.P." after my name stand for Member of Parliament and not for "Minor Prophet." The cases would be eligible for consideration and I cannot go beyond that.
    Sir R. W. Smith: That is all I am asking. If there is an increase in the water supply, would the locality be entitled to the grant?
    Mr. Chapman: Each case will be judged entirely on its merits.
    Mr. Richards: I wish to ask a specific question regarding the position of rural district councils in connection with water supplies. I have in mind a county where there are five rural district councils who will help to operate the Bill, but, in the area, there happen to be five independent boroughs. The question of sewerage in these boroughs is a very serious matter for them, as I know. How can they avail themselves of the provisions that are given in this Bill, if they are within the area of a rural district council, although, of course, they are autonomous local bodies? Can they avail themselves of the facilities offered by the Bill to help the rural councils to do the sewerage for them, because they are a part of the area?
    Mr. Willink: This is a general question rather similar to that raised by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Pearson). The purpose of this Bill is, of course, to benefit the rural localities. In the submission of schemes, there will sometimes be schemes which will cover several rural localities. It may also be appropriate for a scheme to be one which, in part, covers an area not itself a rural locality but, in so far as the authority asking for the grant is an authority dealing with a rural locality, the grant provisions will be available for that authority. This is a Bill for

    1565
    the countryside, but that does not mean that you may not put in schemes which, on a reasonable basis, may also affect other areas.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Contributions by county councils.)
    Sir J. Lamb: I beg to move, in page 3, line 14, at the end, to add:
    "Provided that, where the amount of any such contribution is determined by the Minister, it shall not, without the consent of the council of the county, exceed the amount of the contribution which the Minister has himself undertaken to make."
    Those Members of the Committee who have any knowledge of local administration will be aware that, under the Local Government Act, 1929, and the Public Health Act, 1936, there is, at the present time, power for a council voluntarily to make contributions to local authorities when they wish to provide these water schemes. Many of the councils—most of them—have, to the best of their ability, made full use of this, and a great deal had been done, though not as much as we would have liked, before the introduction of this Bill. This is the first occasion on which it is being made compulsory that a county council shall make a contribution to a scheme which has been approved by the Minister, and we are asking that there shall be some safeguards given regarding this contribution, which is now to be compulsory as against the voluntary contribution. We are not raising any objection. It is only that we think that certain safeguards should be inserted.
    As the Clause stands, there is no limit whatever to the financial contribution which a county council may be instructed by the Government to make towards a scheme, and we think that that is rather unfair. It is difficult to see how this could be regulated, because you could not put in a figure and say that a certain sum must not be exceeded. The schemes will vary, and you could not put in a percentage. The County Councils Association have asked me to put forward the suggestion of limiting the contribution which they may be asked to make to the same amount as the Minister himself is making. I think that is only fair, because the Minister will have the duty of saying that these schemes are necessary, and, taking into consideration the cost, of
    1566
    saying what is the limit which the county is to contribute compulsorily towards that cost. The county councils do not wish it to be thought that that will be, in all cases, the limit of what they will provide. If there is a scheme which they very much desire to put forward, and there are certain reasons why an amount double that which the Minister is prepared to grant, is not adequate for the purpose, they feel they should have the right and power to make a further contribution if they so desire. They ask that the limit should be the same as that decided upon by the Minister but that they should also have the right to make a further contribution if they wish to do so. I have been asked to read this from the County Councils Association:
    "Notwithstanding this proposed limit upon compulsory contributions, the county councils will continue to be no less generous than in the past. If, for example, the Minister's own contribution under this Bill in a particular case is £500 and the county council would have been prepared, apart from the Bill, to make a voluntary contribution of £600, they should remain willing to offer this sum."
    I wish to make it quite clear that they do not wish to limit the possibilities of this Bill being quite successful in operation.
    Major McCallum: I want to oppose this Amendment, for the very good reason that I feel that, to establish the principle of this difference, between the contributions of the Government and of local authorities in Wales and parts of England—I am aware that the Clause does not apply to Scotland—would be a great mistake. There are poorer authorities who just could not afford to put down as much as the contribution of the State. Therefore, I think it would be a great mistake to establish that principle of "fifty-fifty" in making these grants.
    Sir J. Lamb: I did not make the proposal that it should be done on the basis of "fifty-fifty." I suggest it would be undesirable to do that. I am only asking for a limit to the compulsory contribution by the council so that it should not exceed that of the Government.
    Major McCallum: I understood my hon. Friend quite well, but I am rather in a quandary. On the Second Reading, there were two contradictory statements by the two Ministers. I quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Second Reading Debate. The Minister of Health, speaking of the contributions, said:

    1567
    "Wherever there is an Exchequer grant, that will carry with it a contribution also from the county council to the rural district which bears the primary responsibility, and it is contemplated that the county contribution will, normally, be not less than the Exchequer grant."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th May, 1944; Vol. 400, c. 364.]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland, in reply to a question which I put to him, said:
    "No, Sir, the Minister is not handicapped by any such inhibition."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th May, 1944; Vol. 400, C. 406.]
    I had asked the Minister if he would only give a 50 per cent. grant to local-authorities or county councils. I think it would be a mistake. Admittedly, this Clause does not apply to Scotland, but the rest of the Bill does, and I think it would be a mistake to introduce the principle of "fifty-fifty" into this Clause.
    Mr. Willink: I am indebted to the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) and to those for whom he has spoken, for what he said and for the terms of his Amendment. This Clause does, as he says, bring into existence for the first time a compulsory principle with regard to the county contribution, to which the counties have raised no objection. I can, however, quite understand that they desire this safeguard where, it having been impossible for the county and the local authority to come to an agreement, the case comes to me as a sort of arbitrator. The safeguard is that there should be some limit of my power with regard to the allocation of responsibility to the county councils. I am also indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) because, though Clause 2 does not apply to Scotland, he has given me an opportunity of saying another word about the principle of sharing the burden. I do not think that there was any actual contradiction, as the hon. and gallant Member suggested, between what I said and what was said by the Secretary of State for Scotland, because the Committee will observe that, in what I said, there occurs the useful word "normally." There might, certainly, be cases where, in the case of very poor counties, the normal principle will not apply but, normally, we do expect that the county will contribute at least as much as the Exchequer.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Does that apply to Scotland as well?
    Mr. Willink: I should not like to commit myself at the moment. This Clause does not apply to Scotland. Perhaps I might seek an opportunity to let my hon. Friend know about that as the Secretary of State is not in the Committee at the moment. With regard to the Amendment of my hon. Friend, I was also very glad to hear of the assurance he gave on behalf of the Association that there is no intention to depart from their existing principles. It would frustrate the whole beneficial object of the Clause if the county councils reduced their contribution by the extent of or in relation to, the amount of Exchequer grant. With the assurance that he has given, and the small alteration of wording which he has made, I am very happy to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir J. Lamb: I beg to move, in page 3, line 14, at the end, to add:
    "(2) Where the council of any borough or urban or rural district or a joint board or joint committee submit to the Minister proposals with a view to his undertaking, under the preceding section, to make a contribution towards the expenses incurred by them in carrying out the proposals, they shall—

    (a) before submitting the proposals to him, transmit for their observations thereon particulars thereof to the council of any county which will, under this section, be bound to undertake to make contributions towards those expenses if the Minister gives the undertaking; and

    (b) report to the Minister, when they submit the proposals to him, the observations, if any, of any such county council thereon."

    At the outset I had better refer to the quotation given twice during the consideration of the first Amendment that the contribution of the county council should not normally be less than that of the Government. It may be possible that the county council might have to provide considerable sums, and, if so, they should be given a reasonable opportunity of getting full consideration of the schemes sent forward by the local authorities to the Minister, and they should have an opportunity of expressing their views to the Minister on the schemes. The contribution will be made willingly, but it is only just and fair that they should have an opportunity of considering the schemes on their merits and of making their observations.
    Mr. Willink: Though I would not like there to be any doubt as to the full

    1569
    responsibility with regard to these schemes and their planning remaining with the responsible authority, I feel that there is a very definite value in the county councils having an opportunity to consider and observe upon suggestions that are made. There may well be cases where the wider view has been overlooked in the local district, and the suggestion made here that, before proposals come to the centre, there should be an opportunity for the county council to see the proposals, and that there should be an obligation to forward the observations of the county council, with the proposals of the local authorities, appears to me, and, I hope, to the Committee, to be a valuable improvement. I am happy to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): The next Amendment on the Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), appears to be consequential.
    Sir J. Lamb: I beg to move, in page 3, line 14, at the end, to add:
    (3) Where, under the preceding Section, the Minister withholds, or reduces the amount of, a contribution which he has undertaken to make thereunder towards any such expenses as aforesaid, the council of the county may withhold, or, as the case may be, reduce in the same proportion the amount of the contributions which they have undertaken under this Section to snake towards those expenses.
    I submit that the Amendment is not consequential, Mr. Williams. The Minister, in Sub-section (4) of Clause I, has the right of refusing or withholding his contribution if the work is not adequately and properly performed. If he has the right because the local authority has not adequately and properly performed the work of withholding or reducing that sum, we think that the county council should have a similar right in this respect. That is the object, and I hope that the Minister will be able to accept this Amendment, too.
    Mr. Willink: This Amendment is, I think, practically consequential. It is reasonable and fair, where there is this compulsory sharing of the burden by the county, that the same right should be given to the county as are available with regard to the Exchequer grant; and I am happy to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Deputy-Chairman: I must rule that this is really a consequential Amendment.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: This Amendment touches the case which I raised earlier in the proceedings where it is found that the Government reduce and withhold grants. Suppose they reduce the grant, under the Amendment which my right hon. and learned Friend is accepting, the county council will be able proportionately to do the same. If the work has been done by a contractor, who pays for it?
    Mr. Rhys Davies: May I, as a layman, ask who will decide whether the work has been carried out promptly?
    Mr. Willink: The Minister of Health or the Secretary of State for Scotland, as the case may be. With regard to the question raised by my hon. Friend, in many cases where the work has not been satisfactorily done, the contractor will be liable in damages. The local authority does not usually do the work itself—that would be a very rare occasion. The cases where grant will be withheld or reduced, will, I hope, be very rare also. The who of this procedure is a necessary safeguard, leaving the responsibility for due supervision upon the local authority, in a case where grant is coming both from the county council and the Exchequer.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: It seems to me that we are now doing something which is entirely new. I do not recollect anything like this in previous legislation. The effect of it is that no contractor in future will have any guarantee that he is going to be paid. A contractor undertakes a very large water scheme, say, amounting to £100,000. The understanding is that the Government will pay so much and the county council so much. If the Amendment is accepted, both the Government and the county council may say, "We can reduce our payments if we like," and surely that is not right.
    Mr. Willink: I think that my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension in two respects. In the first place, he says that he recollects nothing of the sort in previous legislation, whereas exactly the same provisions exist. with the exception of what I may call the "frills," under the 1934 Act; and, secondly, he appears to

    1571
    think that, because grant is to be given in respect of these schemes, the contract made by the contractor would be made with the local authority, the county council and the Crown. That is not so. The contract is made with the authority.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Extension of duties of local authorities and joint boards as to water supply.)
    Rear-Admiral Beamish: I beg to move, in page 3, line 15, after "shall," to insert "without unreasonable delay."
    I know that the Committee feel that the Minister is very sympathetic and that his intentions are excellent in this matter, but there is no doubt that, in legislation of this kind, delays occur, and certainly there are in this country dilatory local authorities. I put forward the Amendment because the words are precautionary and they are wholly in tune and conformity with the words "reasonable cost," which occur no less than four times in this Clause. I read all the speeches in the Second Reading Debate, and heard most of them, and I welcome the Bill, but I heard speeches which indicated that the Bill was not nearly good enough and that there would be delays and that we should not get the water nor the piped supply. I could make a most emotional appeal, and, in the words of my old Service, I could bring tears to the eyes of the "t'gallant rigging," and for the benefit of those who are not initiated the "t'gallant rigging" is made of wire, and there is a loop at the end of it. At the same time, I say strongly that the condition of affairs in regard to piped supplies in great areas in this country, and in my own county, is little short of a scandal. If we have delays and they are unreasonable the Minister and the Government must see that something is done about it.
    A very serious drought is impending in a great many areas which are without piped supplies. I am not going through all the miseries and discomforts which people have to suffer. It is not as though water is not available. It is available. It has been investigated. An example of the sort of delays we may very well get is to be found in the White Paper. A recent decision has been made to divide the
    1572
    county, a part of which I represent, into three groups. That decision has only just been reached after centuries of opportunities to provide the water. They are going to be turned into joint committees to investigate problems! The problems have been investigated, and the water is there, and has been there for countless centuries. It is available for placing in pipes. It is hardly to be believed that only at this stage has a decision been taken as to whether these committees, essentially a symptom of dilatory procedure, are to become statutory bodies or joint water boards. If that does not make for delay, I do not know what does. I sincerely hope that the Minister, with his broad outlook, will not think that the putting in of the words "without unreasonable delay" is going to make difficulties for him. They will be a precaution and a real help to people who at the present time are suffering the gravest inconveniences and disabilities.
    Mr. David Eccles: I rise to support the Amendment but for rather different reasons. We are living in a time of full employment and for a long time we shall have a very high level of employment. It is, therefore, no good any longer thinking that the provision of money is sufficient to get any public works executed. There is the provision of labour and material. Yesterday the President of the Board of Trade was explaining, during the Debate on the location of industry, that for a very long time there would have to be a licensing system for building labour and building material. That labour competes directly with labour that will be wanted for water schemes. Therefore, I would like to ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he could give us some assurance that no delay will occur through his failure to get put at the top of the queue when it comes to obtaining these priorities for labour and materials. I feel that none of these reconstruction projects which we are considering, for example school-building programmes or this Rural Water Bill, has very much meaning unless we can find a new technique by which we can put into the Bill something to establish the priority of importance between the particular project we are talking about and other competing uses for the resources necessary to carry it out. For that reason I support the Amendment moved by my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Sir R. Glyn: I would like to support this Amendment very strongly and ask the Minister if, in replying, he could give the Committee information as to whether he is asking for an inquiry into electric power, and when it is available. The Minister knows that cheap water is very much dependent on cheap power, and one of the first things we need to get is information as to what villages and districts will be properly served with electrical supplies. Any local authority knows that to get the piped water, which we all want, the cheaper the power you can use either for pumping out wells or boosting up gradients the better. It makes a lot of difference, and we cannot get on unless the Minister can give an assurance that the information will be forthcoming.
    Secondly, in regard to the actual provivision of materials, the Minister knows quite well that to-day 70 per cent. of the water schemes that have been approved by the Ministry of Agriculture through the War Agricultural Committees are suspended because it is impossible to get pipes. If he will inquire in any county, or of the Ministry of Agriculture, he will find that pipes are said not to be in existence. All those projects and schemes are being held up and, on top of that, there is this very necessary demand for a piped supply to houses. Unless, therefore, steps are taken with the Ministry of Production and the Ministry of Supply at once to earmark factories which are able to turn out these pipes, our discussion here to-day is rather futile. I trust that the Minister will get his priority for this, recognising that without it the words we use in this House are sheer window-dressing, and that people will remain without water after having been encouraged by reading these Debates. Therefore it is essential that the Government should make some announcement as to priorities of material and labour.
    Mr. Tree: In supporting this Amendment there is another aspect of the case which I would like to bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend. Many local authorities are making surveys of water at the present time, in order to get on to the rebuilding of houses just as soon as they possibly can, because they realise that if they do not, men coming back from the Forces will not be content to live in the houses that are available. Many authorities have already made these
    1574
    surveys, but what they want is to be able to ascertain whether the water is, in fact, there. Now the water engineers who are approached on this subject are not able to make the necessary bore-holes for the reason that at the present time no priority whatever is given to that kind of labour. Therefore, I want to ask my right hon. Friend if he will see that as soon as possible—quite obviously it cannot be done at this particular moment—labour will be released and priority will be given to this particular kind of work. I think it is well known to hon. Members that boring does not require a great deal of labour, in fact it can be done with a very few men. I received a letter a few days ago from one of the largest firms of water engineers in the Midlands in which they stated that they had asked for six labourers to be released—
    The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): I think I should point out that this is a very narrow Amendment. If we are going into the number of men used for boring, and all that sort of thing, the discussion will be getting rather wide of the Amendment, which is narrow and only urges expedition. It does not entitle hon. Members to go into questions of detailed technique.
    Mr. Tree: I was just trying to make the point that it is very important that we should ascertain as quickly as possible where water is. As the Amendment says "without unreasonable delay," I was trying to make my point that we should ascertain where the water is, so that schemes could be developed at the earliest possible moment.
    Mrs. Beatrice Wright: I wish for a moment to take the Committee back to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) because he raised a point with which I have the very greatest sympathy. I would remind the Minister that the Minister of Agriculture, when dealing with the water section of the-Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, and in reply to a Parliamentary Question which I asked him two days afterwards, made it quite clear that that subsidy would be available for the provision of electric hydrants to isolated districts for the pumping of water supplies. One hopes that the Minister will give in reply to the hon. Member for Abingdon the assurance that this money will also be available to bring

    1575
    to villages, without unreasonable delay, electricity to pump the water at the same time as the provision of water. I realise that I am a little wide of the Amendment again, but I rather hope that the Chair, having allowed the hon. Member for Abingdon to make his point, will allow me to support it.
    Sir William Wayland: I want to say a few words in sympathy with the Minister. I do not think anybody could conceive that this work could be commenced until the war is finished. The preliminary drawings may be made but, knowing the shortage of labour, one cannot see how anything can possibly be done now. No doubt it is necessary, but there are hundreds of other things. One of the first priorities must go to housing in villages and towns, and the agricultural community, as usual, will have to wait and take third place.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horshrugh): I have listened to this discussion on the disadvantages of unreasonable delay and I gather that we were not discussing the unreasonable delay of the local authorities but what it appeared might be the unreasonable delay of my right hon. and learned Friend in preparing for investigations and supplies before the time this work could be carried out. On the points about electricity and bore-holes, I can only say that what hon. Members have said is being borne in mind. I would have liked to say something more on bore-holes, but I know, Mr. Williams, you have already said that is not within this Amendment, although I know something about the difficulties that have occurred.
    In answer to the actual points that were brought to our notice by the mover of the Amendment, who was desirous that these words should be put into the Bill in order that the Minister should have this extra power of refusing grants if there were unreasonable delay by the local authority. Now we quite agree that everything possible should be done to prevent delay, but I would like the Committee to consider whether there are not better ways of doing that already in the Bill. If these words are added, I feel that they may lead to some waste of time in arguing what is reasonable and what is unreasonable delay. Even if it were
    1576
    decided that the delay was unreasonable and the grant refused, we should still leave the locality without water, and I would therefore suggest to the Committee that the powers which the Minister has already in the Bill would be more useful. If a local authority fails to carry out its obligations under the clause, complaint can be made to the Minister who will give a direction under proviso (b). Moreover, the Minister can himself initiate enquiries, even though no complaint has been made to him under the Public Health Act procedure, to which reference is made in Clause 4. Therefore, I would suggest to the Committee that the Minister has already powers to deal with the situation if the local authority is not carrying out the work with the expedition we require, and it would be better to leave those powers with the Minister rather than put in these words about which there might be considerable argument on definition, and which would still leave the locality without water.
    Mr. Gallacher: In the case of a local authority refusing to carry out work which should be carried out, will the Minister have any power to deal with, and punish, the Tory majority on that council who are responsible for holding up the work?
    Miss Horsbrugh: If the hon. Member will read the Bill, although he will perhaps be disappointed not to find the words "Tory majority" used—although such words might refer to many councils, we know—I can assure him he will find that the Minister has these powers. I am referring now to his powers under proviso (b) and the further powers referred to in Clause 4. I think that the short answer to the hon. Member is, that the Minister has the power of dealing with a local authority which does not carry out the work. I can assure the Committee that we thoroughly agree with every hon. Member who has spoken, that we have to carry on this work with the least possible delay, but we feel that the Minister's powers already in the Bill help him better than the suggested new words. We agree with the idea, but we can carry out what is wanted in a better way than in the way suggested.
    Mr. Mothers: I realise the weakness of the words suggested by the hon. and gallant Member because they

    1577
    could be put in positively as "with reasonable delay" which is the same thing as "without unreasonable delay." I rise to ask whether the hon. Lady, in making her statement on behalf of the Minister, suggests that his powers include the imposing of a time limit for the carrying out of the work.
    Miss Horsbrugh: I think it would be a pity to put into the Bill a time limit, because it is a difficult matter. However, I want to make it quite clear that the Minister will watch how this work is being carried out and, should he think it is not being carried out in the right way or too slowly, he can make an inquiry. In most cases, however, it would probably not be the best plan to lay down a time limit in order to ensure that the work is carried on expeditiously.
    Mr. Mathers: I hope the hon. Lady does not misunderstand me. My point was that, finding it necessary to exercise his powers, would it then be possible for the Minister to lay down that, within a stipulated period which he considered reasonable, the local authority must carry out the provision of these services?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I think it quite clear that the Minister, or the Secretary of State for Scotland, would be able to say to a local authority that they were dissatisfied and that the local authority should get on with the work in a certain time. Then, if the Minister still continued to be dissatisfied, he has the power given to him in the Bill.
    Rear-Admiral Beamish: With considerable regret I have to say that I am not persuaded by what the hon. Lady has said. I remember very well the case of a councillor, who, at the end of a very strong appeal being made, and when everybody agreed that a piped supply must be provided for a particular area, was asked his opinion. He said, "I reckon it is going to rain again." That was ten years ago, and he was perfectly right. It has rained again. That is the sort of thing we have to check. In view of the assertion of the hon. Lady that the Minister will prevent unreasonable delay by other means than putting these words into the Bill, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Rear-Admiral Beamish: I beg to move, in page 3, line 17, after "schools," to insert:
    "and such supply shall take precedence over the improvement of existing supplies and to the provision of sewerage or the disposal of sewage in their locality."
    What I have tried to do is to be consistent, and the object of this Amendment is to ensure priority, so far as possible, for a piped water supply before a supply of water for sewerage or sewage disposal. I do not think that the Bill, particularly Clause 1, sufficiently safeguards that priority. If water is to be married to sewerage and sewage disposal, then I fear that delay is, inevitable.
    Mr. Willink: While I have every sympathy with the objective of my hon. and gallant Friend, I cannot feel that the wording of his Amendment is at ail prudent or wise. We want to retain complete flexibility in the administration of this grant and if one considers the wording and, indeed, the principle of this Amendment, one finds that the words, "and such supply," mean a supply of wholesome water in pipes to every rural locality in which there are houses or schools. Nothing could be more seriously limiting than to say you must get water to every rural locality before you touch any sewerage at all, that you must not touch sewerage and water simultaneously—although that is a wise thing to do—and that you must not improve a bad water supply in a centre of large population before you have dealt with a small number of people in a rural locality. I feel confident that this Amendment would be restrictive and cause real difficulty, and I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will accept that view.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: I beg to move, in page 3, line 17, after "schools," to insert, "or agricultural or horticultural buildings."
    This Amendment and the next Amendment on the Order Paper deal with the same point, and perhaps I may be allowed to discuss them together. The object of this Amendment is to make mandatory the duty of local authorities to supply wholesome water in pipes not only to private dwellings but to agricultural buildings and farms. The Committee may not have appreciated the subtle dif-

    1579
    ference that is here involved. The words of this Bill say that pipes are to be laid to houses and schools and I am asking that that provision shall be extended to farms and farm buildings. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture will probably say that this is not necessary, because to some extent it has been provided for in the Bill, which the House considered only recently, relating to agricultural miscellaneous provisions. May I remind the Committee what that Bill provided? The Minister of Agriculture, in introducing that Measure, said that Clause 5 dealt with water and implemented one of the proposals of the recent White Paper. The present water supply arrangements enabled him to give a grant of 50 per cent. for laying water on to farms and farm buildings and extending that new provision of the Bill enabled him to extend grants to cottages. I would like the Committee to remember that in 1941 the Agricultural Provisions Act enabled the Minister to make grants for the provision of water to farms and farm buildings. The Minister explained in the Debate on 16th May on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill that he had taken that step and made that proposal in 1941. The Measure, he said, which he introduced in 1941 was brought in because, going round the country, he found such a large number of cases where food production was being hindered through lack of water—
    The Deputy-Chairman: I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to go on because there is a possible gap between the two Bills as regards water supply to farm buildings, but I do not think he ought to use this occasion for a long dissertation on extracts from the Minister of Agriculture's speeches, or anybody else's speeches, on food production and things of that kind. We must keep to the bare question of water supply for buildings.
    Mr. Stewart: The point of my Amendment is to extend the provisions of this Bill to agriculture for the direct purpose of increasing food production. When speaking on food production I think I am speaking directly to my Amendment.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think we can have that argument on this Bill, which is for definite health purposes and not concerned with food production.
    Mr. Stewart: With great respect, Mr. Williams, I do not see how I am to speak to my Amendment if that is so. My Amendment seeks to add the words,
    "or agricultural or horticultural buildings"
    which would make Clause 3 read:
    "Every local authority shall provide a supply of wholesome water in pipes to every rural locality in their district in which there are houses or schools, and shall take the pipes affording that supply to such point or points as will enable the houses or schools, or agricultural or horticultural buildings to be connected thereto …
    The Deputy-Chairman: I accepted the Amendment as it seemed to me that the hon. Gentleman might be able to show that there was a gap in water supply between farm buildings and farm cottages which he might persuade the Minister to fill. But that is no reason why there should be anything in the nature of a long argument on food production. It is not reasonable to make a long speech about food supplies or anything of that kind.
    Mr. Stewart: I entirely agree, Mr. Williams, and have no intention of making a long dissertation. I was calling the authority of the Minister of Agriculture to my aid to indicate the vital necessity of providing adequate water supplies, not only to agricultural cottages but to agricultural buildings. I was recollecting that the Minister of Agriculture in his tour of the country found that to be so.
    Sir Ernest Shepperson: Has not the hon. Gentleman's point been already met by the Bill we passed recently?
    Mr. Stewart: No, it has not been met under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. The grant there—and it is only a 50 per cent. grant—is to be given where it seems a good scheme, but wherever there seems to be the slightest possibility of the local authority doing it as a public scheme the Minister of Agriculture may not give any grant. Therefore, public authority water suppliers are vitally concerned in this matter. In fact, when the Minister on that Bill was challenged he said that the question of rural water supplies would come up later and would be then dealt with. But here is the Bill and it does not deal with it; it does not make it mandatory upon local authorities to extend water supplies to farm buildings and farms themselves. Since

    1581
    it is not provided for in that Bill and it has not been provided for here I suggest that it should be now inserted in this Bill. I do not want to extend the direction you have offered, Mr. Williams, or to elaborate the matter but it is perfectly plain that unless British agriculture is provided with an adequate supply of water none of the health or food production measures we envisage can be made effective. Unless there is an adequate supply of water to farms how can the people in those farms and the stock be kept healthy? How can livestock in the fields be kept healthy? You cannot introduce the great new method of taking the plough from field to field unless you have water in every trough. Further, there is no provision at all for water to horticultural buildings.
    Mr. Quibell: Did the hon. Gentleman say, "unless water is taken to every field?"
    The Deputy-Chairman: This is clearly going too far. I gave the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Stewart) the benefit of the doubt as to whether I would call his Amendment, and a long talk on agriculture is not fair to the Committee.
    Mr. Stewart: I could answer the hon. Member's challenge, Mr. Williams, but in view of your Ruling I will say no more.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture who is sitting on the Front Bench may recollect that I had a case in my own constituency recently that would be affected by an Amendment of this kind, where a hostel was established and no water supply was available. Mine is an urban area, but there is also a small rural population there as well. I was told that it would cost between £500 and £600 to put in a piped water supply to that hostel and it occurred to me, while the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Stewart) was putting his case, that I might say a word or two on his Amendment. I am not wedded to what the hon. Member said, because although I was brought up as a lad in the countryside I never came across many farm buildings that were not quite near to houses in which the farmers lived. The main object of the Bill is to provide a piped water supply for houses in rural areas. It seems to me that there cannot be many farm
    1582
    buildings which are not fairly near the house in which the farmer resides. [Interruption.] I am of course only speaking of what I know. I do not know the district from which the hon. Member comes at all. I know a little about horticulture and I should be very much surprised if many horticultural buildings are far removed from the houses of the owners either. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are in many cases."] If I am wrong it strengthens the hon. Member's argument, but what occurs to me is that the Bill provides for water for the houses of the owners or tenants and therefore ought at the same time to supply farm and horticultural buildings as well. When the Minister talks of a piped water supply, does he at the same time touch the problem of bringing the water right into the houses under the Bill. I have come across some rural areas where they have a piped water supply but it is not taken into the houses; upright taps are fixed on the roadside and the people draw their supplies from those taps. I trust, therefore, that the Minister will be able to say something.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I think the Minister will be definitely outside the Amendment if he answers that question.
    Mr. Davies: I trust the Minister will be able to say something on the point where the cost of providing a piped water supply to farm and horticultural buildings is so heavy that unless something is done in this Bill no such supply will reach them at all.
    Mr. T. Williams: I am sure that your Ruling, Mr. Williams, is correct and, if I were to attempt to reply to my hon. Friend, I should be replying to a Second Reading speech which has no relation to the Amendment. The mover used the word "subtle" I think this is rather a subtle Amendment. What the hon. Member asks is that this Committee should impose upon every local authority the obligation to provide a piped supply of water to every agricultural or horticultural building.
    Mr. Stewart: Nothing of the kind.
    Mr. Williams: At least that it should become an obligation on the part of the local authority to take a piped supply of water to a point near to every agricultural or horticultural building, whereas the Bill confines the obligation on the local

    1583
    authority to providing a pipe supply of water to houses and schools, quite clearly as a health service and not as a service to agriculture as such. The Amendment, therefore, would be a gigantic extension of the proposals of the Bill and would certainly involve local authorities in colossal expenditure, which most of them would object to even were the Minister to contemplate the imposition of this burden. The local authority are responsible for the health of the residents of the village. They have no responsibility for providing piped supplies of water to every agricultural or horticultural building. The responsibility, obviously, lies with the water undertaker and that is a matter for the general legislation, which was foreshadowed in the White Paper on page 13. It said:
    "The Government propose that water undertakings shall be placed under an obligation to supply water for industrial, agricultural and other purposes on reasonable terms and conditions."
    Hitherto there has been no obligation upon water undertakers to supply water either to industry or to agriculture. In the legislation foreshadowed here it will for the first time become an obligation upon water undertakers to provide a water supply at a reasonable cost to both industry and agriculture. If the Amendment was to be accepted it would be accepting an obligation at present undertaken by landowners. In the legislation the hon. Member referred to, where a Government grant of 50 per cent. can be given, it is only given if it can be shown that there may be an increase in the production of food on a particular farm and, where any owner of land applies for the grant, if the Executive Committee are satisfied that an increase in food production is possible a 50 per cent. grant can be drawn from Treasury funds. What the hon. Member wants is that the landowner should be completely exempt and the obligation transferred to the local authority. That is not part or lot of the Bill. I agree with the hon. Member in the general desire to see farm and horticultural buildings supplied with water. If agriculture is going to play its proper part after the war these things must be supplied by one means or another, but this is not the moment to attempt to import into this smaller Bill what is a matter of such general and wide application.
    Sir E. Shepperson: If the owner of an estate at his own cost put down a piped water supply to supply certain farm buildings and cottages, would he be entitled to a 50 per cent. grant?
    Mr. Williams: If the owner of the land can satisfy the county war agricultural executive committee that a supply of water is likely to increase food production on the land, he can apply successfully for a 50 per cent. grant.
    Mr. Snadden: I think what the mover had in mind with the Amendment was that water is to be carried to every sizeable hamlet at reasonable cost. The hon. Member feels that there is nothing in the Bill to provide water for the industry on which these hamlets live. Though it may be looking too far ahead to expect every agricultural holding to be supplied with water, in my country the vast majority of agricultural holdings are off the beaten track of the main pipe-line. Though the water will go to each hamlet, the industry on which the hamlets depend will probably be without water for years, because the side roads leading to the farms and cottages will have to connect up with the main pipe-line.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I think this is exactly the point where we must stop. The Parliamentary Secretary has explained that that is dealt with under another Act. It is rather in doubt whether the Amendment should ever have been called. I called it in order to give a chance of putting a point, but I hope this will not develop into an agricultural Debate.
    Dr. Peters: In sparsely populated areas where there is practically no water undertaking at all, how are these horticultural and agricultural buildings ever going to get water? The Parliamentary Secretary said this must be left to water undertakings. Where there are none, I cannot see them getting any water at all under the Bill or the White Paper or anything else.
    Mr. T. Williams: I can only say that the Bill is not intended to solve the water problems of the whole universe, but it is a start. The object is to' enable rural authorities to provide a piped supply wherever there happen to be houses or schools, and if a piped supply can be taken to a village where houses and

    1585
    schools exist, clearly the next stage will be to the farmers. This Measure must be the first inevitable step.
    Dr. Peters: Those who live in the countryside live amongst houses and schools and farm buildings. I am as anxious to see water taken to agricultural buildings as to schools and houses, but schemes in my own locality have been deliberately turned down and there is not the slightest prospect of getting a supply for many years.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    A Division was challenged, but the Chairman, on putting the Question for the second time, declared that the "Noes" had it.
    Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. I want to ask whether there is any means of getting a decision with regard to a Member who forces a Division and then is not prepared to produce Tellers. Is there any way of imposing a penalty of some kind?
    The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid that that is not a point of Order, and there is no penalty.
    Sir J. Lamb: I beg to move, in page 3, line 31, at the end, to insert:
    "and, where the request was made by local government electors, after consulting also the council of the county, if any."
    Sub-section (1) of this Clause imposes a duty on every local authority to provide a supply of wholesome water in pipes to every rural locality in their district in which there are houses or schools. That is a very wide and desirable power, but there may be cases where it is not practicable. Paragraph (a) says that a local authority shall not be required to do anything which is not practicable at a reasonable cost. That may be a matter of opinion, and it will, therefore, have to be submitted to the Minister for his decision. The Clause gives a right to the county council or ten or more local electors to appeal to the Minister. There is an appeal in the case of the county council, but where objection is taken
    by ten or more electors there is no obligation on the part of the Minister to consult the county council. We desire that where representations have been made to the Minister by the electors the county council should be consulted.
    Miss Horsbrugh: My right hon. and learned Friend agrees that there should be consultation with the county council in both events. He considers that the Amendment will be an improvement and he is glad to accept it.
    Sir J. Lamb: May I express my appreciation to the Minister, and say that the whole of these Amendments have been put down only with the intention of improving the Bill?
    Amendment agreed to.
    Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: I beg to move, in page 3, line 33, at the end, to insert:
    "(c) the local authority shall notify the catchment board and pollution authority concerned of any scheme proposed."
    As the Parliamentary Secretary has accepted a rather similar Amendment to this, I have hopes that the principle of this Amendment will be accepted. If the legislation which is anticipated passes and the catchment boards and pollution authorities become river boards, it will simplify matters to put them in this Bill as bodies which should be consulted. The reason why consultation with them is necessary is that in the past water undertakers and local authorities have, in seeking water, neglected to consult catchment boards, with the result that they have often got water from most unsuitable places. There have been several expensive legislative contests in this House where undertakers have been divided and money and work have been wasted. The catchment boards have a tremendous amount of knowledge of where water is available, and I should like the Minister to accept the principle that water undertakers or local authorities looking for water should consult them about where wells, streams, underground streams and springs exist, because they know better than anybody else in the catchment area where water is likely to be found.
    The hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell) will know that we have a bad example in Lincolnshire of hopeless boring for water; 150 bore-holes have been sunk and water is still running to waste, although they have tried to plug it, as a result of haphazard boring without consulting the authorities who would know where the boring should be done. The question arises of the actual flow of water in streams being interfered with. Although

    1587
    these are small schemes, they may affect the flow of water in the rural streams, which in turn may affect the supply of water for agricultural stock. The catchment boards know about the flow of streams in their areas and about compensation water, in which there will be a certain amount of difficulty with the Ministry of Health. It is obvious that water supplies will be followed by sanitation problems. The local authority will probably be the pollution authority also, but not in every case. The catchment boards are the pollution authorities in some cases and should be consulted. The consultation, I suggest, will hasten schemes, because it will ensure that the best knowledge available as to where water is to be obtained will be at the service of the water undertakers, and delays will be obviated.
    Major Mills: I should like to support the Amendment. It is obvious that the catchment boards are affected in a large number of cases by the taking of water from a river or an underground source. They are also concerned with its discharge if there is a sewerage scheme in consequence of the supply of piped water. They are affected in two ways. They may be affected because the water is taken out of one river, conveyed over the hills, and discharged somewhere else, and affected also by the purity of the affluent. That applies with still more force to the pollution authority concerned.
    Mr. Willink: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) is helpful to me in many matters and I want to say more than a word about this Amendment, which concerns a complicated matter. There are a number of difficulties about bringing in this new obligation. It is an obligation which was not present in the comparable Act of 1934. Unless it is absolutely necessary, I am reluctant in these days to increase the number of authorities with whom one person or another has to consult. One hears that very often with regard to Government Departments, and it should also be so in other fields. I am anxious not to bring in a new type of obligation affecting catchment boards or pollution authorities in a Bill which is dealing with only a very limited field, namely, water supply in rural localities. The whole question is a wide
    1588
    one and of a kind which ought to be dealt with comprehensively in later legislation setting up river boards and dealing with other matters foreshadowed in the White Paper. I ought to say a word about both types of authority, although they are sometimes coincident. It is accepted that they will all be amalgamated in the future river boards.
    Land drainage authorities are to a
    large extent, if not entirely, protected by the existing law. Local authorities are not getting under this Bill any additional powers for the carrying out of works beyond what they have already under the Public Health Act, 1936. With regard to works on the laying and maintenance of mains, the powers and duties of local authorities under the Public Health Act are the same in the matter of notifying boards as they are with regard to sewers. We have to look at Part II of the Act to see what their responsibility is with regard to sewers. Wherever there is to be constructed a sewer, which will interfere with any water-course or works belonging to or under the control of a land drainage authority, they, must give notice of their proposals to that authority. The drainage authority has a right to object to the works within 28 days, and the local authority cannot proceed with what it is doing unless either the objections are withdrawn or the Minister of Health has given instructions for a local inquiry and the proposals have been approved in their original form or with modifications.
    So if there is going to be any interference with water-courses or works in which catchment boards are interested, the existing law provides for the sort of case which the Amendment proposes to bring in. So far as information is concerned, of course we have already seen that the Department is to have an opportunity of making its observations. I myself, through my officers, will review the schemes. I am reluctant to complicate the matter still further by bringing in any other authority. My advice to the Committee is that it is not really essential.
    Perhaps I might pass on to the next authority, described in the Amendment as the pollution authority, but perhaps more properly called the pollution prevention authority. At present there is no obligation to notify pollution prevention authorities about water supply schemes, so this is a new proposal involving an addition

    1589
    to the obligations of the local authorities. The whole question of pollution, effluents and so forth is a matter which we are under an undertaking to bring before the House in a comprehensive form, when the proposal for the river boards is brought into legislative form. I fear that I must advise the Committee that it would be better to leave the question of pollution out of this Bill, with its limited purpose, and to reserve it for full consideration, not only with regard to rural localities but industrial localities, which are much more important in this connection, until we deal with the whole matter of pollution in that legislation. For those reasons I must advise the Committee not to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Gallacher: I quite agree with the Minister that it is undesirable to complicate the position of any of the authorities by having too many counsels before a scheme is started upon, but the Minister, having satisfied my mind on that point, then presented a long argument which I think would have been better omitted, because it has started doubts. He says that if a scheme is prepared which is going to cut across existing water undertakings, the catchment board has a right, in the law as it stands, to make an objection within 28 days. That is not a desirable situation. What is proposed in the Amendment is that before a scheme is started there should be some consultation and understanding, so that the matter can never get to a stage after the scheme is prepared in which the catchment board has to consider an objection, and after the objection is put in there should be all kinds of arguments and discussions. The Minister should take power to enable him, when schemes are being considered, to decide whether particular consultations are necessary, and to order such consultations if he considers them necessary.
    Mr. Evelyn Walkden: I take the same view of the matter as the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). I am partly satisfied with the Minister's explanation, but when he tenders us certain advice as to catchment boards and other authorities being able to raise objections and hold up a scheme, I have fears on the point raised by the Minister. I would like an answer to the case of an authority I know of, which concerns itself with sewage at the moment, the Thames Con-
    1590
    servancy Board, a mighty powerful body. It can, indeed, handicap local authorities, however good their intentions may be. Does the Minister suggest to the Committee that, in the case of rural areas adjoining the Thames Conservancy Board, the Board can hold up any development such as a local authority may be so well intentioned as to wish to carry out? I am deeply concerned.
    There is another case in the Don Valley. There is the Don Drainage Board and the catchment board for that area. I should be very hesitant about that position. I do not feel at all convinced. I think the Minister is entitled to ask the hon. and gallant Member to withdraw his Amendment, but he ought to give us the assurance that no further handicaps will be put upon local authorities than already exist—in fact, we want them removed if at all possible. That is especially true when we look at an area which is not far from that of the hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell) in the Don Valley division. I believe there are something like 400 residents in the district, and 75 per cent. of the houses have not a water supply to-clay, and that is within 10 miles of Doncaster. I visited the village a few days ago in connection with the "Salute the Soldier campaign, and I was told that the only reason why a water supply has not been laid down is that the local authorities cannot agree among themselves. We want more agreement and fewer handicaps and we do not want any more authorities than exist at present interfering with the good intentions of a local authority whose duty it is to supply water. We want as many handicaps removed as is possible. I would like that assurance from the Minister.
    Mr. Willink: The objective indicated by my hon. Friend is entirely mine, but we must appreciate that there are conflicting interests—I do not mean the interests of drainage, water supply and one thing and another—that have to be weighed up. This small Bill was not, I think the Committee will agree, meant to be an occasion for what might be termed a controversial review of the machinery under the Public Health Act. We do nothing to reduce the number of authorities, both in the field of water undertakings and drainage, so that the type of case to which my hon. Friend refers will not arise so frequently in the future.

    1591
    There will be cases, particularly with such an eminent authority as the Thames Conservancy Board, where it would be right and proper to see whether they have observations to make upon a particular scheme. There will be time for that to be done. I still feel that the advice I gave to the Committee was right, that the new obligation sought by the Amendment should not be brought in on this Bill. I shall do my best to see that the red tape and the knots are cut, in approaching the proposals of the local authorities, because we want to get on with all schemes arising out of this Bill as soon as labour and materials are available.
    Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: An hon. Member said what a good thing it would be if catchment boards were consulted prior to any scheme being brought in, so that the knowledge available would be at the disposal of the local authorities before and during the time of the making of the scheme. It is the object of the Amendment to draw attention to the fact that very often knowledge is available to catchment boards, although not in every case, and it is available to the local authorities. It would be a help to them in deciding upon a rural water supply. I am interested in catchment boards doing all they can to promote inter-communication between each other and local authorities in regard to water supply. I hope the Committee will realise that that is our intention. Anyhow, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mrs. Beatrice Wright: I beg to move, in page 3, line 33, at the end, to insert:
    "(2) In determining the priority between schemes necessary to carry out this obligation local authorities shall first consider the areas where no piped supply exists."
    There are, I gather, lying on the Ministerial table at this moment, a number of schemes awaiting the necessary funds, but they will not necessarily be schemes from the less enterprising or more deserving areas, the areas where there is no piped water supply. This is caused usually by one of two thing: the fact that it is extremely costly to supply water, or secondly, lack of enterprise in the local authority. There is also to be added friction between one local authority and another. If the Bill is really intended
    1592
    to bring to the most needy of rural authorities an adequate water supply, surely priority must be given to schemes which provide for the cases which are most needy. I hope the Minister will see his way to accept the Amendment.
    Dr. Peters: I support what my hon. Friend has said, but I am in very great doubt as to how far we are going to get on with water supply. To my knowledge, two or three villages have already been turned down, largely on the ground of the lack of labour and materials, but I can tell the Minister that the labour and materials are there. In my own village the thing can be done at considerably less cost than is estimated. I want to know why a local authority cannot be given power to go to a firm willing to carry a pipe line to a place which has had to cart water for years, and also get a grant. I have a letter to my local authority giving a reason for the turning down of a scheme. It is signed
    by a gentleman of the name of G. J. Wild. So far as my local authority is concerned I think the Minister is on a wild goose chase. We do not seem to be able to get any authority to do anything. We want standpipes as a war-time measure, and we asked whether that would be capable of attracting grants, but we were told, "No. No grant will be payable either now or after the war." Why is that? Why cannot a grant be paid now or after the war? Are we to get any of these schemes put through during the war, or are we to wait five years before we get anything done? Are these villagers still to go on carting water for miles?
    Let the right hon. Gentleman face the facts. I live in one of these villages. I have a very good water supply, so that the question does not affect me personally, but it affects other people. I am getting more than faint-hearted about this matter, I am getting very worried when I know that these little villages are suffering. We want to see a scheme put in operation now to bring water to those houses and cottages. I support the Amendment. Surely there ought to be schemes where there are no pipes at all. I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment, and will receive the deputation of local authorities, and that he will not tell them the things that I have referred to in the correspondence. That would not get us anywhere. If the Minister is going to deal

    1593
    with a lot of localities in the way he has dealt with those small areas, then this Bill will not be worth the paper it is written on, and the time of this Committee will have been entirely wasted.
    Rear-Admiral Beamish: I want briefly to support this Amendment, because the necessity for priority is very clear in waterless areas. I ask the Minister, in his reply, to let us have a rigid and clear reason why this priority cannot be granted, and then it may be possible to do something in the interval until the water can be supplied. Therefore, I ask the Minister to make it perfectly clear, if priority cannot be given, what these waterless areas should do now.
    Mr. Gallacher: I want to say a word in support of this Amendment. I know many villages—there are one or two in my area—where water has to be carried, and it is terrible, in times like these, to see people, day and night, having to go long distances in order to bring a supply of water to the house. I remember one or two occasions in recent years when I went camping. In the evening, when I sometimes felt like lying back and having a sleep, a slave-driver ordered me away for a couple of buckets of water, and I had to travel 300 or 400 yards to get it. I realised then what some of those people in the villages have to put up with. It is not enough to give priority where there is not an undertaking to supply water; it is not enough to have an Amendment of this character; if we are to get this problem effectively dealt with, we must have the grant taken out of the hands of the landowners, the supplying of water taken out of the hands of private enterprise and Tories taken off local authorities.
    Miss Horsbrugh: I think I shall probably be out of Order if I follow the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) in the interesting political debate which he started. The point before us is whether these words should be inserted:
    "In determining the priority between schemes necessary to carry out this obligation local authorities shall first consider the areas where no piped supply exists."
    We are in agreement with the spirit of this Amendment, and we believe that what it asks can be done by administrative action, but I would ask hon. Members to consider again—as we asked them to do on one or two other suggested Amend-
    1594
    ments—whether, if these words are put into the Bill, we would not have further difficulties and restrictions in working the scheme. For instance, suppose there was an area where you could get effective plan-ping by considering a comprehensive scheme covering both an unpiped and a piped area—if these words were inserted that could not be done.
    Mr. Gallacher: That could not be done?
    Miss Horsbrugh: That could not be done, because you could only deal with the area that had no piped supply and you could not deal with an area which only wanted an improved supply, because the first area would have to take priority.
    Mr. Gallacher: You could do them together.
    Miss Horsbrugh: Exactly. The hon. Member says, "Do, them together." That is exactly what we want to do, but, if this Amendment were accepted and these words were put into the Bill, we would not be able to do them together. It would he wiser, under conditions like that, to do them together, and the lion. Member for West Fife will see that that is the reason why we are asking the Committee not to accept this Amendment which restricts the scheme. I have already given an assurance, which I would like to give to the hon. Lady who moved this Amendment, that we believe that this can be done by administrative action. We agree with the spirit of the Amendment, but we think that if these words were put in they would create restrictions which hon. Members would find would make difficulties when we come to plan for a particular area.
    Mr. Gallacher: If a scheme is prepared, the question of priority does not arise at all. If a scheme were proposed for a piped area and another scheme for a non-piped area then it would arise, but these words could not possibly affect the question of a scheme that covered a piped and un-piped area.
    Miss Horsbrugh: I disagree with the hon. Member. If he will study the words of the Amendment he will see that it is exactly because of the difficulties of planning that we want to have a comprehensive scheme. If we accepted the Amendment we should not have a comprehensive scheme. We all want to get on with a scheme which will supply water where it

    1595
    is needed. We are in agreement on that, but we believe that it can best be attained by administrative action. I hope the Committee will agree to leave out these words, so that we may get on as quickly as possible with supplying water to those areas where there is no piped supply at the moment.
    Mr. Sloan: I want to support the Amendment, but, to begin with, I would say a word against it. We hear claims made for a supply of water to villages. Local authorities have been in operation for I do not know how many years and representatives come to this Committee to-day and tell us that they have villages where there is not a drop of water. I suggest that the local authorities bear a large share of the responsibility for that, and the purpose of this Amendment would appear to be that local authorities who have spent none of their own money whatever in bringing water to their areas should now be able to say that they must have priority because they have neglected their villages in the past. I say that that would reduce this Bill to absolute nonsense.
    Dr. Peters: I do not think we should accept the statement quite as my hon. Friend puts it. The reason why many of these poor local authorities have not been able to get on with any scheme is that there would have been a great increase in the rates, which the local people would not be able to pay.
    Mr. Sloan: I have every sympathy with local authorities who have been unable to bear the necessary cost, but there are many local authorities which could have done this work and have failed to stand up to the cost. While it is true there is money provided in this Bill, it is not an unlimited pool from which to draw. I imagine that if there should be a priority for authorities which have no piped supply
    the position would be very carefully examined, and they would only draw out of this pool a sum in accord with what they might reasonably have been expected to spend themselves in providing water. I know of villages where the difficulties of providing water have been great, and every sympathy should be shown, but I think the Bill is better as it stands than with the proposed Amendment, which would definitely tie
    1596
    the hands of the Department to give priority to local authorities which were quite competent to do a great deal of the work themselves in the past.
    Mrs. Wright: In view of the assurance given to us by the hon. Lady, and because I believe, like many other Members, that the Department and the Ministry of Health really desire to see these rural areas supplied with water as soon as possible, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Duty of statutory water undertakers to accept guarantees from local authorities).
    Mr. Alexander Walkden: I beg to move, in page 5, line 9, after "a," to insert "county."
    This is a very small Amendment which I think will be helpful. I only move it because it appears to have been overlooked in the drafting of the Bill. In Clause 5 it is laid down that "local authority" means the council of a borough, urban district or rural district, but it does not include the council of a county. I am sure the Minister would desire that the county should be free to act as a local authority in connection with this matter in conjunction with the lesser authorities. I am advised by a friend who has studied the Bill from the point of view of public authorities that it is very desirable that the word "county" should be included here, to remove any doubt as to whether a county may function and may make a contribution and so on. We do not want any learned person to come along and say that counties are outside the Bill bcause they are not mentioned in this definition Clause.
    Miss Horsbrugh: Leaving out the word "county" was not an omission; it was because, as the hon. Gentleman will see, Clause 5 refers to the duty of statutory water undertakers to accept guarantees from local authorities, and local authorities are defined in the Clause. They are so defined because the local authority which will give
    the guarantee will be the council of a borough, urban district or rural district, and not a county council.

    1597
    The county council certainly can give a contribution, large or small, but the actual authority that has the responsibility placed upon it of getting the work done is not the county council but one of the particular local authorities mentioned. We feel it is those authorities which should have the duty of giving the guarantee.
    Perhaps the hon. Member will say, "Why leave it to one authority; why not say every authority can give a guarantee?" We think it is well to avoid concurrent powers. If there is power given to these local authorities and to a county authority as well, we 'may find that there are disputes and that one authority will say that the other should give the guarantee. As the responsibility is laid upon these particular local authorities to do this work, we feel that the responsibility of the guarantee should be on them and not be shared, that they should not have concurrent powers with the county council. I hope I have made it clear why the county council has been left out; it was carefully thought over. We think it is better that the council responsible for carrying out the work should be the local authority to give the guarantee.
    Mr. A. Walkden: In view of the information given by the hon. Lady I am not disposed to press this little Amendment except to ask whether I can take it from her firm assurance that the county council cannot avoid its responsibility of making a contribution, although other people are to carry out the work?
    Miss Horsbrugh: Yes, this does not in any way affect the obligation of the county council or the county council's contribution. I can give that assurance at once.
    Mr. A. Walkden: In view of that assurance I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Quibell: I should like the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to give us some explanation of Sub-section (I) of Clause 5. I cannot understand it. It says:
    "where the owners or occupiers of any premises in a rural locality can require statutory water undertakers to bring water to that locality if the aggregate amount of the water
    1598
    rates which will be payable annually in respect of those premises will not be less than a prescribed fraction of the cost to be incurred by the undertakers in complying with the requisition, and if the owners or occupiers of those premises agree to take a supply of water for a prescribed period."
    I think that plainer words could have been used. The only inference I can draw from this Clause is that the statutory water undertakers shall be required to take a supply of water to a locality, and if the numbers of people in the particular premises to which water is taken is not sufficient to cover the prescribed fraction of the cost, guarantees must be given by the local authority for the difference between the aggregate amount of the rates and the prescribed fraction of the cost.
    Mr. Willink: I sympathise with the hon. Member, as I found myself in the same difficulty when I first saw the draft of this Bill; but when I explain I think he will see it is not an easy matter to draft. The position is this: In the legislation setting up statutory water undertakers it is very frequent, it may be universal, that the statutory undertaker has to bring a supply if there are those who say they will take water if it is supplied and if the income which will be produced by these people when they take that water reaches a certain proportion of the cost of the work that has to be done on extending the mains. There are cases where it would be desirable for water to be supplied, but the people to be supplied are not sufficient in number and the income which would be produced from them if the water were supplied to them is not sufficient, to bring these statutory obligations into effect. The first sub-section of this Clause describes the conditions in which this Clause, which is new law—it has not existed before—is to apply. This Clause is to apply in any case where owners or occupiers of premises somewhere in the countryside can require a statutory water company to bring water to them if the income reaches a certain proportion of the cost of the work that is to be done on extending the mains and they agree to take the water. In those circumstances, local authorities can under this Clause guarantee that the income will reach that sum annually, in order to satisfy the statutory undertaker. There have been cases where, in spite of that guarantee being given, the statutory undertaker has said. "I am not bound to accept your guarantee; the prospect of doing the work does

    1599
    not appeal to me." The whole effect of this Clause is that, where a local authority gives such a guarantee, the statutory water undertaker has to accept it and do the work.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Application to Scotland.)
    Mr. Chapman: I beg to move, in page 6, line 9, to leave out from "authority" to the end of line 10, and to insert:
    "means a county or town council or a combination of any such councils whether constituted under the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, or otherwise for the purposes of the provision of a common water supply, or any board or any trustees or other body constituted under a local Act for the purposes of the provision of a water supply."
    This is a drafting and correcting Amendment. As the Bill stands, "local authority," for the purposes of Clause 3, is defined as having the same meaning as in the Water Supplies Act, 1934. This Amendment, which defines the terms specifically, avoids the need for legislation by reference. I am sure that the Committee desires to avoid legislation by reference, particularly when it happens to be the wrong reference, as in this case.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Chapman: I beg to move, in page 6, line 11 to leave out "the", and to insert "any."
    This is a drafting Amendment, made necessary by an Amendment which the Committee accepted on Clause 3.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Statistics relating to water supplies.)
    Every local authority and every statutory or private water undertaker shall furnish to the Minister such information or statistics relating to water supplies or distribution as the Minister may require either to determine the contribution he will make towards expenses incurred by the Council of any borough or urban or rural district, or by a joint board or joint committee, or for such other purposes as he may think fit.—[Mr. David Eccles.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.]
    Mr. David Eccles: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time".
    This Clause is designed to give the Minister power to secure information and statistics regarding water. The Committee will remember that, in the course of the Minister's speech on Second Reading, he used these words:
    "What we intend this Bill to encourage is the drawing up of schemes now by the local authorities, who can be confident that they will not be frustrated by lack of means."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th May, 1944; Vol. 400, C. 370.]
    To be thoroughly good, a scheme must be based on all the relevant information. As things are at present, it is not possible to call on all those who have information and statistics about water resources and distribution to divulge. In putting down this Clause, my hon. Friends and I seek only to add power to the Minister's elbow. We have two distinct purposes. The first is that a rural scheme, however small, should not be passed if all the relevant information is not in the possession of the Minister. This is a real difficulty. I wish to read a short extract from a letter from an official of a local authority, on this point:
    "I have been corresponding with a water company about the local shortage for nearly 40 years, and even now I cannot say definitely whether it is due to one of the four following causes"—
    Then he enumerates four reasons why the water supply may be bad, and goes on:
    "There ought to be some definite power in the Minister to compel a limited liability company to provide detailed information on all such matters as these."
    If a local authority needs that power for a very small scheme, how much more is it needed for the comprehensive schemes which the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary referred to when she was rejecting the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mrs. Wright), just now. That is the first reason why we think that this power to get statistics is necessary. Secondly, the Minister promised, in his speech on the White Paper, to push ahead with the Inland Water Survey in: order to gather all the information of a background nature regarding water. He said on that occasion:
    "First we need to build up and to have a far larger body of information about the yield and the quality of our water resources. For that, as the Paper indicates, the main instru-

    1601
    ment will be the Inland Water Survey, whose operations have necessarily been restricted, but which we wish to press on with at the earliest possible date."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1944; Vol. 399, c. 1342.]
    The White Paper itself says that, to get on with the work of the Survey, statistics of various kinds, from all substantial users of water, will be needed. Both because of the specific local schemes for bringing water to rural areas, and in order that the Minister may be able to press on, as he promised, with the work of the Inland Survey, I hope that he will accept this Clause. We cannot do much in carrying out schemes while man-power and materials are short, but we can get on with the planning. There seems to be no purpose in this Bill unless the Minister takes all possible steps to press on with plans, so that everything is ready for execution the moment the labour and the materials are available.
    Mr. Willink: It is a very great satisfaction to me, that I am supported by my hon. Friend in this matter of information. I stressed, in my speech on the Second Reading of this Bill, the importance which I attached to the speedy development of all our information services with regard to water, both underground and otherwise. But I am bound to say that, in a Bill of this limited range, for the extension of piped supplies and sewerage in rural localities only, I am not sure that it, would not be quite beyond the scope of the Bill that I should collaborate with my hon. Friend in seeking to have inserted such wide powers as these, under which I could ask anybody for anything for any purpose, because that is really what the new Clause amounts to.
    Mr. Eccles: Relating to water supply.
    Mr. Willink: Yes, relating to water supply. It will be necessary, in the major legislation, which I hope is not too far distant, to have very full provision with regard to the maintenance of records and statistics and the obtaining of information. Over the greater part of the country there is already provision for my obtaining information and statistics from local authorities under the Local Government Act of 1933. I do not think it would be right to import into this limited Bill a matter which would clearly require full consideration of the type of records to be kept, the type of statistics to be maintained and the type of information for which I should
    1602
    ask. I welcome the interest of my hon. Friends in this subject, but I cannot advise the Committee to accept the new Clause.
    Mr. Eccles: May I ask the Minister how long we have got to wait for these general powers, because he admits that we need this information in order to make the schemes? The Minister says he does not want to take the powers now. Have we got to wait until next Session? I ask because, in the meantime, some of us want to get on with the work of preparing the schemes, and we feel that, if the Minister took the powers now, he would only use them in order to extract information from statutory undertakings.
    Mr. Willink: I think that, except in most rare cases, there should be no difficulty in preparing plans for these rural schemes now. We have, in spite of war circumstances, been increasing our information very widely, but if my hon. Friend has any difficulty about a particular scheme in which he or his constituents are interested, I hope he will let me know and we will do all we possibly can to help. It is intended that the major legislation should be prepared with the least possible delay.
    Mr. Eccles: I regret that we cannot get this Clause, which I believe is necessary in certain areas, but, in view of the chance of major legislation coming fairly soon, I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision for combining local authorities or joint boards.)
    Where the Minister is satisfied that the obligations imposed under Section 3 of this Act upon any local authority or joint board can be carried out most satisfactorily by the combining of two or more such bodies for that purpose the Minister shall, notwithstanding the provisions of any public, general, local or private Act, have power to make an order, on such terms and conditions as shall appear to him to be reasonable, providing for the combining of two or more local authorities or joint boards for the purpose of carrying out the obligations imposed by this Act.—[Mr. A. Walkden.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Alexander Walkden: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time".
    I only do so in order to strengthen the Bill and help the Minister to have his wishes carried out and get the water

    1603
    schemes. There seems to be no sufficient obligatory power in the Bill to take the place of the words I suggest. There is a faint little Sub-section of Clause 5 of the Bill which says:
    "(3) any two or more local authorities may combine for the purposes of giving such an undertaking as aforesaid."
    That is only permissive. All of us know that the smaller and more truly rural local authorities are, the less inclined they are, sometimes, to work together, and we wish the Minister to have power to require them to work together. Reference has been made earlier to-day to the awkwardness of some local authorities, and there should be somebody to call upon them to do their duty in the right way. Sometimes, they have good reasons for objecting. There may be a rural authority with two or three villages in one part of its area needing water, while that rural authority has not got the water to supply to them, though the next door rural authority has an abundance, but it is not their responsibility to supply those villages. These people say, "Why should we go to all this expense, find this money and take this responsibility when they could do it much better in the next village or the next rural area?" No one could put that position right except the Minister by coming down and saying, "You two must join hands to carry out the spot of work, which is very necessary." Obviously, in such a case, the council responsible under the Bill cannot do the work so well as the council next door, and by joining hands you will get the job done very much better. I hope the Minister will welcome this Clause and carry it out effectively when the Bill becomes law, and that it will enable him to realise his hopes and intentions better than would be possible if these words were not inserted.
    Mr. Muff: I wish to support my hon. Friend who has proposed this Clause, because there is something in the nature of a hiatus in the working of water undertakings. I have been connected for some years with a water undertaking which operates in both Nidderdale and Wharfedale in the West Riding of Yorkshire in supplying 26 local authorities, and which has invested several millions of pounds in order to promote this water scheme. The pipe line from the source of the water supply,
    1604
    in one case, travels 48 miles through rural districts which are short of water, while this authority, to which I am referring, has an abundance of water. I should like the Minister to have powers, which I think are given by this Clause, so that, in consultation with the authority which originally promoted the water scheme and which has an abundance of water now going to waste, the water should be available to these smaller villages which, obviously, for financial reasons, cannot afford to promote a water scheme of their own. Incidentally, if this were done though not on commercial lines, villages and townships, unable to promote their own supply, would be able to have water by tapping the pipe, and they would get a water supply at a reasonable rate. This authority to which I refer now has a rate-in-aid. There is a deficiency rate every year of 11d. in the £ owing to the deficiency in finance. This scheme would enable them to bring the water to the smaller villages, and I can envisage this greater authority amplifying and extending its beneficent powers, because it would enable them to raise more revenue, and perhaps get rid of its deficiency.
    I hope that the Minister of Health will take a wider view of these powers and accept the Clause and so do a doubly good dead for the day in true Boy Scout fashion. I hope that the Minister is endowed not only with the water spirit, but with the best possible spirit. The Ministry of Health has for years had a sort of "stand-pat," marking-time tendency, and I hope that under the beneficent influence of my right hon. and learned Friend this Clause will be accepted. I hope that we shall have more water for the smaller rural areas, and that the poor water authority in the area where I was born will not be burdened with a continuation of the present rate of 11d. in the £ but will be able to clear off the deficiency. My final word is that the Minister should accept the Clause and then perhaps we shall all live happily ever after.
    Dr. Haden Guest: I wish briefly to support this Clause. One of the joys of being Minister of Health must be that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is obtaining a very extensive and peculiar knowledge of the boundaries of local authorities. He will agree that they do

    1605
    not correspond to anything that has had to do with water supply or any other modern function. They have to do with Domesday Book, and, perhaps with the manorial system, but nothing whatever to do with the distribution of water supply. I suggest, therefore, the Minister should have this power in the background to enable him to make any necessary arrangements with regard to water supply and distribution irrespective of ancient boundaries which separate particular authorities. It would be a valuable additional power in his hands, and I hope, therefore, he will accept the Clause.
    Mr. Sloan: I hope the Minister will see his way to accept the Clause, as without something of this nature, there would be a great deal lacking in the Bill. We all know of the difficulties with regard to water supply, and we hoped, when the Bill was introduced, it would have been on a much wider basis and would have provided for some control over water supplies. We find that nothing of the kind has resulted. The small water undertakings are still to remain in the hands of small people who will be expected to do their best on whatever grant or aid they can get under the Bill. That is the situation. In Scotland, for instance, there is plenty of water, but there are also areas where there is very little, and it is inconceivable that we should continue in that way, with one authority having an abundance of water and another very little water at all. I have in mind two authorities whose water pipes run along the same road from different catchment areas. There is a possibility there of the pipes being taped and if that were done there would be an ample water supply.
    That is the sort of thing which the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland should visualise when producing a Bill of this character. The legislation is too permissive. There are many by-laws on the Statute Book of this country which have not been put into operation, and unless there is something more definite and tangible with regard to water I cannot see this Bill being a solution of the problem. We do not despise small improvements sometimes, but we suggest that, if this Clause were accepted, there would be a better prospect of the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland getting together and really doing something. The
    1606
    best watersheds should not be kept for the use of certain selected areas but for the use of the community. This sort of thing should be ended. Here is an opportunity to end it. If the Minister accepts this Clause, it will go a long way towards achieving that end.
    Mr. Willink: I am glad that part of the White Paper is obviously much welcomed by those who have spoken on this new Clause, but may I remind the Committee that questions of compulsory amalgamation, whether of local authorities or of statutory undertakings, are not as simple as this new Clause would appear to suggest. The White Paper indicated very clearly that we realised that it would be mose desirable in many cases to require amalgamations of water undertakers, and, in such a case as that referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for East Hull (Mr. Muff), to require the giving of bulk supplies by one undertaker to another; but, in any examples of that kind, the Orders which we propose the responsible Minister should have power to make would necessarily be subject to review by Parliament, and I am sure that that would be right. My trouble about the new Clause is that it is rather tinkering at the big question of the proper organisation of water supply. We need to have a new legislative form for compulsory amalgamations and matters of that kind.
    The Committee will observe that this Clause deals only with amalgamations of local authorities or joint boards. It does not deal with the major question of whether something should be done with regard to statutory undertakers. I am not sure whether the Committee have fully in mind all the powers there are at the moment before we tackle the important questions which still remain to be dealt with. So far as Public Health Act authorities are concerned, supposing there are three or four authorities and they are having difficulty over whether or not they should combine, and one of them takes the view that there ought to be some measure of combination, the Public Health Act gives power under Section 6 to set up a joint board of local authorities for, among other purposes, water supplies and if any one of a group of authorities applies to me for such an order I have power, after enquiry, to make one. But when the Public Health Act was considered it was decided that such an order

    1607
    should be a provisional order if any of the other authorities objected. The very wholesale procedure suggested by this new Clause for dealing with local authorities will not, I think, on careful consideration meet with approval, and I cannot recommend the Committee to accept the new Clause at this time and in this Bill. Of course, the Committee will realise that the very existence of the substantial sum provided by the Bill for grant purposes is in itself a very useful lever for persuading people to be reasonable.
    Mr. A. Walkden: I am very disappointed with the Minister's reply. This Bill is going to raise very high hopes in 34,000 parishes in this country, as he knows full well, which have no water supply, but he is not taking to himself enough power to carry out any sound policy or to carry it out economically. The water should be drawn from the nearest adjacent source and in the most economical way, and unless the Minister has more power with which to deal with any recalcitrant local people I do not see that you can get water to the homes of those who need it.
    The Minister has made reference to a larger Measure he has in mind. I am afraid it is only in his mind and I do not know when it is corning out. He has uttered some dreadful words to-day in that regard. He said, "in the not too far distant future." It is awful to think, in any case, of "far distant." I know people who have been waiting for water supply since the far distant past and they think they are going to get it now. But the Minister says "in the not too far distant future." That is very depressing indeed. Unless he can give us something more definite than that, I hesitate very much about withdrawing this Clause.
    Mr. Willink: I am sorry if I used those very unfortunate words.
    Mr. A. Walkden: What do they mean anyhow?
    Mr. Willink: They mean next Session.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Deduction from valuation of water supply.)
    In cases where in order to carry out the obligations imposed upon it under section
    1608
    three of this Act any local authority operates through the agency of any privately-owned water supply undertaker and monies provided by the Minister or by any county, borough, urban district or rural district council, are paid to such undertaker towards defraying the cost of piping and other work involved, the total amount of public monies so provided shall be deducted from the valuation of the water supply service owned by the undertaker in the event of its being taken over at any subsequent date by any public authority.—[Mr. A. Walkden.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. A. Walkden: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    I believe this will be a very valuable Clause if the Minister will accept it and put it into operation. This is in the general public interest, in the interest of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the county councils and all the public authorities who may find sums of money for this water supply. As far as we can understand it, the scheme provided in this Bill involves the taking of pipes from existing supplies some distance further—it may be a matter of yards, or hundreds of yards, or a mile, or several miles. That piping is going to be provided with public money, firstly, with the appreciable grant of the Treasury, supplemented by the county council grants, and I suppose other local authorities will be asked to provide money. In the 1934 Act we had £1,000,000 provided by the Treasury which drew £5,000,000 more from the other authorities, so that if this £7,000,000 goes to water or sewerage that will be £35,000,000 of public money going into these pipes, many of which are owned by private undertakings, and will improve the value of their properties. The day will surely come, and I believe it will come during the term of the present Minister of Health, when the appropriate public authority will have to take over all these public services in regard to water. Water ought never to be a private service; it is so vital to everybody that it ought to be a public obligation—indeed, that is the principle of this Measure—but we are leaving it still in private hands, and the millions that are to be spent will appreciate the value of their property.
    The purpose of this Clause is to ensure that public money shall belong to the public, and, when public ownership is instituted, we shall not pay over again for the money given to the private under-

    1609
    takings. I think that is in every way desirable, and the Treasury Bench should welcome it as a good principle, always to be borne in mind, that where assistance is given to a private undertaking, the cost of it should be earmarked for the community in the event of any further development taking place in a more enlightened period of progress.
    Mr. Willink: I am bound to advise the Committee that in my view a Clause of this kind—apart from any detail in it—would find a most inappropriate place in this small Bill, the objects of which we know by now. It would really he most inappropriate for a general provision with regard to valuation of undertakings or compulsory amalgamation to be found in this Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Bill. It is the kind of question which will obviously come up for close and careful discussion on the major Bill, where we shall find provision made for compulsory amalgamation and matters of that kind, not only in rural localities but in all localities. This, really, is quite the wrong place for such a provision. I do not propose to delay the Committee by going into details on the proposed new Clause, but one difficulty is that it is not likely to be the case that the value of an undertaking will be swelled by the precise amount of the grant or of the rates that are expended on any part of it. The original capital cost is not usually the basis of valuation of an undertaking which is taken over. So, both on one detail of the Clause and on the general consideration that—as I myself feel confident—the proper place for any provision with reward to valuation is in a Bill dealing with the procedure for acquisition, and not a Bill which is primarily a grant Bill, I must advise the Committee not to accept the new Clause.
    Mr. A. Walkden: Again I am very disappointed and surprised. The principle is so public-spirited and right-minded that I cannot understand it not being welcomed. It is entirely fair and square. The Minister says we are not giving anything to the private undertakings, but we are. We are giving the water undertakings pipes. They are selling water, and they do not take it to X because it is too far away and they say they cannot afford the piping. There are many cases where they could afford it, where
    1610
    they are paying a high dividend, but they will not afford it because they work for profit, and not for public service. We give them some pipes and they pay for them to be put in, and then they can sell the water some distance away at the public expense.
    Mr. Willink: I think my hon. Friend misunderstands the position. He spoke as though the Exchequer would give pipes to private water undertakers, but they will not do anything of the sort. They will give grants to local authorities.
    Mr. A. Walkden: Yes, but the Minister knows that in giving money to local authorities water cannot be provided where it is needed except through private undertakers, of which there are over 1,000. It is wrong not to earmark the cost so that when these undertakings come to be taken over the money will be safeguarded. I ask the Minister to give the matter his further consideration. Perhaps we can debate it more thoroughly when his larger Bill comes in which, I suppose, will be next Session.
    Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Walkden: Perhaps the Minister will then put into that Bill words which are more suitable than mine, but which will give effect to the spirit of my new Clause.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

    NEW CLAUSE:—(Ownership of water supplies).
    Where after inquiry the Minister is satisfied that any local authority or joint board is unable, by reason of the best available supply of water being privately owned or controlled, to carry out in the most economical way the obligations imposed upon it under section three of this Act, the Minister shall, not-withstanding the provisions of any public, general, local or private Act, have power to make an Order for the transfer of the rights of such supply of water to the ownership of the local authority or joint board concerned on such terms and conditions as shall appear to him to be reasonable.
    Provided that the owner or owners of such water supply may appeal against such terms and conditions to an arbitrator appointed by the Lord Chief Justice.—[Mr. A. Walkden.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. A. Walkden: I beg to move. "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    I have already shown that the ownership of water supplies is in private hands,

    1611
    and that that is unfortunate. People can only be supplied by getting those who own and control water to allow it to be used. But some people do not want anyone interfering with their water supplies; they wish to conserve and preserve the water for themselves. They do not want public authorities butting in and insisting on having a further supply. I take it that the Minister wants water to be obtained in the most economic way, and if there is any undue difficulty with these private people I hope he will take over their rights and use them in the public interest, while giving the undertakers fair compensation. The final sentence of my new Clause reads:
    "Provided that the owner or owners of Such water supply may appeal against such terms and conditions to an arbitrator appointed by the Lord Chief Justice."
    I hope that by the time the Minister comes to deal with this matter in his larger Bill he will be more reasonable than he has been to-day. If people are not satisfied with his decision I do not think he would like to appoint an arbitrator himself. I have suggested that the Lord Chief Justice should do so, which, I think, would be agreeable to private owners who have grievances. This Clause is intended to give power to the Minister to do the job he wants to do, and I press it on him for his consideration. In the greatest literary work of the human race it states that a cup of water is held as a token of the right-mindedness of the people who need it. There are people who would deny a little one a cup of water, and I want the Minister to have power to deal with such people in the proper manner.
    Mr. Willink: I should like to remind the Committee of one sentence in the White Paper, at the foot of page 13, which says:
    "It is proposed that the Minister should be empowered by order to authorise undertakers to take water compulsorily."
    It is quite clear that that power will have to be carefully defined by Parliament, and that the form of the order will need very careful consideration. I am sorry to have to say for the third or fourth time to my hon. Friend—because I know how keen he is about these matters—that this is another example of trying to bring into this limited Bill a provision which needs the full consideration which it will get in relation to the
    1612
    bigger proposals when the time comes for them to be made. If the Committee will look carefully at the Clause they will feel that I cannot accept it, because it is very wide and would empower me, subject to control by an arbitrator, to make orders going right through the provisions of any public general, local or private Act. We cannot contemplate using this small Bill for such powers nor, indeed, do I think the Committee would ever contemplate giving to a Minister such control after such short consideration.
    Sir Robert Tasker: I would like to give a case from my own experience, where a local authority informed an owner that he would have to put in one and three-quarters miles of pipe for a water supply to some cottages. He received only 1s. 9d. per week, per cottage, and warned the authority that as this was his only income, he would have to pull the cottages down if they enforced their request. That is what happened. The hon. Member's new Clause is another step which seeks to introduce National Socialism in the direction of a compulsory supply of water.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    Mr. Lewis: I do not think the Minister has any reason to be dissatisfied with the reception that the Bill has had. It is true that on the Second Reading one or two rather violently worded speeches, highly critical of the Bill, were made, notably those of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Davies) and the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) but I noticed, as I have noticed before with those two hon. Members, that their bark is a great deal worse than their bite and that they did not show much enthusiasm when the time came for pressing the matter to a Division. I think they realised that the House, as a whole, feels that this is a useful and a timely Measure and that it will enable and encourage the preparation of schemes for

    1613
    the supply of water to people who have not had it in the past and who feel the need for it very greatly. I think my right hon. and learned Friend has been wise not to claim more for it than it can do. There was one passage in his speech on the Second Reading which, taken by itself, without qualification, might lead to disappointment in the future. He said:
    "What we wish and hope is that schemes shall be as far forward as possible towards the stage of letting contracts after the end of the war in Europe."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th May, 1944; Vol. 400, c. 367.]
    That sentence, taken by iself, might, I think, fairly be read by some people to mean that the Minister hopes that directly the war in Europe is over some, at any rate, of these schemes might be ready and work might be started upon them immediately. I cannot believe that that is what he really meant because it seems to me impossible that that should happen immediately the war in Europe ends. Labour will be urgently required for other purposes which, it seems to me, must of necessity take priority over these schemes—such matters, for example, as housing. Therefore, I do not see how it would be possible to start work on any schemes under the Bill for some considerable time after the cessation of hostilities. If, for example, I said a year, I should think that would be a very conservative estimate. Perhaps the Minister will deal with the point, because it would be a pity if people were led to hope that something is going to happen which cannot happen. At the same time it is obviously desirable that these schemes should be developed and the details settled so that, as soon as may be practicable, as soon as labour and materials can be spared, they may be put into operation.
    With regard to the purpose behind the Bill, the hon. Member for South Bristol (Mr. A. Walkden) on the Second Reading expressed a very strong hope that we might see, after the war, a revival of country life. That is a view with which I have the greatest possible sympathy. We want to do all we can to provide that people living in small communities may live as full a life as those in great towns. For too long the cities have been pampered and the villages neglected. Though it is true that the scope of the Bill is very limited, I think it offers something which is of very real value and which is greatly needed in the districts
    1614
    which will be affected. I hope very much that the local authorities concerned will make full use of the opportunities provided and, if they do, the time will certainly come when very many people will bless the Minister for having promoted the Bill.
    Mr. A. Walkden: Deeply disappointed as I am,
    "Hope springs eternal in the human breast,"
    and I shall look forward next Session to the greater Bill which the Minister has been kind enough to promise us. Meantime, I should like to congratulate him on having made a start. It is quite a little one but he has made a beginning early in his Ministerial life and has got this dear little Bill through. I know that he is very fond of it and that his Parliamentary Secretary is even more fond of it. But I am not quite so satisfied. Now that the Minister of Agriculture is here, I shall have to ask him to augment the operation of this little Bill with his administrative water-cart, and take water where these pipes will not go, and perhaps relieve the anxiety of the hon. Member opposite who has been pleading so strongly in the Minister's absence for distant farm houses. The Minister of Health as I say has made a start with this great problem, but we must look forward to the greater Bill, which will appear in due course, and I hope then that he will have embraced the suggestions I have put forward and will welcome any power which enables him to carve right through the vested interests which stand in the way of anything that you want to do in this dear old country. That was my object in moving the Amendments that I have moved. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) told us 30 or 40 years ago that the obstacle to doing anything in this country, is the immediate uprising of vested interests which want to stop you. I have made a few suggestions which will enable the Minister to cut through such obstacles. My word "notwithstanding" might be borne in mind—notwithstanding any Acts that may exist to the contrary, he must have power to carry out everything that he feels, and the House feels, should be done in connection with this vital public service. I support the Third Reading and congratulate the Minister and the Parliamentary

    1615
    Secretary on the rapid progress they have made.
    Mr. Sexton: I should like to say a few words in welcoming the Bill. My right to speak is that I represent a constituency extending over 300 square miles, and in it there are innumerable hamlets and villages. Some of them come within the category of having no piped water supply. That is not unusual in rural districts and in some we have to pay dearly for it. They have been neglected in other respects than piped water—neglected in health and education and many other things. The ordinary amenities of the towns are the luxuries of the rural districts. One of the tragedies is that from some of these mountainous and hilly rural districts a pure water supply is given to towns miles away. Down our valleys run great pipes carrying the water from the uplands to the congested areas and passing the very doorsteps of the villages and hamlets, yet in many cases they are not supplied with piped water. We not only produce good water in the rural districts, but we produce good men and women, and they deserve something better than they have had in the past. Their children, too, deserve something better than they have had in the past. We all deplore the depopulation of the rural districts and the decline in agriculture, but both these are partly due to the neglect of the rural districts by the authorities concerned. If this Bill, small as it is, does something to relieve the necessities of these worthy people, it will do much. I say to the Government "Get on with it" and to the local authorities, "Administer it," because "Jack and Jill" are about tired of going "up the bill, to fetch a pail of water."
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: There is no doubt that this Bill is a considerable step forward in the direction we all desire to go. Despite the criticism that was levelled against it on Second Reading, it remains true that, taken as a whole, it is a substantial advance, and the Government deserve congratulations upon it. It is all the more regrettable that this Bill, which carries on its back the names of the Minister of Agriculture and his Parliamentary Secretary and has in its Title "Rural Water Supplies," should deliberately exclude agricultural buildings from receiving water. The Minister of Agriculture him-
    1616
    self told us not long ago that no fewer than 220,000 farm buildings in England and Wales were without piped water supplies. If Scotland is added, the figure reaches 250,000. In view of that staggering fact it is deplorable that this Bill does not provide these essential services in the countryside.
    Mr. Richards: I join with my colleague the hon. Member for South Bristol (Mr. A. Walkden) in congratulating the Minister on this Bill. He has reiterated the fact that it is a small Bill, but I assume that it is a promise and that we shall get by and by the greater Bill to which we are looking forward. I am concerned with the thought that a great deal of recent legislation passing through this House—and I am afraid this Bill must be counted among them—will really not bear the fruits that we anticipate, for the simple reason that the amount of Government money involved is not sufficient to induce authorities concerned to carry them out. We have had two Bills lately, and I have been making some investigations as to the cost of carrying them out in one of the rural counties of Wales. If the Education Bill is implemented in anything like the way it ought to be, it will involve a cost of over £500,000. The county is involved in a water scheme that will cost another £500,000, and it has introduced a Bill into the House recently. Thus a small county, where a penny rate produces between £500 and £600, will be immediately burdened, as the result of two Bills, with an expenditure of £1,000,000. The result will be that they will not attempt to put a Bill of this kind into operation.
    I speak with some knowledge of the problems with which rural district councils are faced. Their rateable value is notoriously low and the difficulties of getting water in the rural hamlets are very considerable. I know one rural district council with 19 parishes huddled up amongst the mountains, and there will be the greatest difficulty in getting anything like an adequate water supply to them. What they will get is a small pipe carrying drinking water through the villages, and it will be impossible, with a small supply of that kind, to get the sewerage schemes that the people ought to have. We really must have the survey about which the Minister is talking.

    1617
    There is plenty of water in all parts of Wales, very often too much. We must have an adequate scheme that will combine several villages and authorities. The scheme must be adequate if we are to have the sewerage system that has been outlined to-day.
    Another thing that is particularly galling in Wales is that it contains some of the largest reservoirs which are entirely reserved for big towns in England. A pipe line pases quite near my home on the way to Liverpool 75 miles away, yet none of the villages are allowed to take water from this pipe. A national scheme should be evolved so that villages on the route of the pipe should not be deprived of water. I do not want to be too critical on the occasion of the first triumph of the Minister of Health. I congratulate him sincerely, but I see in this Bill and in others that we are passing a promise that will not in many cases inevitably be fulfilled in the way that it ought to be. There will be a great element of disappointment. Rural district councils, which ire the poorest of the poor, which have not the facilities or the surveyors or the departments for carrying out work of this kind, will, for the £15,000,000 that they get from the Government, have to find something like £19,000,000 if this scheme is to work.
    Mr. Loftus: I join in the congratulations offered to the Minister. I regard the Bill as a small instalment of good things to come. I would, however, refer to what was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. He comes from the mountainous country of North Wales, which has much water, while I come from the fiat lands of East Anglia where we are very short indeed of water. The trouble will be the limited finances available from the Treasury and from the rural district councils, coupled with the shortness of materials and labour. The difficulty will therefore be to get results on any substantial scale. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that we should use those limited resources to produce the greatest possible benefit. In East Anglia we have innumerable aerodromes fitted up with magnificent water supplies, and the cheapest way to get water for many villages in our part of the world, is to connect up with those aerodrome supplies, which are magnificent and modern. Where that can be done, we can make a little
    1618
    money and a little labour and material go a very long way. I again congratulate the Minister on the passage of this useful Measure.
    Mr. Sloan: The Minister is in danger of being damned with faint praise. Nearly every Member has commenced his speech by praising, and has ended by seriously criticising, the Bill. I do not want to be thought out of step, so I will add my congratulations to the Minister—but, like other hon. Members, I have a few words of criticism. I think the Bill, frankly, is totally inadequate to meet the circumstances. People who have any knowledge whatever of
    this matter recognise that this small Bill will only go a very short way towards improving the position. Scotland gets a rather better share of the dough; we get £6,250,000, but that money will not anything like meet the situation in Scotland. It would not lave met it before the war, and the position is a great deal worse now, because of the increased cost of water and sewerage undertakings.
    We must not forget that this is a double-barreled Bill; it deals not only with water but with sewerage, and in most areas the latter will be the most expensive item. It is more expensive to treat sewerage than it is to bring in water. £6,250,000 looks a lot of money, but there is a lot to be done with it, because of the extent of Scotland. Scotland is not a very small country. It is not a principality, like Wales, it is a nation, and rather an extensive one. It is not very deeply populated. It has less than 5,000,000 people, but the spread of the population makes for difficult problems. A pamphlet recently issued by the National Labour Party on the question of population says that the population of Glasgow is more than 1,000,000, while Edinburgh has 440,000; Dundee, 175,000 and Aberdeen 167,000. Other towns together take considerably less than 100,000. The rest of the population of Scotland is spread over the rural areas. In a situation like that, it is difficult to supply the ordinary amenities of life.
    I should have thought the first thing that the Ministers responsible would have done would have been to take a broad view of the situation. The Secretary of State for Scotland ought to have taken a broad view of the situation in Scotland, where we have so many small undertak-

    1619
    ings, and every small burgh with a water undertaking thinks it has the best that the world can produce. It is a danger to the community to allow small undertakings to supply water, because they have not the technical experience and cannot employ the staff. Water is something that people drink every day and very many times during the day. It goes into their bodies. We want our beer to be purer. We employ technical staffs to examine the milk. The small burgh that has not the proper technical knowledge to examine and analyse its water periodically is not in a position to supply water to a community. Water can only be supplied properly upon a large scale.
    Mr. Loftus: Surely the small water undertaking can send its water somewhere else to be analysed?
    Mr. Sloan: No doubt they send it periodically, but "periodically" should mean weekly at any rate. In my water undertaking the water content is analysed every week. To do the thing properly in Scotland it is necessary to operate on a vast scale. Why all these little undertaking should continue to have full control of their little duck-ponds has always been difficult for me to understand. I am not speaking with any jealousy towards the burghs. I come from a county that has resolved all these matters for itself. In 1933 or 1944 we produced a Water Bill for the purpose of making Ayrshire one water undertaking, which was, of course, turned down. All the burghs amalgamated to oppose the scheme. The result was that we were compelled to do the job ourselves, which we did. We supply water to villages which in no circumstances would have been able to do it themselves. The County Council have undertaken the job. They have a uniform rate, and the deficiency is spread over the public health rate.
    That is one way of doing it. But surely it ought not to be left to county councils to decide whether or not they will do this, when there is the House of Commons here and the opportunity of taking them by the scruff of the neck and throwing them into schemes, and compelling them to do the things in a proper manner. Therefore, while I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the £6,250,000 we have been able to extract I hope that in this
    1620
    larger Measure some pains will be taken, some foresight will be shown, and that when it comes along we will be able to visualise a scheme which will, as far as Scotland is concerned, see to it that every house, every farmhouse, every farm steading, which is more important, will be able to secure a definite water supply, to be able to carry on in Scotland what is a very important industry, namely, dairy farming.
    Mr. Willink: At this hour there is little I can usefully add, but there are just a few sentences I would like to say. I would like on this, the first occasion I have dealt from this bench with the Committee stage of a Bill, to thank the House—Members on all sides—for the help they have given me and for the kindly way they have dealt with the Bill, which everyone has described as "little." I should like also to record my appreciation of the help given me by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and those who have helped me both from the Ministry of Agriculture and the Scottish Office. My hon. Friend the Member for South Bristol (Mr. A. Walkden) has taken a great part in the various stages of this Bill. I believe he, like me, has now come to regard it as a "dear little Bill"; I believe we have the same mind on that, though I have a special feeling because it is my first-born.
    An interesting balance of observations has been made in the course of the speeches made by hon. Members on the Third Reading. I quite agree with those who wish to avoid a "great element of disappointment," which I think was the phrase used, at the fact that the benefits of this Bill are not immediate. It is perfectly true that if any of us gave the impression to our friends in the country that this Bill, or anything else, could bring new water supplies and new sewerage to the country this year or, to a large extent, next year, they would be deceiving people and would be leading to the disappointment referred to. On the other hand I am convinced that those who suggest that this Bill in the course of its operation will go only a very short way—that it is not only little but puny—are saying something which is equally wrong, because, judging by all the information I have, I am satisfied that its provisions, together with further provisions we hope to bring into legislative form within 12 months or a period of that order, can in five or six

    1621
    or seven years hence bring enormous benefits to our countryside.
    If I may make this final observation, there is nothing which has given me greater satisfaction in connection with this Bill than the welcome it has received from the rural district councils themselves. The rural district councils are sometimes spoken of, in my view, with inadequate appreciation and respect. They will have great obligations in our reconstruction period, not only in the sphere of water supply but also in what one hon. Member at least has referred to to-day as the primary matter of housing. It is a matter of great satisfaction to me that the first Bill I have introduced is one so welcomed by the local authorities who, in the main, will be responsible for administering the work with which it is concerned—the rural district councils of England and Wales and, no doubt, also the corresponding councils in Scotland.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  FISH SALES (CHARGES) ORDER, 1944
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): I beg to move,
  "That the Fish Sales (Charges) Order, 1944, dated 9th May, 1944, made by the Treasury under Section 2 of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, a copy of which Order was presented to this House on 16th May, be approved."
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: I rise only to ask if my hon. Friend will be good enough to explain this to the House.
  Mr. Mabane: This is an Order with which, I think, the House by now is very familiar. It is the eighth of such Orders that have been made. These Orders are made at the present time twice a year to vary the carriage charges according to the winter or summer season. Briefly, the purpose of this Order is to increase the levy, imposed to meet the cost of the carriage charges, on first sale of white fish to 1s. per stone and to retain the levy on what is called pelagic fish at 9d. per stone during the summer months. The purpose of this levy to meet the cost of these carriage charges is to secure a wide distribution. If fish were to bear the
  1622
  carriage charges according to the journey it had to make it might be that we would get a distribution heavy near the port of landing and light at distant towns. Therefore the Ministry of Food has made an arrangement, with which the trade is perfectly happy, for a uniform charge for carriage. It has also made an arrangement with the railways so that we receive all the money from those who sell the fish and then we ourselves pay the railway charge. Thus we are able to get a fair distribution all over the country, not influenced by the carriage charges the fish has to bear.
  Mr. Robertson: I am glad the Minister has spoken to this Order, for I think it is the first time he has done so since the carriage charge was stepped up last year from 6d. to 1s. I think the levy system is a good one; it does ensure that fish does not go only to the near-by places but goes also to the distant places. But the Minister has not explained to us, at least I did not hear him do so in his few remarks, that this levy of 1s. a stone is being brought about by the reduction in the price of fish to the trawler owner of 11d. a stone. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the cost of carriage which the Ministry of Food pays, but he did not say what the cost of carriage is per stone, the cost of getting the fish from the port of original landing to the inland market or town where it is consumed. I presume that charge of 1s. must be at least twice as much as the amount the Ministry pays, because when this scheme was operated last year the charge was 1s. on the consumer, who pays all the costs in connection with fish-catching and distribution, in the summer months, and 1d. only per stone during the winter months.
  The effect of that was that the trawler owners received different prices in summer and winter but there was no variation to the public. The public are paying more than they ought to for fish. I have here a few figures which will probably interest hon. Members, because they show the amount which the trawler owner is still getting, after this reduction of 11d. per stone. The trawler owner is getting, on bream, 330 per cent. more than he got pre-war. I have taken the 1938 figures, which are the last recorded figures, and the increase which the trawler owners are getting now,

  1623
  after this reduction which the Ministry are imposing, and which the Ministry are not passing on to the public, is 330 per cent. The percentage increase, up to a few weeks ago, was 405 per cent., and I presume that it will go back to that in the winter months. The average to the trawler owner now, for the different sorts of fish, is over 300 per cent. Catfish is 200 per cent, up, at the reduced price; flounders are 550 per cent. up at the reduced price; saithe, a very common variety of fish, is 750 per cent. up. My submission is that these prices are much too high. The time has come for this House to say so, in the most emphatic fashion.
  Not only are the prices so high, not only is this levy in excess of the actual amount of carriage, but the sea is full of fish, after the long rest it has had during the war. Catches are ever so much greater than they were before the war. We have only a quarter of the catching power in operation, and the vessels are catching two-thirds of the pre-war supply. Every boat coming into port is landing twice the quantity of fish that it did before the war, but this very generous Government Department is giving the trawler owner a reduction which leaves him a 300 per cent. increase in prices, at a time when he is getting double the quantity of fish. The people who are paying are our constituents, the women and children, and the old men too, who are standing so patiently in the queues.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: If the trawler owners are doing so well, how is it that in some parts of the country we never see any fish at all?
  Mr. Robertson: You are seeing a wonderful volume of fish for the reduced fleet that is fishing. Also, there is an increased demand for fish in war-time, owing to the scarcity of other foods.
  Mr. Speaker: Before the discussion gets too wide, I would remind hon. Members that the Order deals only with the levy, and nothing else, not with the general quantity of fish available, nor the price.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Surely the hon. Member is entitled to give an illustration, so that the House may follow his point, when he makes the
  1624
  charge that 300 per cent. increase is given to those who catch the fish.
  Mr. Mabane: Only the trawler owners, not the small men.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Surely he is entitled to make his point.
  Mr. Mabane: The Order does not deal with any percentage of increase, because it does not deal with prices at all.
  Mr. Robertson: I wild endeavour to keep in Order, but I must draw attention to the extraordinary circumstances which prevailed when a similar Order was brought in July last year. It was brought in at the end of a Parliamentary day. No explanation of the Order was given, and the Minister did not say a word about it. When another similar Order was brought in on 9th November, it was the second item on the list of Business for the day, just as it is to-day. A few minutes after a certain hour the Vote of Credit Debate, which took precedence, collapsed, and my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was very adroit, and got his Order through very quickly. I do not know that I can compliment him on his adroitness, but—
  Mr. Speaker: If hon. Members were not present to discuss it when the Order was passed, they cannot discuss it now. That is their fault.
  Mr. Robertson: That may be so, but, in spite of the indignation which my right hon. Friend is expressing, I beg you to allow this very important point, which affects every family in Britain, to be discussed.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Cannot you stretch a point, Sir, to allow this important matter to be debated?
  Mr. Robertson: It is an important question that people who are working so hard for the victory which is now in sight should be penalised over this very important food. I have held my peace on this subject for a very long time, but I feel that it should be ventilated, because of the excessive prices which the Ministry are now allowing, and which are reflected in the prices that the trawler owners get.
  Mr. Speaker: I could not allow that to be debated. It is a matter to be discussed when the Ministry of Food Vote comes along.
  Mr. Robertson: In view of your Ruling, Sir, I must be content with the protest that I have already made, in the interests of my constituents and of the constituents of other Members, and I will take the opportunity, which I believe will occur to-morrow, to raise the matter again.
  Mr. Barnes: I have a good deal of sympathy with the point of view which the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Robertson) wished to express. Some time ago, on the Ministry of Food Vote, I myself emphasised the excessive prices charged for fish; but I agree that, on this occasion, we are limited to a very narrow point. It appears to me that, whatever our views about the policy generally of the Ministry of Food in relation to prices, we cannot very well disagree with the purpose of the Ministry in regard to this Order, which is to equalise the transport rates throughout the country, and, as far as possible, to give districts far from the sources of supply a chance to get fish from time to time. From that angle, I support the Order. I am not clear why this Order has to come before us every six months. If it provided the opportunity of raising matters of public interest, as the hon. Member wished to do, one would welcome the opportunity, but we are confronted with your strict Ruling, Sir, which causes one to ask why the Ministry trouble us every six months to pass more or less the same Order. As far as my recollection goes, the trade, in the early days of this difficulty, had an opportunity of making this arrangement themselves, but they failed completely to do so. We should bear that in mind. As they failed as a trade to carry out this responsibility to the community, I see no other way out than for the Ministry to do this job itself. Therefore, I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to re-examine this problem to see if it is necessary to have this six-monthly Order; but in the meantime, I think we should be wise to endorse the continuation of this procedure.
  Mr. Mander: I wish to raise the following point. A few days ago, in my constituency, I attended a meeting of a body of which I am president—the Wolverhampton and District Fish Friers' Association. I wrote to them about this Order and asked them whether there was any point in connection with
  1626
  it which they thought ought to be raised in the public interest. They gave careful consideration to the matter, and told me that the only point they wished me to bring up was that the rates are not justified, in their opinion, because there ought to be a larger supply of hake on the market, but that it is not available by reason of the fact that the rates do not give sufficient inducement to catch that fish—
  Mr. Boothby: They cannot choose.
  Mr. Mander: —and they suggest that there should be less inducement to catch other sorts of fish and more inducement to catch this sort, so that a better supply would be available to the public. I am asking my right hon. Friend, therefore, to be good enough to consider this point and let me know whether satisfaction can be given to this admirable body of citizens in Wolverhampton and their customers.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: I wish to say a word about the somewhat sensational remarks of the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Robertson). His figures may be correct regarding some people, but they are quite incorrect—indeed they are nowhere within a mile of being correct—regarding the fishermen I represent, the inshore fishermen. They got good prices in the old days, because they sold the fish fresh, but, to-day, the men I represent suffer great hardship because of the prices. I want to make a plea for these gallant men whom I am here to represent.
  Mr. Boothby: I did not want to intervene at all, because I understand that almost anything I say will be out of Order and I hope to have an opportunity in the near future to discuss the general question of fish, but I wish to point out to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) that it is really too much to expect the fishermen of this country to choose a particular fish in fishing—hake—because it commands a higher price than other sorts. It does not seem likely that we can affect the catch by laying down a schedule of prices before the fisherman puts to sea. Whatever the prices may be, it is difficult, perhaps, to induce a particular fish to go into the net.
  Mr. Mander: Surely the fishermen would naturally go to those areas where hake abounds.
  Mr. Woods: If the particular intention is to secure a more equitable distribution of fish, those of us who want fish to be made cheaper are wondering whether the Minister could do something under this Order to facilitate the transport of fish to the rural areas, so that people there will occasionally have the chance to get a little fish. If he was able to do that he would gratify a considerable number of people.
  Mr. Graham White: I am at a loss to know why it should be necessary to have a special levy on fish. There are other cases, I think, in which the Ministry of Food have a flat rate for carriage for certain commodities, whether the distance is ten miles or 100 miles, and I am wondering why fish could not be dealt with on that basis.
  Mr. Kirkwood: The statement made by the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Robertson) is a fact, as far as the consumer is concerned. That is to say, the price of fish at the moment is simply ridiculous, and there is a greater demand for fish than in normal circumstances because of the lack of meat. Could not the Minister of Food devise some method whereby the working classes will have a chance to get fish much cheaper than it is to-day?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): At the risk of being out of Order, may I say a word first about prices? The price of fish, of course, is determined by the price paid to the producer. Naturally, the Ministry of Food desire to buy our fish as cheaply
  as we can. The fishermen represent, quite rightly, that they have a difficult and arduous task. I think every hon. Member in the House has, on occasion, heard the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) suggesting that, far from the price of fish being too high, it is far too low to suit him. The House will also remember that, 15 months or so ago, there was a strike of fishermen on this very matter of the price of hake. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) is suggesting that the wages of the producer should be reduced—
  Mr. Kirkwood: Not at all.
  Mr. Mabane: The hon. Member says not. I think he will recognise that he is
  1628
  depriving himself of the only opportunity for securing that reduction of price for which he is clamouring. If the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) had looked at the Explanatory Memorandum, he would have seen references to hake. We desire more hake and for that reason increased the price by ½d. a pound. I think the position to which the hon. Member referred has, to that extent, been met. The hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) asked why this Order has to be presented every six months. The reason, of course, is that the rules of the House require it, for it imposes a charge and it is a Treasury Order. As to the suggestion that I was adroit in getting the Order "on the nod" last year, I would like to point out that, so anxious was I to secure that there should be a Debate, that I approached the hon. Member for East Aberdeen and asked him to raise a point in the House, so that I should at least have an opportunity to reply. It is not my fault if the hon. Member who complains was not in his place, and if the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Robertson) was not in his place, he must not accuse me of being adroit.
  As to the effect of the Order in equalising the carriage charges, the hon. Member behind me asked why the rate of levy of 1s. a stone in summer is higher than the rate in winter, which is id. We do that in order that there will be a smaller levy in the winter and therefore a greater inducement to the fishermen to catch more fish, when fish is more difficult to catch. The shilling in summer and the penny in winter, I can assure the House, very nearly exactly balance the amount of money we have to pay out by way of carriage. Regarding the point raised by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White), the effect he desires is achieved, and there is no difference in the carriage charges on fish, wherever it goes. We take the whole lot and we have a flat rate arrangement with the railways. Without this arrangement it would be more difficult to take fish to distant parts because the carriage would be higher. In reply to the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Woods) the effect, not merely of this Order, but of the fish zoning scheme generally, is to move fish to rural areas, and, at the present time, rural areas are getting a far higher proportion of fish,

  1629
  in relation to the total amount available, than before the fish zoning scheme and this Order were put into effect. I think I have dealt with every point that has been raised, and I hope that the House will let me have the Order.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved:
  "That the Fish Sales (Charges) Order, 1944, dated 9th May, 1944, made by the Treasury under Section 2 of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, a copy of which Order was presented to this House on 16th May, be approved."

  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE
  Ordered:
  "That Sir Alfred Beit be discharged from the Select Committee on National Expenditure and that Miss Ward be added to the Committee."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  AGRICULTURE (DISPOSSESSED FARMERS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain McEwen.]
  Mr. Loverseed: I wish to raise a matter of vital interest to the agricultural community of this country—the question of the right of farmers and the agricultural community to appeal against decisions to dispossess them made by war agricultural committees. I raised this question almost a year ago and received from the Minister at that time an unsatisfactory reply. I gave notice at that time of my intention to raise it on the Adjournment and in the meantime I have made exhaustive inquiries throughout the country, in order to be able to present a favourable and reasonable case. I am very sorry indeed to see that the Minister is not in his place because in the course of my speech I shall probably make some remarks which may be interpreted by the Minister as an unfair attack upon him. I see that my right hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is in his place to answer, and I can only hope that he will not act as a shock-absorber, but will reinforce my arguments with the Minister, as he is well able to do.
  1630
  The case I am making is no defence of the inefficient farmer. We realise to-day that it is essential for the needs of the community that the maximum amount of foodstuffs shall be produced by the farmers of this country. I have no sympathy whatsoever with the inefficient farmer who will not pull his weight, but, at the same time, in accordance with the principles of British justice, before any man in this country is dispossessed of his farm, his land, or his home, and in fact of everything he possesses, he should at least have the right to a fair trial and an appeal against any decision to dispossess him. I realise the need, especially at this moment, for the maximum production of foodstuffs in this country, but I realise that the vast majority of the farmers of this country are responsible men, who have all their lives been devoted to the land and to the production of food, and I realise, too, that they are fully conscious of the need to produce from the land at this time the maximum possible amount of food. Had they been relied upon for their co-operation, and responsible to committees in which they had complete faith, then they would not have been found wanting at the time of our country's need.
  The present methods of selection or appointment of county war agricultural executive committees and the extraordinary powers which were given under Defence Regulation 51 to dispossess farmers, who, in their opinion alone, are guilty of bad husbandry, violate the fundamental principles of British justice. If I go from this House and, in full view of thousands of my fellow countrymen, commit a murder, I shall probably be hanged, but before I am hanged, I shall at least have the right of appearing before a jury composed of my own fellow countrymen, and, even if I am found guilty of the crime, I shall have the right to appeal to an appeal court in this country and, if necessary, to another place. That is British justice as I see it. These are the rights of British citizens. Why should a farmer who has carried on through 20 bleak years be denied the British justice to which any criminal in this country is entitled? It is entirely wrong, and against those very principles for which we are fighting to-day.
  The method of appointment of these committees is not in accordance with the

  1631
  democratic principles of which we in this country are so proud. The war agricultural committees are composed of men appointed by the Minister of Agriculture and his representatives. I do not know upon what qualifications they are appointed, and in looking at some of the committees now in existence, I am surprised that some of the people should have been appointed at all. There is one committee in this country, to which I shall refer later, presided over by an amateur farmer, whose chief interest is banking, and another is presided over by an engineer. When I look at the composition of some of these committees, I cannot believe that they have been selected for any particular knowledge of agriculture. I cannot help feeling that covering many of the acts of some of these committees are local prejudices which are not in accordance with the principles of British justice. If we appear before a court and a jury of our fellow countrymen, then we have the right, under British law, to protest against any member of the jury before whom we appear. The British farmer to-day has not that right, he cannot challenge the position on the executive committee of any member of it; in fact, these committees are judge and jury in their own case and that, I feel, is again a violation of British justice and a violation which no consideration of expediency at this time can condone.
  I am prepared to admit that, perhaps, the majority of farmers dispossessed by war agricultural committees may have deserved the fate which they have found, but I cannot help thinking at the same time, that there are also many farmers who have not deserved the fate which they have received at the hands of these committees. I believe there are many injustices to which farmers have submitted in this land. I believe that many farmers have been dispossessed of their land and their homes for insufficient cause; in fact, there are even suggestions in certain cases that perhaps some personal considerations have entered into these things. An inhabitant of a town or a city in this country is amply protected by the Rent Restrictions Acts. If his landlord wishes to evict him, he cannot do so without going to a court of justice and obtaining an eviction order. Why should such autocratic power be given to a few nominees of the Minister of Agriculture to evict men
  1632
  from their homes and from their lands, to throw their furniture out on to the street to rot from those homes in which they have been brought up and in which they have tried so desperately to serve the community and to obtain a bare subsistence living for themselves?
  During the past year I have sought to analyse various cases which have been brought to my notice. There is one case in particular which I would like to bring before this House to-day as an example of the sort of thing which has been happening to the farmers in this country since this war started. The case is not in my own constituency; fortunately Cheshire is blessed with a war agricultural committee which has not worked too badly. There have been certain cases, but taking them by and large, it has not worked too badly—in fact, in certain directions it has done a wonderful job of work. But not every county is blessed with such a good committee as we have in Cheshire, and I have found from the correspondence I have had about other things one committee which seems to be far worse than any of the others. I raise this as an example, with the full permission of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope), the case of a dispossession by the East Sussex War Agricultural Executive Committee of a farmer, Mr. Wyndham Hartnell, who was an owner-occupier of his own farm and land, a farm of some 200 acres, from which he was dispossessed about a year ago by that committee.
  Mr. Hartnell suffered severely during the 20 years preceding this war and only by his enterprise in finding and making his own markets for his produce was he able to stay on his farm at all. To make matters worse, shortly before this war he suffered severely as a result of sewage pollution from which he lost his whole herd of cattle, and from which he incurred a loss of some £2,000. Despite this, he managed to struggle through and effected considerable improvements on his farm. In the autumn of 1941, however, despite the improvements which have been made, he appears to have incurred the displeasure of his county war agricultural executive committee, who then wrote to him telling him of their intention to dispossess him. He was eventually evicted from his farm just about a year ago, despite representations which had been made to the Minis-

  1633
  ter and to the war agricultural committee from many very responsible sources. To the representations made, the Minister replied that his Land Commissioner and his war agricultural committee had investigated the case and had substantiated the findings of the executive and he therefore confirmed its findings.
  I prefer to accept the word of a very well-known local land agent and valuer, a man of the highest repute and integrity, who knows the district, who knows the land and the farms in that neighbourhood, who has written many letters which I have here—
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to clear up one point? He said that he raised this with the approval of the right hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope). Does that mean with his permission, or that he agrees with the point of view taken by the hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. Loverseed: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. The right hon. and gallant Member for Rye stated that he was supporting this and agreed with me. He does realise some of the difficulties in the way of appointing tribunals—
  Mr. G. Nicholson: But he does not necessarily agree with the hon. Gentleman's conclusions?
  Mr. Loverseed: I would not be prepared to say that he agrees necessarily with my conclusions. In these letters from this reputable estate agent and valuer, who knows the district and land and the people he is dealing with, he stated:
  "I am of the emphatic opinion that the Committee would not be justified in taking over the farm, and I am very surprised that a proposal to that effect has been made."
  There are many other letters of a similar nature. In reply to a statement by the Minister that the case has been examined
  by his land commissioner, who is an independent examiner, this valuer states:
  "It seems contrary to the accepted principles of British justice that the Minister should give a decision on ex parte evidence. It appears that the Ministry's Land Commissioner, Captain Banham, works hand in glove with the War Agricultural Committee and can in no sense be regarded as independent and impartial."
  1634
  I contend that the machinery through which a farmer can appeal, can put forward his case, is quite inadequate and that, as this gentleman states, all these media are working hand in glove. There is no real appeal. This farmer was dispossessed without knowing what complaints, what charges, had been levied against him. In the opinion of many other experienced people, that farm should never have been taken over. Since it was taken over, far from showing increased production it has shown decreased production. For instance, acres of orchard which this farmer had used for grazing sheep are to-day neglected and useless for anything. The farmer had grown damson trees along his hedge-rows, trees which were doing no harm and which were useful as well as being an ornament, yet they have been pulled up, together with many acres of orchard. Land which had been growing rhubarb
  and other vegetables is now completely wasted. I could produce photographs, if necessary, to show the state of this land before and since dispossession. The farm is in a far worse condition than ever it was during Mr. Hartnell's occupation.
  I could cite other instances of land under the jurisdiction of this committee producing far less to-day than it should be producing. There is the case of 58 acres of some of the finest fattening land in the country, which was producing one ton of beef per acre, and which was taken for arable land. In the first year it was ploughed and laid fallow and in the second year it was planted,
  by the same committee, with flax. It was allowed to deteriorate and the flax was burnt. In the third year sugar beet was planted, after the land had been heavily manured, and 50 land girls worked on it during the summer. In August the whole crop was ploughed in because it was not worth harvesting. These cases prove the inefficiency of this committee, the chairman of which is the banker to whom I referred a short time ago. Acting with that committee, as an official, is a man who a short time ago was prosecuted for producing unclean milk. These committees should be selected from people who are best able to judge and make the most of the resources of the land of this country. The powers which have
  been given to them are a violation of British justice, and represent some of the worst features against which we are fighting to-day. It

  1635
  will be argued that the Minister of Agriculture has done a lot for British agriculture. To that I will agree. Hitler did a lot for Germany but we do not agree with the methods he used, any more than we agree with the autocratic methods by which the Minister is attempting to deal with the farmers. My request is that tribunals should be set up which will guarantee to the farmers at least that same justice to which any criminal of this country is entitled.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Lover-seed) has raised a very important and interesting subject. It is remarkable that he, coming from the party he represents, should have raised this matter, because, although I do not doubt the sincerity of either himself or his colleagues in the House, he must be aware that the very proper stand he has taken on behalf of the liberty of the individual, and the rights of justice even to an inefficient minority, are in direct contradiction to the tenets of his party.
  Mr. Loverseed: This is not a party question at all, but a question of right and justice, and it does not conflict in any way with nay other views. May I request that party be kept out of this?
  Mr. Nicholson: An individual Member of the House cannot be distinguished from his political opinions. His own leader points out in his views as regards the employment of the citizens of this country, that the State must have complete power and that recalcitrants must go to a very tolerable concentration camp. He even reluctantly praises Hitler for some of his methods. The moral that I am trying to draw, not in a party spirit, is that when you get the State taking a direct and firsthand part in a trade or industry, sooner or later the people in that trade or industry, the minority of inefficient farmers or workers, will not fall in with the State's orders and wishes as to conditions of employment or wages and so on, or it may be an aircraft factory which is thought to be inefficient, and the State is forced to use all its authority and prestige and all the power at its disposal to snuff them out. That is why we on this side of the House are very much opposed to Socialism, even the peculiar hybrid form of Socialism that the hon. Member represents.
  1636
  If I may go one step further, it is for that reason that we hold that Socialism is the ante-chamber to Fascism.
  Coming to the matter of the hon. Member's speech, I hold that the House has been remiss in its duty in allowing the State so much power, against which there is little or no appeal, in the prosecution of the war. We have failed in our duty in allowing many of these Regulations to go through. The Minister of Agriculture can, no doubt, make out a case for giving these powers, without appeal, to the war executive committees. He can say that, if there is an appeal, it will take so much time, and a dispossession order would be so hard to get confirmed that a committee would be reluctant to try to enforce it, and we should thus lose in efficiency. I accept that argument but, at the same time, I think the farmer should be left with the feeling that he has some protection against what he may regard as an arbitrary decision. The sort of farmer who is dispossessed is very often a crank, a person with a little bit of a twist. He may already have a grievance against life, and it is a pity that there should be more farmers with a sense of grievance than there are already.
  For that reason I think the hon. Member has made a right and proper protest, but I should very much regret if it went out from the House that there was any large volume of opinion which was hypercritical, or even critical, of these committees. Those with which I have come into contact work very well indeed. They are composed in the main of working farmers who give up their time, without any remuneration and with very little thanks, even meeting with some hostility, and old friendships are broken and that sort of thing. They have not had quite the meed of praise from the Minister which I hoped he would have given. I am responsible for a fairly large farm as a trustee and I have agricultural contacts in various counties. I have heard nothing but praise and gratitude and respect for the immense amount of work these committees put in, very often only to get abused by the Minister. When I say that, I am thinking of an incident that happened in Somersetshire a year or two ago. Do not let us lose our heads over this remarkable stand for the rights of man coming from a totalitarian party. Let us get some form of appeal put into the Regu-

  1637
  tion, but let it, at the same time, go out that we are profoundly grateful to the members of these committees for doing this work and that we wish them all success.
  Mr. Quibell: I should not have intervened had it not been for the fact that the last speaker has made what I consider to be an attack upon the hon. Member who, in my view, properly raised this matter. I was at the election at Eddisbury and did everything I could to oppose the hon. Member, and he would not have been here if I could have stopped him. But during that election I came across a case similar to the one he has mentioned, where a farmer, who had been a useful supporter of his, came and stated his case to me and I thought he had been very gravely misjudged by this committee that has been praised as one of the best that ever was. I think the hon. Member knows the case. The farmer declared to me that he had been dispossessed because someone who had the favour of the war agricultural committee wished to buy his farm. It was the hon. Member's duty to set about the Ministry of Agriculture and try to put the matter right. In the main, war executive committees have done wonderful work and we can all pay a tribute to them but it is human to err, and there have been mistakes. I cannot see why the Ministry of Agriculture could not provide some machinery by which there might be some appeal. There has been trouble in some districts, and there is not a Member representing an agricultural division who has not had complaints of cases in which injustice seems to have been done. I hope these committees are not only for the duration of the war, but that we shall have some such machinery as a permanent institution. It would take a good deal of the responsibility off the Minister's hands if there was a final appeal. I think that we all agree that some form of machinery should be set up, so that an appeal could be made from these committees. In the main they have done good work, but, as I say, they are human and may make mistakes.
  Mr. Critchley: Speaking quite dispassionately, I think that the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Loverseed) has made a case that ought to be seriously considered. It is appalling to me to think that there are committees set
  1638
  up with these powers. I feel conscious of my responsibility as a public representative when I find that Ministerial powers are granted which preclude us from raising matters, powers that almost exceed judiciary powers. That, I think, is wrong. I have listened intently to the case submitted by my hon. Friend and to the observations of other hon. Members, and it appals me to think that committees have been set up with judicial powers which can dispossess a farmer not only of his farm, but also of his residence. That makes me conscious of a responsibility that we ought to face. I am sure that the Minister can give an assurance that there will be some right of appeal to some other body. I am not primed on this subject, and I must confess that for the first time I have discovered that an Order in Council has been made giving committees these powers. It appals me to think that such powers should be given to county agricultural committees. There is not a landlord who can eject a tenant from his premises without recourse to the courts, where a case is stated. As far as I can gather from the Debate, the farmer in question had no recourse to the courts. That is not in keeping with the democracy
  which we are upholding to-day. I am seriously conscious of the responsibility that I carry in speaking from these Benches. I do not represent an agricultural constituency. I have nothing to gain or to lose by what I am saying, but I have the right to state the case as I feel it. I am sure that the Minister will have an adequate reply to the matter raised by my hon. Friend, but I hope he will give us an assurance that there will be an appeal to some tribunal other than to this arbitrary committee. If the Minister could give that assurance I should be much happier in mind than I am.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. Tom Williams): I am bound to confess that I regret that my hon. Friend saw fit to raise this matter once again on the Adjournment. I readily appreciate that there is a good deal of sentiment on this question and to some extent ill-informed criticism against the Minister of Agriculture. I appreciate the sentiments expressed by other hon. Members who have spoken in the Debate, but I think I shall be able to show that none of the allegatons of my hon. Friend the Member for

  1639
  Eddisbury (Mr. Loverseed) can be sustained. My hon. Friend gave me no notice of the individual cases he was about to raise. Fortunately, however, I saw a cutting from a certain newspaper which is, I cannot say popular, but notorious. Curiously, the cases quoted by my hon. Friend appeared in that newspaper one Sunday in July, 1943. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which paper?"] I do not see why I should give it a public advertisement for the lies and innuendoes contained in this article. Having observed what the writer wrote, I thought that my hon. Friend might conceivably refer to one or other of these cases. He has done so, and luckily, although I have not the full story, I know why the farmer referred to was turned from this farm.
  It might meet the wishes of the House if I told the story as I know it in the briefest number of words. The reports from the district committee, from the war executive and the land commissioner were that his arable land was badly neglected, that he did contract work for other farmers to supplement his income.
  Mr. Loverseed rose—
  Mr. Williams: The hon. Member has made his speech. He did not give me notice that he was going to raise this case, and he must allow me to reply to the allegations. I am entitled to give the case as I know it. This gentleman
  was repeatedly warned by the committee about the condition of his land. He had a poor average of milk production. This is a very different story from the one told by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Critchley: Who is the judge?
  Mr. Williams: I will tell my hon. Friend who is the judge and who is the jury if he will only be as patient as I was while hon. Members were making their speeches. This subject has been raised on numerous occasions by Questions. In October, 1941, my right hon. Friend gave a full, frank and, I think, satisfactory explanation to the House on the procedure and power enjoyed by war agricultural executive committees. Every case brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend by any hon. Member has been investigated by the Minister.
  It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." [Mr. Drewe.]
  Mr. T. Williams: In no single case has my right hon. Friend seen fit to change the decision he originally—
  Mr. Loverseed: There is no appeal from it.
  Mr. Williams: If my hon. Friend will contain his soul in patience for a moment or two I am going to show that the war agricultural executive committee is not the judge and jury as he has suggested, but that the Minister of Agriculture is absolutely responsible in every case where dispossession takes place. Therefore, please do not charge a war agricultural executive committee, or a district committee—a body of men who have done wonderful work, absolutely honorarily for nearly five years—with being judge and jury in their own case and with having local prejudices, which was the statement made by my hon. Friend.
  We have realised from the very first that the power to dispossess is very drastic. It is only used where ample justification exists. Hardships are common in war-time and have been suffered by all sections of the community, but it is particularly a hardship in agriculture if a farmer is dispossessed, because, as the hon. Member truly says, he loses not only his farm but his business and almost always he loses his home. It is because of that situation that infinite care is taken that no wrong decision is made. The success of the food campaign—and it has been successful—is due entirely to the cooperation of farmers, farm workers and landowners, including the executive committees and the district committees, who have given valuable time and experience, purely voluntarily, in the war effort. This power to dispossess, drastic though it is, is an essential part of our food production campaign. Its very existence is an incentive and a warning to every farmer at least to try to do his best in the war effort. It is only when warnings have been disregarded, either wilfully or from inertia or incapacity, that that power is exercised in any county.
  Mr. Granville: When a Member of Parliament takes up one of these cases and the Minister investigates it, to which authority does the Minister go? Does he go to the county war agricultural executive committee for his facts? If so, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us—and this is very important—whether the Minister has ever turned down a case which has been put forward by a county war agricultural executive committee?
  Mr. T. Williams: I can not only assure my hon. Friend that the Minister has gone into cases which have been put up by war agricultural executive committees, but wherever a Member of this House brings such a case to his notice, he turns up all the papers in that case; and he is satisfied absolutely only when the impartial person, wholly dissociated from the war executive committee, namely, the land commissioner, has reported. Only then does my right hon. Friend take his decision.
  Mr. Beverley Baxter: Has the Minister, then, in some cases reversed the decision of the committee?
  Mr. Williams: I said a moment ago that of all the cases brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend in no single instance has he found it necessary to change a decision originally taken. The test of the system has been the way that it is worked. We know that this power must be exercised with proper safeguards. The hon. Member for Eddisbury says that he wants an appeal; the bon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Critchley) wants an appeal; the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) suggests that some form of an appeal might be necessary. I would invite hon. Members to listen once again to a brief survey of the procedure followed before any farmer is dispossessed. Every farm in every county has been very carefully surveyed, and only where a farm is classified as being seriously below the standard required is any approach made to the farmer.
  How are these approaches made, and what happens once a farmer is regarded as being in category C, that is, the lowest category? The farmer is approached by local
  farmers who are chosen because of their known agricultural qualifications. My hon. Friend must know that all members of district committees are local farmers who not only know the dis-
  1642
  trict but know the farmer, too. They know the whole area, and they knew the farmer and the farm probably long before 3rd September, 1939. What is the first thing that happens if the land is in a bad state? The first thing a district committee do is to lend the farmer all the help they can, give him all the advice and guidance they can, and in some cases they give him a warning that unless there is improvement, then some further action may be taken. Ultimately, perhaps, from the district committee, a report is sent to the war agricultural executive committee. Despite what the hon. Member for Eddisbury says, the committee is made up largely of practical farmers, and not only practical farmers but farmers who have the confidence of their neighbourhood, farmers in whom their fellow farmers have the utmost confidence. What do the war agricultural executive committee do? They send along to this particular farm representatives from the war executive committee.
  Mr. Granville: Officials?
  Mr. Williams: Representatives of the war agricultural committee who are known to be practical farmers, and who have the confidence of the farming community.
  Mr. Granville: Are they members of the committee or are they paid officials?
  Mr. Williams: I said that they were members of the war executive committee, and that they are practical farmers. I said that members of the war executive committee proceeded to that farm on the basis of a report from the district committee—members of the war executive committee who are practical farmers and men who have the confidence of farmers within the neighbourhood. They proceed there and tender to the farmer all the advice and guidance they can. It may be that ultimately they have to give a farmer directions that he must do this or that, say with machinery or fertilisers. It is not their object to dispossess; their object is to help the man attain a higher category, for it is food production with which war executive committees are concerned, not doing an ill-turn to their neighbours. It is only, therefore, as an absolutely last resort, sometimes after a year, 18 months or even two years, and because either the farmer will not or can-

  1643
  not carry out the instructions of the executive committee, that the executive committee finally recommend dispossession.
  Even at that stage, which may be a year, 18 months, or two years after the first inspection, when the farmer knows just why these visits have been taking place, when the district committee have made their report, the war executive committee send along representatives again to the farmer, and if they find that he is utterly hopeless, or incapable of carrying out their directions, they intimate to him what is likely to happen. That is quite unlike the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury. They tell the farmer exactly where his shortcomings lie—they have been telling him for a long time where his shortcomings lie—whether it is fertiliser, or labour, or just where the farm is lacking. We proceed from the district committee to the war executive committee, all practical farmers, all trying to help him to obtain the highest possible production. If all fails, the war executive committee finally recommend dispossession.
  That is not the end of the story. The war executive committee cannot dispossess. Ultimately, it is the Minister who decides upon dispossession. But, in every single case, my right hon. Friend, before taking his decision, sends the land commissioner, who is wholly dissociated from the war executive committee, despite my hon. Friend's suggestions of collusion, and he personally makes an investigation of the farm.
  Captain Cunningham-Reid: Who employs the land commissioner?
  Mr. Williams: The Minister.
  Captain Cunningham-Reid: Exactly.
  Mr. Williams: If the land commissioner or the Minister is suspect, there is no reason why any employee of anybody else should not also be suspect.
  Captain Cunningham-Reid: Why should only he be able to put a case? Why should not the farmer put his case?
  Mr. Williams: I have told my hon. and gallant Friend that the farmer puts his case to the committee, and he is told by
  1644
  the committee that they are recommending dispossession. He is given written reasons for that, and he is invited to send in, in writing, any protests that he wishes to make against the recommendation, and to attend the meeting of the committee, to give reasons against the recommendation.
  Captain Cunningham-Reid: Does that objection in writing go to the Minister?
  Mr. Williams: It remains on the file relating to the case, and is available to the Minister. The farmer has his opportunity of appearing before the war agricultural executive committee; and if that is not an appeal to his peers, I do not know what is, I repeat that even that is not the final story, because the Minister has a staff of land commissioners, dissociated from the war executive committees, who act on his behalf, and whose consent must be given before dispossession takes place. Thus it will be seen that it is only after exhaustive, protracted efforts, where a farmer has been given every opportunity, that this drastic action is taken. The war executive committees regard their responsibility in this respect as being very heavy indeed. If they are likely to err at all, it is on the side of leniency. No agriculturist would willingly turn out a neighbouring farmer if anything he could
  do would persuade that farmer to do what is thought to be necessary. That being the case, it seems to me that no form of appeal or tribunal that any Member of this House could conceive would be equivalent to the tribunal already available to every farmer.
  What would happen if we attempted to set up a new appeal tribunal? There would simply be more duplication, more machinery, more inspections, more reports, more personal statements. The appeal tribunal would simply have to go over the whole of a case—by inspection, by records and documents and so forth—which had previously been gone over. It must be perfectly obvious to every hon. Member in the House that the tribunal, with their absence of local knowledge, could not possibly be in the same position to reach a right conclusion as those who are right on the spot. It seems to me that any such appeal tribunal seeking to arrive at a reasonable judgment would have a less degree of knowledge than the committee and that their decisions might not be what hon. Members anticipate.

  1645
  There is just one other thing. Hon. Members should remember that any appeal tribunal on the lines suggested by hon. Members would be absolutely responsible to no one. The county executive committees are responsible to the Minister of Agriculture, and the Minister is responsible to this House for every decision he takes with regard to dispossession. The existing system may have created a hardship here and there. I do not deny it, but I do ask hon. Members not to confuse hardship with injustice. The duty of the Minister of Agriculture is to secure the maximum production of food in this land. He has appointed those whom he regards as his best agents for that purpose. Would any hon. Member deny that the Minister of Agriculture has done his job in regard to food production? There may have been hardships. Every section of the community has suffered some form of hardship, and those who have failed to fulfil the obligations imposed upon them, whether for military or other service, have had to pay the price.
  I say, in conclusion, that agriculture is playing a grand part in the national effort. It has made no small contribution to what will be ultimate victory, and, if agriculture is to play the part in our post-war life that we all hope to see it play, let no hon. Member do anything which is calculated to create indifference or inefficiency. Maximum efficiency alone will produce the food and enable agriculturists to compete fairly with imported food. For that reason I ask the House to try to believe that before a man is made to lose his home, his business, and his farm, every human consideration that can be given, is given, and I hope the House will take it from me that no form of outside tribunal can be as human as the Minister has been in this matter.
  Captain Cunningham-Reid: The Minister has told the House that the Minister of Agriculture has the last say before a farmer is dispossessed, but he has not answered what I consider the most important question of all, which is—Why should not the farmer have the right to state his case to the Minister? The war executive committee does that, but we deny the farmer that right. Why should he not have it? What is there against it?
  Mr. Williams: Surely the hon. Member must agree that the district committee and
  1646
  the war agricultural executive committee are the persons to whom the farmer should appeal. The Minister appointed the war agricultural executive committee to act as his agent out in the country. The land commissioner is an agent of the Minister, and surely, when a farmer has the right of access to those dealing with his case, it is all that he or anyone else can expect.
  Mr. Driberg: While endorsing the right hon. Gentleman's general tribute to the war executive committees, may I ask him if he is aware that these impartial land commissioners, when they go down, in the last resort, to investigate a case, are always apt, in the first instance, to get their facts from the war agricultural committee and to walk round the farms concerned with representatives of the war agricultural committee rather than with the farmers? Cannot he ask his right hon. Friend to instruct these impartial land commissioners to see to it, not only that justice is done, but that justice shall be seen to be done?
  Mr. Williams: The hon. Member must have heard it said already that the land commissioner, as a strictly impartial person, knows the seriousness of the step he is about to take. He has just as much concern about the well-being of the farmer as about the executive committee or the Minister. If every land commissioner is to be a suspect, is there any reason why the members of the proposed appeal tribunal should be less suspect?
  Mr. Raikes: The reply has not entirely satisfied me. The Minister said that they had never found it necessary in any circumstances to reverse a decision made by a war agricultural executive committee. I have a very high opinion of such committees, but it is impossible to imagine that there has never been a case in which a man has been recommended to be dispossesssed unfairly.
  Mr. Williams: I think I said we have never found it necessary to change any decisions taken by a land commissioner, not by a war executive committee. It is the land commissioner who takes the decision for the Minister.
  Mr. Raikes: That certainly was not the impression I formed, but I am obliged

  1647
  to the Minister for having clarified the point. As far as the land commissioner and an appeal are concerned, the matter comes before the local committee, then before the war agricultural committee, and then up to the Minister, who decides, in the long run, to send someone down to adjust the final difficulty before the war agricultural committee are permitted to do the official eviction.
  I think that the Minister was unfair in regard to one or two questions, but I do not mean in an offensive way. I think he really misunderstood one or two questions when he suggested that hon. Members of this House were suggesting unfairness on the part of the men who go down to the farms. Obviously, the final man who goes down to the farm will see the war agricultural committee. He will go down with the view that the war agricultural committee are the people who are conversant with the case, and he will naturally take their advice. He generally takes one of their representatives with him when he goes to visit a farm. But that is not to say that he is got at. I feel that in this type of case the farmer has no possibility of appearing before the Minister. No doubt, in 99 cases out of 100 he should be dispossessed, but he should have the right in the final resort—after all, it is his life—to appear before some tribunal in person. The tribunal, although not having quite the same knowledge as other persons, might have the legal knowledge in cross-examination to discover whether there is any bias or unfairness among persons on any agricultural committee, a bias which would never be realised simply by reading the papers, just in the same way as the examples given by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Loverseed) meant nothing to me from the point of view of arriving at a judgment. They simply consisted, as they were bound to do, of ex parte statements in regard to what certain largely unnamed individuals have written in certain letters. You get that just the same from the other side if you merely have a storm of paper from the war agricultural committee.
  In the final resort, I do think that the people themselves should have the opportunity of appearing and cross-examining those who are going to say that they are to be dispossessed. I speak for many sections of the House on this. We are not charging anybody with bad
  1648
  faith, but we believe there should be a final court of appeal before which a man could appear. We have had it all through British history. It has been one of the foundations of our liberty, and perhaps, if we had that court of law, it might not take a longer time, there would be fewer warnings, and things would be settled rather more quickly than under the present system.
  Mr. Tinker: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that when the land commissioner goes down, he interviews the farmer personally and gives him a chance to state his case?
  Mr. T. Williams: Yes, he both interviews the farmer and goes over the farm with him if the farmer will accompany him.
  Mr. Driberg: Not in every case.
  Mr. Granville: May I ask a question on the same point? The right hon. Gentleman has given a patient explanation which has done a lot of good but, when one of these cases is brought to the county committee, does the county committee send a member of the committee who is a farmer, an unpaid official who is doing this patriotic work? Or does it send an official? In effect, what happens is that you are trying to take a decision and a judgment on a piece of land, and what so many farmers complain of is that an official is sent down, but not a member of the agricultural executive committee. I have had this complaint from my own constituency. Can the right hon. Gentleman make it perfectly clear, and give an assurance, that where a man is to be dispossessed, he will be visited either by the land commissioner or by the chairman or somebody on the committee?
  Mr. T. Williams: I can give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance that no such visit would take place without practical members of the executive committee being there.
  Mr. Hutchinson: I intervene for the last moment of this Debate in order to reinforce what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Raikes) and to make this suggestion. The right hon. Gentleman has rested his case very largely upon the (final decision reached by the land com-

  1649
  missioner. I would like to invite him to consider whether he could not agree that when the land commissioner goes down to make the final decision, the land commissioner should hold a local inquiry at which the farmer would be entitled to appear with his witnesses, if he desired to do so, and to put his case. Of course the county war agricultural committee would be entitled to do the same. My right hon. Friend knows that a local inquiry is a very common form of semi-judicial proceeding in the local government world. It works reasonably well. I invite my
  1650
  hon. Friend to consider whether a semi-judicial inquiry by the land commissioner at the final stage, and a report by the commissioner, based upon the evidence that has been given before him by both parties to the Minister, might not prove a satisfactory solution of this difficulty.
  It being the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

NATIONAL WAR EFFORT
  Factory Workers (Milk Allowance)
  Factory Workers (Milk Allowance)
  Young Persons (Hours of Work)
  Young Persons (Hours of Work)
  Coalmines (Directed Youths)
  Coalmines (Directed Youths)
  Coalmining Ballot
  Coalmining Ballot
  Old Age Pensioners (Employment)
  Old Age Pensioners (Employment)
  NATIONAL FIRE SERVICE (EXPENDITURE)
  NATIONAL FIRE SERVICE (EXPENDITURE)
  PRISON SERVICE (DISCIPLINARY RULES)
  PRISON SERVICE (DISCIPLINARY RULES)
AGRICULTURE
  Land Workers (Conscientious Objectors)
  Land Workers (Conscientious Objectors)
  Small Holdings (Post-War Policy)
  Small Holdings (Post-War Policy)
  Guaranteed Prices
  Guaranteed Prices
  Rooks
  Rooks
HOUSING
  RENT RESTRICTIONS ACTS (COMMITTEE)
  RENT RESTRICTIONS ACTS (COMMITTEE)
  Lavenham, Suffolk (Site)
  Lavenham, Suffolk (Site)
  Agricultural Workers
  Agricultural Workers
  Post-War Houses (Air Raid Shelters)
  Post-War Houses (Air Raid Shelters)
  Prefabricated Houses
  Prefabricated Houses
  Sites (Preparation)
  Sites (Preparation)
  Publicity (Films)
  Publicity (Films)
  WAR DAMAGE COMMISSION (VALUE PAYMENTS)
  WAR DAMAGE COMMISSION (VALUE PAYMENTS)
  INCOME TAX AND SURTAX (UNITED KINGDOM AND DOMINIONS)
  INCOME TAX AND SURTAX (UNITED KINGDOM AND DOMINIONS)
COAL INDUSTRY
  Mining Casualties
  Mining Casualties
  Group Production Directors
  Group Production Directors
  Cannock Chase Colliery Company (Miners, discharges)
  Cannock Chase Colliery Company (Miners, discharges)
  Household Coke (Supply Restrictions)
  Household Coke (Supply Restrictions)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Treasury Note and Bank Note Issues
  Treasury Note and Bank Note Issues
  Nylon (Customs Duty)
  Nylon (Customs Duty)
  Overseas Markets (Credit Facilities)
  Overseas Markets (Credit Facilities)
BRITISH ARMY
  Surviving Sons (Overseas Service)
  Surviving Sons (Overseas Service)
  Explosion (Army Depot, Essex)
  Explosion (Army Depot, Essex)
  Transferred Polish Soldiers
  Transferred Polish Soldiers
  HANSARD (DIVISIONS INDEX)
  HANSARD (DIVISIONS INDEX)
  FOOD RATIONING (SPECIAL DIETS)
  FOOD RATIONING (SPECIAL DIETS)
  MR. HARRY CLAPHAM (COURT PROCEEDINGS)
  MR. HARRY CLAPHAM (COURT PROCEEDINGS)
EDUCATION
  Teachers (Conscientious Objectors)
  Teachers (Conscientious Objectors)
  Visiting Teachers, London (Fees)
  Visiting Teachers, London (Fees)
  BORSTAL INSTITUTION (FATAL ACCIDENTS)
  BORSTAL INSTITUTION (FATAL ACCIDENTS)
  DEFENCE REGULATION 18B
  DEFENCE REGULATION 18B
  OLD AGE PENSIONS (REVIEW)
  OLD AGE PENSIONS (REVIEW)
INDIA
  India Fundamental Rules, No. 45A (Punctuation)
  India Fundamental Rules, No. 45A (Punctuation)
  1941 Census
  1941 Census
  Child Mortality
  Child Mortality
  Food Rationing
  Food Rationing
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (PAY AND ALLOWANCES)
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (PAY AND ALLOWANCES)
PUBLIC HEALTH
  Smallpox Diagnosis (School Teacher)
  Smallpox Diagnosis (School Teacher)
  Hospitals (Library Facilities)
  Hospitals (Library Facilities)
  Infant Mortality
  Infant Mortality
  National Health Service
  National Health Service
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (CAPITAL EXPENDITURE)
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (CAPITAL EXPENDITURE)

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

EDUCATION BILL.
Debate again resumed (according to Order) on the Motion for the Second Reading, moved on Tuesday by Lord Woolton.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, none but a churl would wish to refrain from paying tribute to Mr. Butler for his work in framing this Bill and for his successful piloting of it through another place. I most warmly add mine to the many tributes which have been paid to him both here and elsewhere. The very amplitude and variety of the reforms proposed in this Bill should serve to show us how neglectful we have been in the past of the proper education of the nation's children. In particular, the years between the wars reflect no great credit upon this country in the matter of educational provision. This Bill, as I see it, is an outline plan which will permit of progress towards a unified, more progressive and, we hope, a more comprehensive system of education. It encourages many hopes, but it would be incorrect to say that there are not some hopes which educationists have which are not satisfied by the proposals in the Bill. The Bill, indeed, is not without some blemishes, and in the course of my remarks I shall take leave to direct attention to one or two of these.
Taking the Bill as it is, it will in itself add nothing to the educational system of the country. Its structure has to be filled in by hard work and close cooperation between the Government, the local authorities, the children, the parents, and the teachers. The task which faces the nation in implementing the main proposals of this Bill can, without exaggeration, be termed stupendous. On the mere basis of the provision of school places, there is a gigantic job awaiting us. One hundred and fifty thousand school places have been more or less destroyed
136
by enemy action, and it is anticipated that some 391,000 additional school places will be necessary when the school-leaving age is raised to fifteen. That gives a total of more than half a million additional school places which will be required. Those school places will need sites, and clearly the sites of schools must be larger in the future than they have been in the past. Moreover, there must be a more adequate provision of playing fields, especially for those, children living in the populous, densely built-up urban areas.
One of the first tasks that will face the local education authorities will be to restore the damaged school places and to get sites for the new schools required. For that purpose it is essential that local authorities should have speedy powers of acquisition. I do not wish in this debate to introduce matters concerning town and country planning, but I think it is important to point out that a Committee appointed by the President of the Board of Education has just submitted a report entitled "The Standard Construction for Schools" and in that Report the Committee says:
"The difficulty in reaching agreement with local owners has in the past absorbed very-much time and denied entry to the site for surveying and levelling. The position is that compulsory powers to purchase cannot be exercised until the Board of Education is satisfied that no other sites are available.
Then the Report goes on with sardonic, if unconscious humour, to say
"It is of course realized that the Scott and Uthwatt Reports deal with the matter."
They do thoroughly. But as the Government have not dealt with the matter, I would like to ask the noble Earl who is to reply for the Government, what steps the President contemplates taking by himself or with his colleagues to ensure that the acquisition of sites for these new schools and these larger playing fields shall not be hampered by the present procedure. I understand that the Scottish Education Department—Scotland is frequently in front of England as regards education—as far back as January this year issued a circular to the education authorities of Scotland giving them indications as to how they should proceed to acquire the additional sites and to procure the larger areas for schools. I hope that immediately the Bill becomes an Act the President of the

137
Board of Education will take similar and even more urgent steps in that direction.
That is the problem which immediately faces us as regards building, but the problem is by no means less difficult in regard to teachers. It is idle to have good school buildings, it is useless to have large playing fields and other physical facilities unless we have a proper number of teachers of a type which better conditions of service and a better recognition from the point of view of their status in the nation will secure. It has been suggested that at least 70,000 additional teachers will be needed and there are grounds for believing that that large figure may indeed be an under-estimate. I hope that the Government will act as speedily as they can on the main recommendations of the McNair Committee in regard to this very important element of education.
The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, referred to the question of the size of classes. I appreciate that it is undesirable to prescribe the size of classes in the Bill and that it is a matter properly left for regulation, but it is essential that the size of classes should be reduced. We in the London County Council have an unhappy and sad memory of going to the President of the Board of Education and asking that we might be permitted to reduce the nominal roll in the junior schools of the council by two—I think from forty-six to forty-four—and our request was rejected with contumely. Now classes which contain forty-four or forty-six or indeed forty pupils cannot be properly educated. It casts an impossible task both upon the teacher and upon the scholar. If, as I hope may be the case, the size of classes is to be reduced, that of itself will call for more teachers and it may in many cases call for larger school buildings which will further add to the problems that I have aready indicated.
Such are the immediate tasks and it is well we should all appreciate the measure of the problems which this Bill involves and that the result desired will only be achieved if we have sustained efforts and we do not falter. One of the restrictive elements in the situation is in my view the inadequate financial provisions of the Bill which cast, I submit, undue burdens upon the rates. I would like to utter this word of warning, that a good deal of the enthusiasm now dis-
138
cernible for better education may seriously wane if it results in calling upon ratepayers to pay higher rates. There is a definite relation between enthusiasm for social services and the measure of rates which ratepayers have to pay. We must resolve now that whatever the situation in the future may be there shall not be raised again the Geddes axe, that there shall be no National Economy Committee hewing away the education provision made for the children of this country. I was interested when the Minister of Reconstruction in moving the Second Reading of this Bill referred, as he was quite properly entitled to refer, to the satisfaction he felt in the much wider provision of school meals, but I remember that my noble friend Lord Addison was gibbeted in the Press as a squander-maniac because he provided a quarter of a pint of milk for some school children. That kind of mentality may express itself again, and if that be the case we shall not realize the hopes and expectations which are possible from this Bill.
With regard to the raising of the school-leaving age I want to make this point. We must so contrive that not only the scholar but the parent is satisfied that this extra year at school will be turned to profitable education account and will not mean merely continuing at school for a further year. Rightly or wrongly the average child looks upon leaving school at the age of fourteen as passing into freedom. Two or three months later they may find that they have entered into another kind of atmosphere perhaps less free than the school, but it is the case that most of them regard leaving school as passing into freedom. Unless they can be satisfied in their own minds that this extra year is of value in education and does not merely mean hanging on at school, there will be a reaction among children and parents which I think will be fatal to the scheme of education.
I would like to say a few words also on the subject of young people's colleges. I confess to some disinclination to regard the title as the most appropriate one which could have been chosen. The provision of these colleges even for the first year from fifteen to sixteen, which I gather is contemplated will be the case four years after raising the school age to fifteen, will call for many new schools. It is estimated that when the scheme is in full operation

139
275,000 school places will be necessary. I think we can all agree that if these young people's colleges are to be in any sense successful they must have up-to-date modern buildings. We must not do what was done after the last war and select for continued education buildings which had been more or less rejected for any other purpose. There must be up-to-date buildings and they must have the finest equipment. Here again the success of this scheme, which I think is one of the most encouraging we have ever contemplated in regard to education, will depend upon attracting the interest and the support of the adolescents. They must feel that they are receiving education which will enable them to take part in the adult life of the nation. We must remember that for most of the week most of these scholars will be engaged in industry, in commerce, in shops, factories and offices with adults. For one day a week or for two half days a week they will attend these colleges. It is essential, therefore, that we should so contrive that the education they are to receive is attractive and that the parents and all concerned feel that the provision made is educationally valuable.
I hope that too much emphasis will not be laid upon technical and vocational education in these colleges. I do not want the boys and girls to feel that they have just walked out of one office or factory into another. The cultural aspect of education must be emphasized, those elements in education which, as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said, teach the young not necessarily only how to make a living but also how to live, which teach them the purpose of life. That I think is the most important result that we should seek from these young people's colleges. The tragedy of to-day is that there is a break—it is not perhaps so important whether it comes at fourteen or fifteen or sixteen—when the young people of this country go away and are divorced from education. These young people's colleges can repair that and can as it were complete the cycle of education which has already been commenced. I would also point out that whatever we do in providing young people's colleges or otherwise we shall not produce healthy, contented men and women unless the housing and living conditions of the people of this country are vastly im-
140
proved. Side by side with or perhaps in advance of these educational reforms must go the elimination of slums, for in them you can have no intellectual, cultural or spiritual conditions proper to civilized life. It is to be hoped, therefore, that the Government appreciate that education and housing and conditions of life are in fact two aspects of a single problem.
I did not intend to-day to refer to schools which are inaccurately named "public" schools, because no doubt when the Fleming Committee's report is published we shall have an opportunity of debating that aspect of the educational structure of this country, but I feel bound to make one or two comments upon certain words spoken by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, yesterday. He said:
"If I were to attempt a definition I would say that it is not a system of education they give you but a way of life."
If it is the case that the public schools provide for a better way of life than do the other schools it seems to me grossly undemocratic and unfair that they are not open to the whole of the children of the country. We must remember that no more than 3 per cent, of the boys and girls of school age can go to public schools. Then the noble Viscount went on to say:
"And never is the work of these great schools more abundantly justified than in time of war, because they foster a spirit of independence and of leadership, and encourage the acceptance of responsibility, but discourage that spirit of suspicion and that jealous insistence on rights, real or supposed, so often met with elsewhere."
I should be the last to withhold my appreciation and commendation of what has been done by many in the Forces who have come from the public schools. But does the noble Viscount, Lord Buck-master, imply that these qualities of which he speaks have been any less apparent among the bulk of the men and women in the Forces who come from the elementary schools of this country? I think that no more unfortunate time could have been chosen to make a reflection of that kind upon those who constitute, and must constitute, the mass of those engaged in this country, and in many other countries, upon the war effort, whether in the areas of danger or in the workshops or elsewhere.
The noble Viscount also said:
"I do not wish to introduce the question of corporal punishment, but I might perhaps

141
be allowed to use it to illustrate the difference in attitude between those who have attended different kinds of schools. Take a boy at an elementary school, whip him for something that he has done and in all probability he goes whining to his mother with the result that the teacher is prosecuted. Take a public schoolboy, flog him for something which, perhaps, he has not done, and nobody ever hears a word."
Well, I have no personal acquaintance with a public school but I know that the history of public schools is littered with criticisms., and indeed with protests, concerning the brutality of flogging which has been such a marked feature, if not an attribute, of public schools during most of their existence. It is untrue, of course, to suggest that a boy coming from an elementary school has less courage and is capable of enduring physical suffering in any less degree than a boy who comes from, or goes through, a public school. That such statements, which are entirely indefensible, should be made in the midst, as it were, of this great and grim conflict now taking place in Europe, seems to me to be offensive to the bulk of those who are serving this country in the Forces in the cause of freedom and liberty. I cannot but feel that if it is upon such a meretricious basis that the public school system of this country can be defended, then even those who are its strongest critics can scarcely forebear to shed a tear.
I come now to what I regard as a most serious blemish upon this Bill. That is the failure to abolish fees in all schools receiving public money. It is disappointing to all persons of educational good will and social conscience. Whatever verbal gymnastics may be indulged in by the defenders of this Bill, it is the case that out of five types of schools receiving public money it will be possible to charge fees in three of them. The President of the Board of Education submitted a White Paper called "Educational Reconstruction" in which it was stated that the charging of fees was objectionable. The actual words were quoted by my noble friend Lord Ammon in the debate yesterday. The Fleming Committee, by a majority of eleven to seven, recommended that fees should be (abolished, and I would like to read to your Lordships an extract from paragraph 43 of the Fleming Committee's Report. It states:
"On the other hand, to preserve anything less than a 100 per cent, special place system and so allow a child whose parent was able to pay the full fees any preferential treatment
142
on that account would be the abnegation of the principle that the child should receive the education best suited to it without this choice being affected by financial considerations. We wish, however, to stress the principle that the parents' choice, unhampered by financial considerations, should be regarded as a most vital element in deciding to which school a child should go, whatever system is adopted for determining the entries to the various types of schools."
I submit that that is unanswerable. It has received the support of all those who for many years have advocated this reform by which privilege and distinctions should be abolished from the educational system in this country.
The Workers' Educational Association passed a resolution upon this matter as far back as 1917. At that time the most reverend Primate was the President of the Association, and I may say here that we all appreciate the great services which he has rendered to adult education, and otherwise in education. In 1917 at a conference of the Workers' Educational Association at which the most reverend Primate presided, a resolution was passed urging
"the provision of free, full-time, secondary schools for all children who are eligible and are desirous of entering."
The whole trade union movement has long been in favour of the abolition of fees, and of free secondary education for all without distinction. The teachers' organizations have also for many years advocated this reform. The Council for Educational Advance is equally in support of it. Even the McNair Report seems to have assumed that the fees would be abolished because, in paragraph 65—dealing with the difficulty of obtaining suitable recruits for the teaching profession, and the great wastage of recruits from our secondary schools—it states:
"It remains to be seen what the effect of the abolition of fees in secondary schools will be."
The effect will be nothing, because fees are not to be abolished. In short, the President of the Board of Education, in framing this Bill and introducing it, has run away from himself as the person who presented the White Paper on Educational Reconstruction.
But there is a more serious aspect of this problem, and it is that under Clause 76 of the Bill provision is made for a means test to be applied to the parents of those children who may go to schools where fees are payable. In that connexion, I should

143
like to read a further extract from the Report of the Fleming Committee:
"There is another argument which has weighed heavily with us against the solution of this problem by means of such a special place system. In order that this system should cover all the children as they enter secondary schools, it would be necessary to institute a means test for all parents who wished their children to enter schools where fees were charged. Such a means test is already carried out in all areas by the local education authorities, and has proved itself open to serious objections."
That will be continued as regards those schools where fees are still payable, as I read the clause and as I am advised.
The result will be, therefore, that there will be a cleavage between the schools which are free and the schools in which fees will still be charged. The fee-charging schools will inevitably be rated higher in educational and social esteem than those which are free. It may not be the case that they are entitled to this higher status, but it will exist and it will persist. It is as important to make it appear that there is social equality in education as that there should in fact be social equality in education. Educational policy is social policy, and I cannot see how, if educational distinctions are to be maintained, social distinctions can fail to flourish. Moreover, certain secondary schools which are now aided may become assisted schools or direct-grant schools in order to maintain fees and that snobbish prestige which some attach to the ability to charge fees. In London there are not wanting already indications that certain aided schools are looking round for means by which they may cease to be aided schools and become assisted or direct-grant schools. That is a very serious circumstance. If that is persisted in, it will widen the field of schools which can be entered only if fees are paid and where, if parents cannot afford to pay them, they must be subjected to all the offensiveness of an income or means test.
It has been suggested that it is desired to preserve diversity in secondary education. All of us want diversity, but it is wrong to assume that there is less diversity in the schools run by education authorities than in the schools outside. The contrary is frequently the case. There is as much diversity in many of the secondary schools maintained by local education authorities as is to be found in the independent or fee-charging schools, and much
144
more experimentation. The President has said that he will revise the direct-grant list. I think that Parliament should be told on what basis he proposes to revise this list. Is it to be done in such a way that there will be fewer fee-charging schools, which will mean that there will be fewer free places? If so, we may run the risk of having a kind of enclave of a special type of school distinguished from the rest only by the fact that it charges fees.
I wish to represent to your Lordships and to the noble Earl who is going to reply that in my view, and in the view of a large majority of people outside who have taken an interest over many years in education, this is a very serious defect in the Bill. I regret that the President did not have the courage to take this great opportunity of enabling us to have an educational system from which privilege shall be excluded, and in which all children in the realm shall be equal, so far as their educational opportunity is concerned. Schools of various types should be provided and diversity maintained, not by reference to the financial position of the parents of the children, but by reference to the educational needs of the children themselves. It is a sorry fact that at this time, when there is so wide a degree of common sacrifice in a common cause, those who return from overseas and from the Services will come back to find that the children, educationally, will still be divided into the Haves and the Have-Nots, and there will still be education which is open to the privileged alone.
Lord SOULBURY: My Lords, in speaking upon a Bill of this importance and magnitude, it is not at all easy to confine one's observations within a narrow compass. If time were not so precious I should have liked to give myself the pleasure of eulogizing the President and his Parliamentary Secretary for having piloted through another place the finest and best Education Bill which is ever likely to find its way on to the Statute Book. I should have included in my eulogy the Parliamentary draftsman, because this is a masterpiece of draftsmanship. I am afraid I shall not have time, either, to supplement the apparently sketchy acquaintance of the noble Lord opposite with some aspects of the public schools. In order to avoid inflicting too long a speech on your Lordships, I propose to limit what I have to say to

145
one or two features of this Bill about which I confess that I have certain misgivings.
Before doing so, I should like to say that there is another misgiving which I felt last year when the White Paper was produced and, when your Lordships debated that White Paper, I ventured to say that it seemed to me rather difficult to justify the retention of fees in direct-grant schools while abolishing them in the schools maintained or aided by the local education authority. I think I said at the time that, as both those types of school were in receipt of public funds, to make a distinction between them seemed to be somewhat illogical. Since I have read the observations of the President in another place on that topic, however, I have changed my mind, and I think that the President is right in making the distinction. As he pointed out, if by the paying of fees a parent were enabled to purchase a place for his own child in such a school, and thereby exclude a better arid more deserving child, such a proceeding would be quite wrong; but the President expressed himself as perfectly satisfied that he would be able to take steps to prevent any such wrong occurring, and accordingly it would be wrong of him to prevent a parent from contributing to the cost of his child's education in such a type of school if he felt so disposed.
I think that the argument of the President is perfectly right, and there are other reasons in favour of what he proposes. If fees were abolished in direct-grant schools, one very probable result would be a considerable increase in the number of parents entering their children for the independent schools. That may j or may not be a good thing, but it is certainly not the object of this Bill, and it would not be desired by noble Lords opposite. The cleavage to which the noble Lord, opposite referred between types of school would be more acute than at present. At any rate the range of the problem is, as the President pointed out, very small indeed. He said that something like 4 per cent, of the total schools involved would be able to charge fees, so that it is not a very serious infringement of the principle which the noble Lord opposite has expressed. I find myself converted by the President's argument, and it does serve to remind one that in
146
human affairs one should not be too much governed by logic. I am fortified in my conversion by an observation of a famous namesake of the President's, though I believe not a relative, Samuel Butler, the author of Erewhon, who wrote:
"Extremists alone are logical, and they are absurd. Man alone is practical, and is always illogical."
Now I come to my very few misgivings. The first of them refers to the programme of local administration contained in the Bill. This is, I am afraid, a rather dry and technical topic, but it is of considerable importance. Your Lordships will realize that a cardinal principle of this Bill is that the system of education should be organized on a unified basis and the education of child should be a continuous and progressive process. The present lay-out of administrative authorities is quite inappropriate to any such principle. Accordingly the Government propose that the same authority should be responsible in the area for all the types of education and that that authority should be either a county council or a county borough. That reform is more than forty years overdue; it was the method of administration proposed by Sir John Gorst in his ill-fated Bill of 1896. That was, I think, the historic occasion on which the then President of the Council, the Duke of Devonshire, charged with breaking the sad news to the author of the Bill, used the somewhat brusque but famous phrase "Gorst, your damned Bill is dead." But the reason for the dropping of Sir John Gorst's proposal was the very severe opposition of the non-county boroughs and the urban districts, and as a consequence the Government in the Act of 1902 created the Part II and Part III authorities which are with us to-day. That was an educational misfortune and has produced very grave educational disadvantages since.
Indeed, as the McNair Report points out, the parallel and overlapping system of elementary and secondary schools has complicated almost every other educational problem, and it does serve to show how much harm can be done by preferring political expediency to educational principles. The Fisher Act made no attempt to deal with the problem. In the Reports of various Committees, the Hadow Report, the Spens Report, the May Report, the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates in 1939 and, more recently still, in the memorandum which I caused to be

147
circulated to local education authorities in the summer of 1941 as a basis of discussion of many of the reforms which I am so happy to see in this Bill, it was recommended that there should be a single type of authority responsible for all the types of education. The President is now proposing to do what Sir John Gorst wanted to do forty-eight years ago, that is, to make the county council and county borough the authorities responsible for education in their areas. I am convinced that the President is absolutely right; he has grasped the nettle and taken action at the centre. If I may illustrate what I mean from the memorandum of 1941 to which I have referred, it is there stated that
"To look for reform by way of local action is idle. Civic pride will rarely allow a borough or urban district to admit that its functions could be better discharged by another authority and the full force of vested interests will be marshalled in support of the maintenance of the status quo."
Civic pride is very natural and very commendable, but it must not be allowed to prejudice the education of the children.
Accordingly the President has hit upon what I think is a very ingenious system of delegation which is quite a novelty in the history of our municipal law. It is designed to remove these artificial divisions and overlappings but at the same time to preserve the local interest in administration and the very valuable local knowledge. But my misgiving is this. I am somewhat anxious lest in the Government's commendable endeavour to combine the administration by the larger units with delegated responsibility to the smaller units they may push the delegation a good deal too far. I do not propose to give any detailed objections at this time because they might be better put forward on the Committee stage. I will give one or two illustrations and ask my noble friend one or two questions which it may be necessary to deal with in Committee. Under this Bill schemes are to be made to partition the county areas into districts or divisions administered by what are to be called divisional executives, and boroughs or districts with a certain population or a certain number of children at school will have the right, the absolute right, to become "excepted districts." So far as I can make out, in the Bill the only power denied to an excepted district will be the power to
148
borrow money or raise a rate; that will remain the province of the county council—a very important reservation. Otherwise the scheme of divisional administration prepared by the district, if approved by the Minister, may confer upon it, so far as I understand, complete county or county borough status.
If I am right in so thinking the result might not be altogether satisfactory. For instance, in Clause 10 of the Bill it is contemplated that there shall be drawn up what is called a development plan for the area of the county as a whole. That indeed is essential in order to unify and co-ordinate the educational administration in the area. It is I should say one of the main reasons for getting rid of the Part III authorities. But so far as I understand the Bill, there is nothing in it which would prevent an excepted district from including a development plan in its own scheme. So you might get two or more development plans in the same area. This I should say would defeat one of the objects of the Bill. I would therefore like to ask my noble friend this question: If the scheme of an excepted district includes a development plan for the district, will the Minister be prepared to approve it or will he decide that the development plan should comprise the whole area and should be the responsibility of the local education authority and should not form part of an excepted district scheme?
Again, the Government have stated repeatedly in another place that teachers shall be in the employment of the local education authorities, as they are at present, and shall not be the employees of an excepted district or divisional executive. But who may appoint or dismiss the teachers, seeing that the scheme if approved may give the power to an excepted district or divisional executive to appoint and dismiss the teachers? That might itself cause considerable embarrassment and so I put this second question: Will the Government arrange that neither the appointment nor the dismissal of teachers can be made effective without the consent of the local education authority? I could of course give some of the reasons for this but I think that had better be deferred until the Committee stage, though perhaps the noble Earl can give me an assurance which will make it unnecessary to go into the matter any further.

149
The third question I desire to ask is this: Will the divisional executive, excepted or otherwise, have the power to lay down regulations and conditions of service for the employees in their area; and if so, will the Minister ensure that these regulations do not vary from those laid down by the local education authority for the whole area? My fourth question is: Will the local education authority have the power to inspect any school or educational establishment maintained by the authority although it is in the area of the divisional executive, excepted or otherwise? As the school belongs to the local authority and the local authority has the duty imposed upon it of providing the school, it would seem to me that inspections should be carried out by the officers of the authority and not by the method of delegation. Of course my noble friend may reply first of all that all these questions can be settled when the Minister comes to approve or disapprove the scheme that is submitted to him. That may be, but I do not think that is quite good enough. A Minister's decisions, however judicial they may be, are not quite the same thing as an Act of Parliament or as a judgment of a Court of Law. I should think the Minister might prefer some of these points to be determined by Act of Parliament rather than that they should be left to him to take ad hoc decisions in individual cases. My noble friend may say that it is laid down in the Bill that disputes between authorities and divisional executives can be referred to the Minister. There again, I should think the Minister might prefer to have the possible area of dispute limited by Act of Parliament in advance.
As a last resort, it may be said the local authority can refuse supply and reject the divisional executive's estimates. That is perfectly true, but it would be putting the local authority in a very disagreeable position. It might be the cause of unending friction and bickering, and in a good number of cases the aggrieved executive would take the matter to Parliament. The task of securing the county council's responsibility for all types of education in their areas, and at tile same time providing the divisional executive with sufficient authority and sufficient autonomy to justify its co-operation and interest, is a very difficult one. But the Government have said, and said repeatedly,
150
that they will take a firm stand on the basis that the local authority should be the county council or the county borough, and I very much hope that the Government will not be driven off that basis, otherwise I should fear that in the praiseworthy desire to conciliate the Part III authorities the Government may fall between two stools and make the worst of both worlds.
My last point is in regard to the future of this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament. It has been said already that it is one thing to put a Bill on the Statute Book and another to get it working. This Bill provides for the raising of the school-leaving age from fourteen to fifteen on April 1, 1945, and it is provided in the Bill that if further time is required to obtain an adequate supply of teachers and buildings to cope with the additional age group, the Minister may, by order, postpone the coming into effect of the raising of the school age by two years—that is, until April 1, 1947. After that date, the order ceases to have effect and the age will be raised.
For the last twenty years everyone interested in education has advocated raising the school-leaving age to fifteen, but in most cases with the proviso that, as a condition precedent, there should be adequate provision of teachers, and teachers of the right type, and adequate provision of accommodation. Under the Education Act of 1936 the date for raising the age was September 1, 1939. I remember the then President of the Board of Education, Mr. Stanley, giving reasons for fixing the date so far ahead. For instance, the local authorities 'would not be ready sooner, and he could not consider only those who managed to solve their problems quickly. It had to be the pace of the slowest ship. If the voluntary schools were to have time to plan and negotiate, three years would be necessary, and it was of great importance that further time should be allowed to complete reorganization. He said:
"I think that it is the opinion of most people interested in education that the addition of an extra year to the school age, without reorganization, is of very little educational value."
In February, 1936, when that Bill was introduced, the percentage of children over eleven in reorganized schools was, in urban centres, about 65 per cent, and in rural centres about 27 per cent. The last figures I have got, for March 31, 1939,

151
show that the percentage in the urban areas was 70 per cent, and in the rural areas 30 per cent.—a comparatively small increase. To-day's figures, as a result of evacuation, transport difficulties, and so forth, I should say are somewhat less, but I have no accurate comparable figures. The President of the Board of Education said in another place that only 16 per cent, of the voluntary schools were reorganized into senior, junior, and primary, and as regards council schools only 62 per cent, of the council school-children had the advantage of reorganized secondary education. The position in the country districts is that only 20 per cent, of the schools are reorganized into secondary schools. The White Paper to which I referred itself stated that "complete reorganization is the most crying need in the field of whole-time education." Then there is the matter of buildings, to which the noble Lord who spoke last has referred. The problem in 1936 was that much more accommodation was needed in order to enable the age to be raised in three years' time. There was considerable building between 1936 and 1939, but I very much doubt whether we are to-day where we left off in 1939. Indeed, as the noble Lord said, we have lost about 150,000 places through enemy action.
Then there is the no less important problem of supply of teachers. As Mr. Stanley said at that time:
"Not just teachers but teachers trained for the particular job they will have to do."
In 1936 there were 193,000 full-time teachers in elementary and secondary schools in England and Wales. In 1938 the number was 191,000. I have no accurate figures for to-day. The number seems to be in the nature of 175,000, which would be accounted for by many of them having gone on war service. As the noble Lord has pointed out, the McNair Report estimated that 250,000 teachers would be required for the primary and secondary schools, and if all the reforms proposed in this Bill were to be carried out something like 300,000. I mention this because it is obvious that all these considerations which in 1936 made it necessary to allow at least three years for raising the age to fifteen are operating to-day, and some of them are operating with even greater force than they had in 1936. And yet under this Bill the permitted interval is
152
already less than three years, and the war is still continuing.
Of course, the Government are perfectly well aware of this position, but it should be stressed for two reasons. In the first place, there is a good deal too much optimism prevalent in some quarters as to the date when the school-leaving age can be raised or should be raised. For example, I observe in the Spectator of May 19 a leading article entitled "Society and the Teacher," in which it is said:
"The raising of the school age to fifteen which in the Fisher Bill was permissive and has been virtually a dead letter is now definitely to take effect less than a year hence unless quite unexpected difficulties intervene."
I do not know what the writer means by "quite unexpected difficulties," but I should say that the present expected difficulties were quite serious enough to make the raising of the school age less than a year hence an impossible proposition—impossible, that is, unless all educational principles are to be thrown to the winds. Even if the war ended to-day, does the writer of this article expect that the extra 50,000 teachers could be recruited and trained by April 1 next, and that the thousands of extra school places required—the President says 391,000 places will be required— could be prepared and approved in about nine months from now? Such a forecast is quite absurd, and the longer the war lasts the more absurd it becomes.
But if we find such a forecast in the Spectator, what are we likely to find in less responsible and well-informed journals, and what unfounded hopes have already been aroused in the minds of the general public? Unless the general public realize what are the educational requirements essential to the raising of the school age, there will be a risk that well-meaning enthusiasts may press and induce the Government to raise the age before the schools and teachers are ready. In the attempt already made in another place to fix the date for the raising of the age to sixteen, I detect a danger of that kind. If the Government were to yield to such pressure before there were enough teachers and school places, and before adequate progress had been made with reorganization, the inevitable result would be a tremendous increase in the greatest evil of all educational evils. Large classes—I should like the noble Earl to tell us how

153
many classes there are with more than fifty pupils to-day—cramped space, poorly equipped teachers and a general atmosphere of chaos would cast discredit upon our whole educational system.
I should feel happier if the Bill contained a positive prohibition against the raising of the school age until sufficient accommodation has been built, enough trained teachers have been secured and very substantial progress has been made with reorganization. According to the White Paper the Government are not prepared to introduce these reforms until the end of the war. The President has said— and it is said in the White Paper—that if this step were taken within a short period after the end of the war before reorganization is completed, the arrangements for the children's education would necessarily be of an improvised and makeshift character. I hope he will not be forced into making arrangements of that kind for there have already been too much makeshift and improvisation in our educational history. I am sure the President is quite right to make a start with the scheme for emergency recruitment and training of teachers for he can make little or no progress without them. When I was at the Ministry of Agriculture I learnt that the bull was half the herd and when I was at the Board of Education I learnt that the teacher was at least three-quarters of the school.
We must bear in mind, as the McNair Report points out, that if the President is to get the number and the quality of teachers that he needs, a great deal will have to be done to make the teaching profession much more attractive than it is at present. I suppose the normal attraction to a profession is provided by the emoluments or status or a combination of both that it offers to candidates, but for some reason or other the teaching profession has lagged a long way behind other professions in those respects. One would have thought it would have been otherwise. Disregard of the teaching profession has a very long history and the literature of the last 2,000 years or more is sprinkled with gibes at it. Perhaps it may not be regarded as irrelevant if I mention one or two to your Lordships. Shortly alter the disastrous campaign in Sicily an Athenian was asked if he knew the whereabouts of a missing person. He could only reply, "Well, he is either dead or become a teacher." Some 500
154
years later Lucian, in an account of the underworld, describes those who have been kings or satraps on earth as reduced in their future state to beggars and compelled either to sell kippers or teach the elements of reading and writing. We can skip a thousand years and we come to Erasmus complaining that a man stands aghast at the thought of paying for his boy's education a sum which would buy a foal or hire a farm servant. And in recent times we have had that sneer of George Bernard Shaw "Those who can, do, those who can't, teach".
I do not know to what to ascribe this attitude unless it be to some congenital aberration of the human intellect; but unless it is radically changed, unless we all of us come to realize that the teaching profession is one of vital national importance and that it should rank in public esteem at least equally with the professions of medicine and law, the Government will not get the quantity or quality of teachers they need. If the great educational edifice constructed in this Bill is ever to be entered and occupied, then, in the words of the White Paper, the provision of teachers in sufficient numbers and of adequate quality is the master key which will open up the whole building.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I have a particular point to raise in this debate but before I do so I think perhaps it would be only fair to my noble friend Viscount Buckmastcr, who owing to other duties cannot be here to-day, that I should defend him against the onslaught of my noble friend Lord Latham. As, however, I do not see Lord Latham in his place either I will defer that for a moment and go on to say that I want to join in the chorus of congratulation to the President of the Board of Education in having got so large a measure of agreement for this Bill. For the first time agreement has been reached to name one particular only, on the necessity to give every child some form of religious education subject to certain safeguards and agreement that the school shall be opened with some corporate worship. It is a great advance.
I am one of those who with my noble friend on my right, Viscount Samuel, can vividly remember Mr. Birrell's Education

155
Bill and the strenuous efforts he made to secure religious agreement. We can therefore congratulate Mr. Butler on having cut the gordian knot and in some miraculous way, of which he alone apparently has got the secret, induced Catholics, Protestants and Nonconformists—whichever be the lion or whichever be the lamb—to lie down together and enshrine in a clause of the Bill a plan which will give to every child in the land the priceless advantage of corporate worship and some form of religious instruction. I hope the noble Earl will convey to the President of the Board of Education our gratitude to him for this great feat which he has achieved, the blessings of which I think we cannot exaggerate. At the same time, I want to suggest that it is really useless to get this agreement, and to pass this Bill into law, unless you can make quite sure that in this country—which is the citadel of freedom, and only a short time ago the only surviving citadel of freedom in Europe, without whom no religious teaching would be possible at all, for had we been overwhelmed that would have been the end—the children are educated in the duties of citizenship.
A friend of mine has lent me a book called The Christian Counter-Attack and in the pages of that book are to be found stories of the heroic defence of their principles by the clergy of Occupied Europe which must warm the heart of all those who care for the Christian faith but also must arouse bitter anger in the heart of everyone who looks for liberty of conscience. It is a terrible indictment of the Nazis. Until I read this book, which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester was good enough to lend me, I never knew how complete and fierce was the effort of the Nazis to destroy the Christian faith as we know it. To read of the brutalities to clergy of all sort, not tens or dozens or hundreds or thousands of them but tens of thousands of them, made one say that whatever happens this country must stand firm against the tyrant. In this Bill, as I have said, you make it mandatory for the first time that in this matter of religious teaching, although we give the greatest latitude in so many other matters, all local education authorities and teachers must conform to the broad principle laid down. But there is not a word here that
156
all teachers and all local education authorities must teach to the children in our schools the principle of the duty of the citizen to the State. And if I am right in what I have said, as I think I am, we can definitely prove that we were within an ace of losing all that religious freedom. Surely it will be wise, even before we come to those clauses, to put in a definite mandatory statement that every education authority shall ensure that every child shall learn the elementary facts of duty to the State.
I have put down an Amendment to Clause 22 of the Bill, in which I propose that every child shall be taught his simple duty to defend his native land. I have chosen that form of words very deliberately, because "right" and "duty" are to be found in the document to which I shall presently refer and the term "native land" makes it quite clear to all people of all shades of political opinion that so long as we are Englishmen we will defend our native land, and that that is what we are out to do. What is the law of the land which I suggest should be taught to all children? I have had the advantage of a consultation with my noble friend Lord Wright, to whom I wish to pay my humble tribute of thanks for his clear-headed statement of the law to me. He said: "If you are quoting, do not quote me. I do not mind if you do, but quote a book which all will agree to respect—Dicey's Law of the Constitution. This is what that work says, and I am submitting to this House that this ought to be enshrined in the heart of every man—I include teachers and others—and every child in this country:
"The common law right of the Crown is to repel force by force in the case of invasion, insurrection, not or any violent resistance to the law. It is a power which has, in itself, no special connexion with the existence of an armed force."
Now, every subject, whether civilian or soldier, whether a servant of the Government (for example, a policeman) or, on the other hand, a person in no way connected with the administration, not only has the right, but is as a matter of legal duty bound to assist in putting down all breaches of the peace, including invasion and all forms of violent resistance to the law. I want every child to learn that that is the rule of England—that everybody must fly to help when need arises. I submit that that is of more value than

157
Fleets and Armies. It has been proved in the event. I do not think that I shall be asked: "Is this the law?" I think that there will be no challenge to Dicey on the Constitution, fortified by Lord Wright, and, if I may say so, by a wonderful speech—concerning which the Lord Chancellor said to me: "I do not want you to keep on quoting it," but nevertheless I will quote it—made by the Lord Chancellor on an appropriate occasion some time ago. I do not think that there is any doubt that this is the law of the land.
I may be asked though, "Will the teaching of it to the child and to the citizen have a real effect in saving us from the onslaught of the enemy?" I think there is no doubt about that. It must be so. But I asked two people what their views were. One of those whom I questioned was the representative of Switzerland over here, and the other was the representative of Russia—that is to say the representatives of the smallest and the largest European Powers, now free from Nazi domination except for one corner in Russia. To the Swiss representative I said: "Does it make a great difference that you teach every child and every citizen that this is his own individual duty?" (and curiously enough it was that phrase, "his own individual duty," that Lord Wright quoted to me yesterday) "Do you think it is due to that that your country has remained inviolate through so many centuries?" He replied: "There is no doubt it is the foundation of it all—Le fondement du tout."
Not long afterwards I went to see M. Maisky, who was then the representative of Russia in this country—and here may I say that he is now missed very much over here. I put to him the same question. I said to him: "Do you teach every Russian child that it is his duty to defend his country?" He said: "Yes, indeed we do, and we continue that teaching right through." "Has it made a difference?" I asked. Curiously enough he used the same phrase as the representative of Switzerland had used. He said: "It has been the foundation of it all." He then proceeded to describe to me how all difficulties of mobilization were smoothed out because every man knew that it was his duty, and how, when they were overwhelmed, it was not necessary to tell people to use every
158
endeavour to thwart the enemy. They did it of their own accord. Wherever it was possible they became partisans, and performed acts of heroism which the world will never forget, which have saved Russia and, in saving Russia, have probably saved us too.
I may be asked whether this would not bore children. On the contrary it would be the most interesting lesson they ever get, if it is given in the right way. The child would be told: "You cannot leave these things to other people. You must realize that it is your own responsibility, as well as everybody else's. Look at the things which have happened again and again in this war which is just coming to an end"—as we hope—"and in previous wars. It has been the spirit of the people which has saved us; not the Fleets and Armies alone, but the spirit of the people." Then you can quote some other vibrant words, to which I shall refer in a moment. The story of how England has survived against combinations of hostile Powers is a thrilling one, and it has always survived by the determination of our people—even with pikes, as my noble friend Lord Strabolgi will remember, in this war—to be ready themselves to fight when needed.
It may be said that this matter is of vital consequence and can be very interesting to the children, but does it really concern the defence of our land? You had better ask any soldiers, sailors or airmen who have to do either with the recruiting or with the training, or both, of our Forces. These people will tell you that when young men come to them with a knowledge of their responsibilities the training period can be much reduced; in the case of the Army I know that it can be reduced by half if people are keen to learn. If men have always known that it is part of their job in life, they are keen to learn. I suppose that the success of the Boy Scouts was due in the first degree to the fact that they taught from the start the vital lesson that keeping order and defending the country were not the affairs of other people only but were one's own intimate, personal responsibility to the State. That duty has been specially emphasized in what are called the public schools, to which Lord Ammon referred. To the great joy of those of us who were at Harrow, he said that he understood that the Battle of Waterloo was won on

159
the playing fields of Eton and Harrow, and I thank him for that; I have no doubt that it was. Some people may say: "Yes, but you nearly lost the South African war on the playing fields of both schools." I do not think that that is quite true, but at any rate we can approach this matter with good humour. The public schools have laid special emphasis on this matter, and it has been a valuable element in their teaching.
Now that I see Lord Latham back in his place, I must be permitted to say in defence—if defence be needed—of my noble friend Lord Buckmaster, who cannot be here owing to other duties, that Lord Latham had misapprehended, I am sure, what Lord Buckmaster said. I heard every word of it, and I have refreshed my memory since. The sum and substance of it was that if the boys—or, as I think they prefer to call themselves, the men—of Winchester, where Lord Buckmaster was at school, had been more frequently beaten, more of them would have been judged worthy by their Sovereign on their merits of being made members of this House. I do not know how that may be; "Spare the rod and spoil the child" may be a good motto, but I do not know whether it applies to Winchester.
I do think, however, that the kind of class attack made by Lord Latham was hardly merited by Lord Buckmaster's speech, and least of all by the facts of this Bill. Someone who has attended all the debates in Parliament on this Bill said to me that Lord Latham's was the first class speech of the debates in both Houses. For the moment I thought he meant that it was a first-class speech because it was of superlative merit, and in fact parts of it, like the curate's egg, were excellent; but what he did mean was that in all the long debates in another place and in this House up to now the class issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Latham, had never been raised at all. The reason is not far to seek. Throughout the discussions on this Bill, which the Minister has conducted, by common consent, with very great skill and patience, he has carefully avoided the class issue in every shape and form. He has never said: "We will endeavour to keep special privileges for those who can afford to send their children to more expensive schools." On the contrary,
160
he has recognized that in this country, where private enterprise still survives, and people have varying incomes, there must be varying forms of education, but he has carefully avoided anything which could tend to make things harder for the poor. I think everybody will agree that that has been his great effort throughout. I have thought it necessary to say that, because otherwise it might be thought that we passed sub silentio the class issue raised by my noble friend Lord Latham, in a speech which was otherwise full of the knowledge of education which he has acquired by his devoted service on the London County Council.
To sum up what I have said, I have begged the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to give me some assurance that an effort will be made to teach the children of this country, and to teach the teachers to teach the children, the elementary duties which I have described. I want, if I may, to secure that the great things which have been said in the past, the great calls to duty from Shakespeare onwards until finally we come to the call to duty of the present Prime Minister—"We will fight them on the beaches; we will fight them everywhere; we will never surrender"—are never forgotten. I want those splendid words not to be thought of as words used for the moment in a particular crisis, but as words meant for all time, enshrining the determination of the people of this land, at the sacrifice of their own lives if need be, to maintain the citadel of freedom.
Lord GORELL: My Lords, I do not take part in this debate with any intention of expressing dissent from the very general and very unusual chorus of approbation which has greeted the introduction and the passage up to now of this far-reaching measure, nor to dwell in general upon its provisions, on which so many noble Lords have spoken. I do not propose to say anything at all on the religious aspect, which has necessarily and rightly engaged the attention of so many speakers. I want to dwell only upon one aspect of this measure; but it is not merely an important aspect, it is absolutely fundamental to the future success of the operations of the Bill. I think I should say that I take part in this debate at the direct request of no fewer than 90,000 registered teachers—that is,

161
fully qualified teachers—of whom no mention has been made up to now in your Lordships' House nor in another place. So far their claims to recognition have been completely ignored. I shall have something to say about it.
I think it says a good deal for the virility of our public thought and our Parliamentary institutions that twice in the course of a great war we have engaged in the consideration of educational reform. I remember very well the last occasion, which was in the last summer of the first World War. I remember it particularly because I had just come back from France charged with the duty of trying to create an organized educational system throughout the Armies, and owing to the thoughtful kindness of Lord Haldane I was encouraged to make my maiden speech on the Second Reading of the Bill of 1918. Twenty-six years have passed, and one hopes that in some respects at least the parallel between that Bill and this will not endure. That Bill had, as I think most of us recognized, even as this Bill has, seeds of greatness in it, but many of those seeds were unplanted, unfruitful, unenjoyed throughout the long years of sterility end frustration which made the gap between these two world wars. We may hope that there will be no parallel therefore between what we describe as the great Fisher Act of 1918 and what undoubtedly will be known as the great Butler Act of 1944. It is to play such humble part as I may in averting any parallel in that respect that I take part in this debate.
This Bill, as many have said, is a great Parliamentary performance, but merely placing it on the Statute Book is not an educational reality. It is, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Latham, said, a plan, and a plan depends upon its execution. It is, if one may say so, a great piece of machinery. This Bill involves and includes many reforms of which educational reformers for many years past have dreamed and for which a number have worked, and we are very grateful to see those incorporated, as we may hope they will be with the passage of this Bill, into law. But machinery depends upon the use that is made of it. We are building here a great ship, and a ship is of no use whatever unless we can secure the crew by which it will be manned. It seems to me that the whole future of this Bill
162
depends upon two things: first of all, the Minister of Education of the future. We may hope that the time has long gone by when that office was not regarded as of the very first political importance. We may hope that we shall have successive Ministers of Education who will be determined to use the great powers that will be hereafter theirs to the fullest extent possible. But they can only use those powers if they have the men and women to carry out the provisions of this, Bill. And what oppresses me is that in all the chorus of approbation with which this Bill has been received there is to my mind rather a premature note. I would go even further, I think there is an air of unreality about many of the congratulations upon the passage of this Bill.
What hope is there of our securing the teachers that will be required under this Bill? I want to address myself to two aspects of that question: first, the long-term aspect, the permanent national aspect; and, secondly, what I may term the short-term necessities which will arise immediately after this war. There have been various estimates of the number of teachers that will be required under the full provisions of this Bill. Some have given a figure as low as 50,000 more than at present, some as high as 90,000. I think it was the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, a former Minister, who gave the figure of 70,000. At any rate, whatever the number, it is going to be a very considerably greater number than we have at present, and we must frankly face the fact that the number to-day, even under the existing system is inadequate. We must face the realities of the situation.
It is true that the introduction of this measure was immediately followed by the Report of the Committee presided over by Sir Arnold McNair. It is in a sense complementary to this Bill. But though the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of this Bill spoke of the McNair Report as "this most fascinating Paper" it is in this particular respect extremely disappointing. The McNair Report, in paragraph 58, uses these words:
"…the existing arrangements for the recognition, the training and the supply of teachers are chaotic and ill-adjusted even to present needs."
I ask your Lordships to observe the order of those words. The Report places, and rightly places, in my submission, recog-

163
nition first, but there is absolutely nothing whatever in the whole of that Report to show how that recognition is to be achieved. There are three paragraphs which deal with the question of the recognition of the teaching profession, and that word is quite erroneously and loosely used throughout the Report, but there is absolutely nothing to show how that recognition is to be achieved. The Report is accompanied by a prefatory note by Sir Maurice Holmes, in which he uses the words:
"There must be a supply of teachers adequate both in quantity and quality."
Quantity there is put first: I myself would have infinitely preferred—though I do not wish to attach much importance to the order—putting quality first.
At any rate there is a consensus of opinion, I think, among those who have studied the facts that this question of the adequate supply of teachers is absolutely vital to the successful operation of the 33111. It is not merely a question of the supply of teachers. It must be an adequate supply and they must be adequately qualified. I do not think that we can be said, either as a nation or as a Parliament, to be facing realities if we agitate for smaller classes, if we fix a date for raising the school age, unless we can be assured that when the time comes for that date we shall have the teachers that are required. We are putting the cart before the horse. I do not in the least criticize the building of the cart—obviously that has got to be done—but it is not quite reasonable to build a cart larger and heavier than the horses you expect to have will be able to draw.
I say that there are three requirements which must be satisfied before there is any reasonable probability of the supply of teachers meeting existing needs, and there has been no indication yet that these requirements are going to be fully met. First of all, you will have to increase the emoluments of the teaching staff. I think there is agreement that that is so, and the McNair Report deals largely and lengthily with that point. That is material, and it is necessary for the material needs of men and women. Secondly, it is essential to improve their working conditions, to give them buildings, playing fields, and in every respect to make their work possible and fruitful.
164
That again is material. Thirdly—and it is the part that the quotation I made from the McNair Report puts first—you must raise their status. The McNair Report has three paragraphs, 100 101 and 102, devoted to the question of the status of teachers but, as no doubt your Lordships will have observed, it makes no recommendations whatsoever. It says that it is easy to make generalizations, but it is difficult to frame recommendations to secure a higher public regard for education, and so it makes none.
Is it not a very singular thing that throughout all the discussions upon this Bill, throughout the deliberations in another place, throughout the debate in your Lordships' House up to date, there has been no reference of any sort or kind to the one movement, a statutory movement, for the recognition of the teaching profession—the one, the only means, by which the teaching profession can be unified? The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield in his speech referred to what he called one of the most promising provisions of the McNair Report, where it recommends the unification of the teaching profession. The machinery for the unification of the teaching profession has been in operation for thirty-two years, only it has never been sponsored or backed in any way by the Board of Education. The noble Lord, Lord Soulbury, in the extremely realistic and valuable concluding part of his speech, referred to this. He said that for some reason or other—I took down his words as he said them—the recognition of the teaching profession had not advanced. The reason is perfectly obvious. Successive Presidents of the Board of Education have never attached any weight whatever to the registration movement. They have never backed it in any shape or form, and it must be backed now or never.
We have come to the parting of the ways as far as recognition of the teaching profession is concerned. Here you have set up under Statute, a Statute of 1907, in operation since 1912, a great body representative of all classes of teachers, of all shades of political opinion, which is possibly why insufficient weight has been given to it because it has never played a political part at all. It represents the universities, the specialists, the secondary, and the primary teachers—forty-four members chosen by the universities and by the sectional organizations representing these different classes of people, with

165
an independent Chairman, a position I had the honour to hold for twelve years. I ceased long ago to be connected with it, and I am not in any way advocating anything personal in the slightest degree. This body has never been used since it came into existence. Under its provisions we have had over 102,000 applications for registration. There are on the register to-day 90,200 teachers—that is, those who have satisfied their brethren, men and women, that they possess the qualifications to be members of an honourable profession. That is the meaning of a profession, that it has a recognized entry. We have seen it in the medical profession, we have seen it more recently in the profession of architects. They have set up their standards among themselves, and they judge who are properly qualified. The McNair Report refers to the necessity for a single grade. You have got it in the registration movement. They talk about the qualified teacher. That is exactly the same thing as the registered teacher. Why will the Board not make use of the machinery that they have? It is no use paying lip service to this ideal of a profession. You have got to attach reality to it. You only attach reality if you use the professional machinery which is in existence.
This body, representative, as I say, of the whole of the teachers, began its present functions in 1912. In 1929, after it had been in operation for seventeen years, and no use whatever had been made of it, no inducement whatever given to any teacher to register, on the instructions of the Council I had an interview with the then President of the Board of Education, Lord Eustace Percy. I put to him directly the question which it is again my duty to put to the Government: "Are you going to use this movement, or will you bring it to an end?" We were then seeking that all the registered teachers should form themselves into a society, and we desired that we should have His Majesty's permission to call ourselves the Royal Society of Teachers. I said, "It is no use attempting to obtain His Majesty's permission without the support of the Board of Education—will you give it?" He promised me then that he would give it. It was given to the extent that His Majesty's gracious permission was given, and in 1929 the Royal Society of Teachers came into existence, with the Teachers' Council as its executive.
166
Since that date, no use whatever has been made of it—absolutely none. An unregistered teacher may be placed in professional supervision of a registered teacher. There is no provision that headships should be reserved for those who have taken the trouble to qualify themselves professionally. Absolutely no use of any sort or kind has been made of it.
I therefore say that now, when you have come to a position where it is essential to attract more and more people to teaching, the Government have got to make up their minds whether they will use this machinery which at present exists or whether it should be brought to an end. I hope that the noble Earl who I understand is to reply on behalf of the Government will be able to give me a simple, direct answer to a perfectly simple and direct question of which due notice has been given: Will the Government use the teaching profession as it exists in the united body which alone represents all classes of teachers? If they are unable to give that assurance, then it is quite simple to repeal a little piece of statutory legislation which gives them authority for existence. That is the long-term policy. I am not pretending that recognition of the teaching profession, the elevation of the status for which thousands of teachers have worked so long, will in itself produce the required number of teachers. Of course it will not, but it will enormously facilitate the recruitment of teachers in the future, and I would go so far as to say that without some stimulus in the way of enhanced status it is utterly idle to think you are going to get in the future the number of teachers you require for the really successful operation of this Bill.
For a moment I turn to the short-term necessities. Here again I am sorry to be egotistical but I have had some peculiar personal experience of this particular matter. It is so often said, I have heard it over and over again in the last few months, "Oh yes, you will get all the teachers you require out of the Army the moment hostilities cease." There is a short-term special recruitment policy designed to that end no doubt, because the Government have been so pressed, or over-pressed in my humble submission, to fix a date for the raising of the school-leaving age to fifteen. You will not get the teachers out of the Army within any very quick time after the cessation of hostilities and as to that I do not think

167
I speak with any fear of contradiction. In December, 1918, exactly the same kind of position arose and the War Cabinet of that day suddenly decided that all men in what they called Class 43—that is to say, all students and teachers, a very wide and general category—might claim immediate demobilization. The information as to that reached me personally on 10th December, 1918, the very day after the Army Educational Movement had had an Army Order enlarging it from a structure into a real organization. It was entirely dependent, therefore, upon the very class that the War Cabinet had decided forthwith to demobilize. I had at that time the right of going to the Secretary of State for War direct in any matter of urgency and this was so urgent that I did go to see Lord Milner.
Lord Milner had not been consulted on this decision though he was Secretary of State for War and, having found that the orders had already gone out and that it was too late to cancel them, he got on the telephone then and there to the Treasury and a financial inducement was offered to those who were willing to stay. The Board of Education, which again had not been consulted, very generously, and I think very broad-mindedly indeed—and I wish to call this particularly to the attention of the noble Earl who replies for the Government—sent out in December, 1918, a circular to all its local education authorities asking them not to press unduly for the return of their teachers. The reasons are fairly obvious. It is quite true that the education of the nation takes precedence, from an educational point of view, of anything else. At the same time you cannot suddenly and quickly take away those who are instructing the Army. I will give a definite example. In November, 1918, before the Armistice, I had been endeavouring to persuade the Commanding Officer of the great machine-gun training centre to establish in advance educational instructors and get his library ready and so forth. He replied politely, but very reasonably, that he only had people there for intense short courses of machine-gun training, and that he could not be bothered with educational courses and they must wait. On November 12, 1918, the very day after the Armistice, he sent an officer specially down to see me at
168
the War Office and said: "Here am I with many thousands of men in this organization; I cannot go on teaching them machine-gunnery; they won't stand it. Send me instructors soon, also books and everything else." That happened right throughout the formations of the Army. You cannot withdraw, or attempt to withdraw, the instructors from the Army immediately or for some time.
We do not know in what manner history is going to repeat itself. We do not know when this war will come to an end but it is perfectly certain that after hostilities, and for some time after hostilities, large numbers of men will be retained under arms for the passification of Europe and you will have to do something with them. You cannot withdraw the teachers straight away. Therefore, it is not facing realities to ask that this date for raising the school age to fifteen shall be in the early part of next year, or even, I should say, two years later. This is a slow business. We are creating a very great piece of machinery which will take a long time to put fully into operation. Quite apart from the buildings there are many things which have got to be prepared. Those of us who have pursued educational reform in any humble degree desire the raising of the school age to fifteen and to sixteen. We desire also the reduction of classes; but you must have as a condition precedent an adequate supply of properly trained teachers.
A thing that I am most afraid of is that under pressure we shall see teaching flooded by financial inducements and very hasty and inadequate training courses with a large number of inadequately trained teachers, and that we shall have a lower and not a rising standard of education throughout the country. It is from that angle of experience that I do most press for an answer to my question: Are the Government going to recognize and use the teaching profession as a whole? Are they going to negotiate with the one body which represents the teaching profession as a whole? I do not mean on questions of pay, which may rightly be left to the very powerful and very great sectional organizations, but on matters affecting principle, on all matters affecting status, are they going to give to teaching the honourable degree of a profession? I think we are entitled, before this debate closes, to have a direct answer to a ques-

169
tion which is absolutely fundamental to the future success of the Bill.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, speaking as a Free Churchman my first word must 'be one of appreciation to my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Education, now the Minister designate, and to his able and indefatigable lieutenant, the Parliamentary Secretary, for the patience and forbearance they have shown in seeking to reconcile under this Bill so many conflicting interests. I am sure your Lordships will permit me on this occasion to take the opportunity of congratulating the Parliamentary Secretary upon the honour announced to-day that His Majesty has been graciously pleased to intimate that he shall be sworn of the Privy Council, a recognition of wonderful work magnificently done.
In this Bill we see a genuine attempt to provide the country with a far-reaching and comprehensive measure of educational reform. The extensive and imaginative programme for the reshaping of the whole educational system of the country embodied in this Bill has aroused great hope in the country. I am only sorry it has not proved possible to arrive at a settlement of that most thorny of all educational problems, that of religious education. Wise men that they are, I observe that both the Ministers to whom I have referred carefully abstained from the use of the word "settlement" in that connexion. That may well be because, unlike some people, they refuse to indulge in wishful thinking. I must make it abundantly clear that the compromise embodied in this Bill is in no sense an agreed settlement as between the Churches, but one imposed upon us, however reluctantly by the Government and thereafter agreed to by the House of Commons, almost by force majeure.
In view of the immense potentialities of this Bill for good, establishing as it does a Christian basis for education to be given by teachers trained and willing to participate therein, I cannot but feel much hesitation and the gravest responsibility in ranging myself amongst its critics even to the extent I am constrained to do. Free Churchmen suffer under a great disability in your Lordships' House, in that we are not officially represented here, whereas the Anglican Church has two Archbishops and twenty-four Bishops whose powerful advocacy is such as to need no emphasis from me. That being so, I might well be
170
forgiven if I, a humble Methodist layman, declined to enter the lists. My task is an exceedingly difficult one and I crave your Lordships' indulgence as I endeavour to state the Free Church case as succinctly as I can.
For the much better atmosphere and the happier auspices under which we are able to discuss this subject now than was the case forty years ago when I was Liberal candidate for a cathedral city, I am indeed thankful, and I feel that credit for that must in no small measure go to the Church of England. In that connexion I should like to mention the contribution made in another place by the spokesman of the Church of England, the honourable Member for Lewisham West, Mr. Brooke. I must also mention the honourable member for Leigh, who spoke so courteously for the Roman Catholic Church. I want to be most careful in what I say. During prayers at the opening of our proceedings to-day the right reverend Prelate prayed for true Christian love and charity one towards another. Believing as I do that God is in this place my anxiety is to avoid saying anything unworthy of His presence. I recognize that much has been said and written on this subject in the past which is not in accordance with how one would speak or write under the influence of the Holy Spirit.
I cannot of course in the short time at my disposal refer to all the points raised in this debate by previous speakers affecting the Free Church position, but there are one or two which it would be discourteous to pass by, and I am sure that the most reverend Primate will not misunderstand me if I refer first of all to the speech we heard yesterday from the Liberal Benches and acknowledge the exceedingly courteous words that were addressed to us by the noble Earl, Lord Perth. He said:
"I want to address a few words to my Free Church and Nonconformist friends, because I have been told that it is chiefly due to their attitude that our claims have not been met.… Have they abandoned their previous generous attitude towards religious minorities? I do not believe it. I realize that they have a very distinct and real grievance as regards single-school areas, but we were and are fully prepared to meet them on this point."
The noble Earl went on:
"We still hope that in the Committee stage of the Bill this House will agree to certain alleviations."
I feel I must say that I trust that last expressed hope is misplaced. I feel that so

171
many concessions have already been made to the Roman Catholic Church that the Bill is already unbalanced, and I hope therefore that not only will no further concession be made in that regard but that the Bill will be strengthened on the other side.
I as a Free Churchman would be no party to anything unjust to Roman Catholics. The Free Churches fought for Roman Catholic emancipation in England against all who opposed it. I put Home Rule for Roman Catholic Ireland in my Election address as long ago as 1910. County schools under this Bill will not teach Free Church doctrines. We teach them in our churches and Sunday schools. If the Roman Catholic Church claims the right to teach children a distinctive and to us an unwelcome sectarianism, and to do so insists on contracting out from a national scheme, we think it should in all fairness foot the bill. We as Free Churchmen ask no financial help from the State for our buildings nor for the teaching of our principles. Those are taught in our churches and Sunday schools and I will hazard the statement that we have far more Sunday school buildings than either the Roman Catholic Church or the Anglican Church. We have spent vast sums of money on such buildings for teaching our doctrines to our children. If the noble Earl will forgive my saying so, I think the Roman Catholics are making a great mistake from their own point of view. I rather suspect that some Roman Catholics both in the United States and in pre-revolution Germany have reason to be distressed to-day at the results of an extreme policy of segregation, and from our point of view there are clearly most serious disadvantages there. No such difficulties as we are discussing exist in America, as all schools outside the State system—.that is all denominational schools, elementary and higher—receive no aid whatever from public funds.
Now, my Lords, because of the exigencies of time I can only refer to two other previous speakers, and the first of course must be the speech made on the opening day by the most reverend Primate. He drew an ideal picture of an English village with "a virtually homogeneous community in its religous tradition." He said such instances were to be found. I suggest that they are a rarity. Most of the villages
172
of England are not religiously homogeneous, because nonconformity is to be found in every part of the land. The Archbishop went on to explain what is the real value of the denominational school, and he placed it upon "the association of the school with the Church itself." In other words, he looks to the Church school to be the nursery of the Church. Obviously, then, in so far as such school succeeds in its ideal, it tends to lead non-Anglican children into the Anglican Church. His Grace also referred to the question of loans—but I will return to that matter a little later. He further made a very definite reference to the retention of aided schools. I will come back to that again in a moment.
Turning now to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester, it will be recalled that he said that the President of the Board of Education had been "very successful in persuading the different interests to approve." Whatever authority there is for that statement I am at a loss to understand, for certainly the Free Churches have not approved and do not approve. I must be careful in your Lordships' House, but I suggest that the relationship between that statement and the truth is so distant as to be scarcely recognizable.
The Lord Bishop of CHICHESTER: My Lords, I used the word "interests." I did not say "denominations." And it is a fact, surely, that the President of the Board of Education has been able to persuade several kinds of opinion to agree with his scheme—a scheme with which I am not myself in agreement, as I stated at the time.
Lord ROCHESTER: I still hold that no agreement has been reached. Certain representatives of the Free Churches were called in by the Government to see the Board of Education but they had no authority to speak for their respective Churches. They were only expressing individual opinions. I am sure that what is true of the Methodist Church is true of the other Nonconformist Churches also. The representatives were not empowered to speak on behalf of the ruling bodies of their Churches and the congregations, and there has not, therefore, been official approval of this scheme. The most that can be said in that regard is that the Bill incorporates so many great educational reforms that, at a time of grave

173
national emergency like the present, the Free Churches feel that they have no choice but to stand by and see this Bill passed into law, more or less in its present form with all its many serious defects. The denominational question is by no means settled, however, and will necessarily have to be dealt with under another Parliament. I, like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester, can also see an amending Bill looming ahead of us. The Bishop made another statement to the effect that "Mr. Butler gambles on a very large number of non-provided schools becoming controlled schools." I am not following him into that betting terminology, but I would say that the Bishop made it abundantly clear that every effort will be made to retain as many Church schools as possible as aided schools. If such a policy should prove successful, then this Bill will have the effect of fastening upon the country the existing system of denominational schools for some time longer.
My contribution to this discussion is based on no merely sectarian considerations. On the contrary, it is freedom from such considerations for which I contend. In a sentence, our claim is to be Free Churchmen in a free State, in fact as well as in name. We are asking that there should be schools available in all areas predominantly under public control where teachers should be free from ecclesiastical tests; that in the selection and empowering of such teachers the question of denomination, as distinct from their Christian character, should not be allowed to enter in. I agree most fully with what the noble Lords, Lord Soulbury and Lord Gorell, said to-day that the teacher is the key to the whole situation. The calling and work of the teacher must be invested with new honour and dignity, and raised, as the noble Lord, Lord Gorell, has just said, to a new status, and I would add a status commensurate with, say, that of the medical profession or even of the ordained Ministry. It is a great vocation. We are told that the aim of this Bill is to give every child equal opportunities. Will anyone say that it gives every teacher equal opportunities? Thousands of posts are closed to teachers otherwise well fitted simply because they do not belong to the Anglican or Roman Churches.
But I have argued that case in your Lordships' House before, and I will not
174
pursue it now in view of the little time at my disposal, as I want to concentrate upon another matter, which, to Free Churchmen—and I think to many others—is the outstanding blemish of this Bill. Notwithstanding the alterations made to this Bill during its passage through the House of Commons, while providing educational advance in many directions, it is, nevertheless, in some ways actually retrogressive. In fact the ideal of one national, un-sectarian system of education is abandoned under this Bill, and the dual system, condemned ever since 1870 by those who put education before sectarianism, is riveted upon the country more firmly than ever. If, in the view of the Government, the sectarian influence is so strong that the dual system must remain, is it unreasonable to ask even now that at least the admitted injustice of the single-school area should be eliminated? Is it just that children of Free Church parents should be under compulsion to attend a school of another denomination where the atmosphere in some cases may not be altogether free from opposition to the Protestant faith?
Conscience clauses providing for segregation or for transport elsewhere, do not in practice nullify the injustice. Schools provided for the purpose of one denomination constitute in 4,000 areas the only provision for children of other denominations, and even if that number were reduced by one half, of which we have no guarantee whatsoever, that would only be a difference of degree, not of principle. Clerical managers in certain dioceses seem determined that these schools shall not be changed, either in control or outlook. In these schools the religious teaching is commonly given by the clergymen, and is apt to be such as denies the true churchmanship of all Churches which have not an episcopal form of government. The little village chapel, maintained by the parents of Free Church children, is thus disparaged, if not derided. The Church to whom so much money has been given by this Bill, in order to give their schools continued existence, should surely be willing in return to concede that consideration for others which they desire for themselves. If a plebiscite of the inhabitants in single-school areas were taken to-day, and they were free to say whether they would now have a denominational school or a county school, is anyone in any doubt as to what their answer would be? I be-

175
lieve that they would unhesitatingly ask for a county school. This Bill, however, gives them no such option. The headmaster of a village Church school informed a Methodist minister this year that 95 per cent, of the children in that school were Methodist children. Roman Catholics say that they do not regard this Bill as a final settlement. Neither do we. By its passage more public money will be provided by the State for sectarian schools than ever before, and the grave injustice of the single-school areas will remain, even if in a less degree and in a more attenuated form.
In the debate in your Lordships' House last year on the White Paper, I ventured to say:
"My appeal is to the Government and the Church of England that, in the case of single-school areas, there should be no choice of alternatives, but that all schools in such areas should become controlled schools."
Resisting an Amendment to that effect in the House of Commons this year, the President of the Board of Education admitted that the claim was not unjust and added "Indeed, the claim is perfectly reasonable." The most reverend Primate has publicly admitted our grievance, and so have many other spokesmen of the Anglican Church; yet single-school areas are to remain under this Bill, and in my submission will be more firmly established than ever in those places where they will be continued. The Government White Paper, after condemning the whole system of dual control as "inconsistent with proper economy and efficiency," added:
"… very many of the Church of England schools … particularly those in rural parishes where no other school is available, have in course of time come to be attended by a high proportion of children of non-Anglican parents. It is felt to be a real grievance that these children can only receive Anglican religious instruction unless they are made conspicuous by being withdrawn therefrom.
I ask your Lordships to note specially the concluding words, "unless they are made conspicuous by being withdrawn."
What are the concessions said to be made in this Bill to meet this admitted injustice? Clause 27 reproduces a previous provision in Section 12 of the Act of 1936, and is in no way new, whereby in an aided or special agreement school
176
Free Church parents may claim the right of agreed syllabus teaching for their children; but that in itself makes them conspicuous. Clause 53 (1) provides that—
"A local education authority shall make such arrangements for the provision of transport and otherwise as they consider necessary or as the Minister may direct for the purpose of facilitating the attendance of pupils"
at other schools. Is there any statutory protection for us there, protection as of right? The principle for which we contend is not conceded, and if the local education authority does consider it necessary, or if the Minister does so direct, and if Free Church parents do press for such transport to send their children to the nearest county or controlled school, by the very fact of so doing their children, in the words of the White Paper, are "made conspicuous."
But that is not all. Incredible as it seems to us, more public money is to be granted for the express purpose of rehabilitating and perpetuating these very schools. A further concession is said to be made to us by the Amendment which has been made to Clause 99. How can that be? I confess that I am at a loss to appreciate any sense of concession there. The clause as amended provides that upon application for a denominational school to become an aided school, if in addition to the 50 per cent. grant of public money a loan is sought from public funds in respect of the balance, then in single-school areas, before granting such a loan,
"the Minister shall consult such persons or bodies of persons as appear to him to be representative of any religious denomination which, in his opinion having regard to the circumstances of the area, are likely to be concerned."
I confess that it seems to me that there is a little confusion of thought in suggesting that that is a concession to Free Churchmen. The granting of loans was a concession to Roman Catholics, which the Anglicans very readily supported as benefiting them too; but Free Churchmen objected, and they will do so even more if this provisions of loans should apply in single-school areas. We were given distinctly to understand that that would not be so. To suggest, therefore, that this provision for the Free Churches to be consulted in conjunction with the diocesan authority in this connexion is in any sense a concession to Free Churchmen is grotesquely beside the mark.

177
I agree that it is something to the good that for the first time the single-school area is defined in this clause, but to say that there is anything here which sub-stantially removes the grievances of Free Churchmen or solves the problem of single-school areas is to handle the truth carelessly. When the new clause empowering the Minister to make loans to aided schools was moved by the President of the Beard of Education in the House of Commons on April 4—this is the point to which the most reverend Primate referred, and to which I made reference earlier—the President said he desired
"to make quite clear … these loans shall not be used in the case of Anglican schools to perpetuate the grievance of the single-school area."
Later, my right honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary said in the same connnexion:
"We cannot contemplate this clause being used to perpetuate the single-school-area grievance in the 4,000 parishes where it exists."
The very day after those statements were made in the House of Commons by His Majesty's responsible Ministers, the Congress of the Free Church Federal Council agreed unanimously that in their opinion "no loans should be made in respect of schools in single-school areas." I therefore ask right reverend Prelates and others who think that this is an agreed scheme not to let it be said that the Free Churches are a party to any such loans being made.
Then there is the major compromise of this Bill, the controlled school. That is said to be a concession to Free Churchmen. So be it; but surely in that case it is in the single-school areas of all places that such a concession should be not merely operative but obligatory. The whole conception of the controlled school is a movement away from the rigour of the dual system in the direction of public control, and much to be preferred to the aided schools. That is why I am content to ask for controlled schools in single-school areas, as a compromise. I am not pressing for county schools in such areas, although I submit that we should be quite justified in doing so. Resist this lesser claim and I say to our Anglican friends that the larger claim is likely to become the more insistent. Is it unreasonable to ask our fellow Christians to meet us in this way? I think many people must be surprised at the moderation of our request.
178
Let me ask what would have happened if this Bill had not been brought forward. I suggest that in that case the Church of England would have handed over their schools at an increasingly rapid rate to the local education authorities. She would then have been free to throw her energies into a great scheme of national education with a single mind, to the immense advantage of Anglicans and Free Churchmen alike. By the device of the controlled school the Bill creates an entirely new type of school, and although Free Churchmen are far from being enamoured of it I think it is so much to be preferred to the aided school that Free Churchmen would be well advised to accept it as a compromise in single school areas. By so doing the Free Churches would be making a very real contribution to a settlement, for their preference would undoubtedly be for county schools with agreed syllabuses and corporate worship.
After all, what are these controlled schools? They are an admitted compromise, albeit still weighted against Free Churchmen. They are denominational schools which will have the whole cost of reconstruction and the future cost of maintenance borne out of public funds, but will retain two denominational managers, one of whom will be the incumbent in the case of the Church of England schools. Those two denominational managers will have the statutory right to veto the appointment of certain reserved teachers. Really the creation of controlled schools confers a greater benefit upon Anglicans than upon Free Churchmen. But in that we acquiesce if by so doing we can go forward together. The real difficulty is—and I recognize it quite frankly—that the hour has now gone by when, except with the good will of the Anglicans, we can expect the Government to make such a change in the Bill as to remove this element from it, although I still believe many members of the Government—yes, and of your Lordships' House—deeply deplore the continuance of this injustice. Only one group of men can remove it now—the leaders of the Anglican Church, clergy and laymen, if only the most reverend Primate would lead them, and I know that many of your Lordships are members of that Church.

179
Now that controlled schools have been devised, there is a wonderful opening for a great Christian gesture that may never recur. Oh that the Church would have the courage of her opportunity. Refuse, and an impetus will be given to the purely secular solution, which on the next occasion will be difficult, if not impossible, for both Anglicans and Free Churchmen to withstand. Make no mistake, there will unquestionably be a next occasion! The compromise in this Bill may stave off full public control for a generation, but in the nature of things cannot be permanent in a democratic country. Nevertheless, I realize that spiritual strength, foresight and restraint of a high order are required to accede to this appeal. The Church may withstand this request and think she has won a victory in her negotiations with the Government, but such a victory will have in it the seeds of its own undoing. When Hitler thought he was storming the last streets of Stalingrad actually he was destroying his last storm detachments. In this Bill the Anglican Church is left with a giant's strength in the matter of education.
"O it is excellent
To have a giant's strength; but it is tyrannous
To use it like a giant."
Why should they so use it? It seems difficult to believe that Anglicans wish to take advantage of the privileges that this Bill puts into their hands in single-school areas. They and they alone at this late stage can remove this blemish from the Bill. The time has come when for good or ill this issue will be decided. This is the opportunity for generosity and for the refusal to press an advantage, for "preferring one another in honour."
The spokesman for the Church of England in another place gave it as his opinion, before the loans concession was made, that
"The consequences of this Bill will be that single-school area schools will be reduced from about 4,000 to under 2,000."
If over half these schools are to become controlled schools in any case, what a golden opportunity for the Church to do the generous thing and offer to accept such new status for all their schools in such areas. If so many are to pass over, why not rise to the occasion and include them all, and do it not because of financial inability but on principle, and thus
180
remove this grave injustice once and for all? What is it that holds them back? Is it that in the controlled schools there will be an agreed syllabus to which both parties subscribe for use in county schools? I would suggest that theirs has been the major influence in compiling those syllabuses, much to the advantage of all concerned, and I would add that may well be even more so in the future.
What is there to fear for the cause of religion in the controlled schools? The fundamental truths of the Christian faith common to all the Protestant Churches will be taught therein, and upon such a sure foundation our respective churches and Sunday schools may advance to teach and interpret their distinctive sectarian beliefs and convictions without let or hindrance. There is a solid core of common belief shared by Anglicans and Free Churchmen alike, which provide a genuine basis for Christian teaching in controlled and county schools. The beliefs we hold in common are of far greater importance than those about which agreement among us has not yet been reached. Such basic truths as the existence of God, His love, holiness and justice, the Incarnation, the teaching of the four Gospels and the ethical standards of the New Testament—these all come within the content of recent agreed syllabuses, as also do the Lord's Prayer, the Ten Commandments and the Sacraments. You can teach the Apostles' Creed on an agreed syllabus. Here is what the Cambridge agreed syllabus says on the substance of the faith—and the most reverend Primate quoted that syllabus in another connexion to develop his argument:
"There have been many formulations of the Christian faith which may be summed up as follows:—I believe in God the Father, Jesus Christ his Son our Lord, the Holy Spirit, the Church, the forgiveness of sins and the life eternal."
Could more be asked in an agreed syllabus for schools? After all, the Christian faith begins with God and ends with the Church. We need to guard against reversing that order and to bear in mind that there is a doctrinal teaching which is not denominational. The President of the Board of Education in the House of Commons said that "the more the agreed syllabuses are known the more widely will they be approved."
In urging the removal of this grievance of the single school-areas once and for all, I am only asking for what some

181
would call democracy in the Bill, and others the preservation of our English tradition of freedom in matters of religion. In an Occasional Review just published by the Council of Christians and Jews, these words appear:
"Let us never be content only to check what products ill-will, but rather to counter ill-will and its tendencies by promoting active co-operation and by uniting in the service of the community which claims the allegiance of us all."
These inspiring words were written by the most reverend Primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and noble words they are too. But, I ask, are they nor equally applicable, even more apposite, to the present impasse between fellow Christians in this single-school-area grievance? His Grace is more than the head of the Anglican Church. He was won for himself the great spiritual leadership of the nation. He is President of the British Council of Churches, comprising all the Protestant Churches of this country, and I for one delight to serve under his inspiring leadership in that Council. The life of the spirit is a life of fellowship with man as well as with God. Peace cannot exist in the religious world any more than anywhere else unless there is justice. I have made my appeal. It is to those of your Lordships who are members of the Anglican Church rather than to the Government, and there I must perforce leave it. I apologize for trespassing so long upon your Lordships' time.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, I most fully appreciate the great sincerity with which the noble Lord, Lord Rochester has spoken, but as I have a certain amount to say from a wholly different point of view I do not think it would add to the merits of the debate if I attempted to answer him. I must, however, thank him for one thing. He has made me renew my youth. Forty-two years have slipped away, and I feel I am back in the House of Commons in my first Parliament in June, 1902. For that I thank him. Before I come to any general argument, I want to mention one or two small points for the consideration of the noble Earl below me (the Earl of Selborne) and of the House. I would draw his attention to the second subsection of Clause 93. On the face of it, that looks a very flagrant attempt to override statutory rights by administrative discretion, and I trust he will be able
182
to explain what are the circumstances which have led to that subsection and how it can be justified. Then, with regard to what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, yesterday, I should like to support warmly two of his suggestions. I object to the word "auxiliary" because it certainly implies a degree of subordination. You hear of auxiliary naval craft, auxiliary service, and one thing and another, whereas the two types of schools are really complementary to one another. Neither ought to have any assumption of superiority over the other. And I strongly object to the phrase, "young people's colleges." From the point of view of those who are to be made to go to them, that form of words is simply emetical, implying control by their elders and betters in its most offensive form.
When I spoke last August on the White Paper, I ended by saying "I do not conclude in a spirit of pessimism." I wish I could now add that I resume in a spirit of optimisim. It is no pleasure to me to prophesy rough things, more especially when I remember the great labours, the conciliatory spirit, the good will, and hard work of the President of the Board of Education. But I cannot do otherwise in face of the stark facts of the situation. I am not out to blame anybody except the late Mr. Cowper-Temple. There are two reasons why I cannot expostulate with him. The first is that I do not know his present address, and the second is that my theological authorities might deprecate my endeavouring to get into personal touch with him. I shall not repeat what I said about his formula last year, but it is strangely anomalous that if two bodies can agree on a formula they can use it—it is legal to use it—however offensive it may be to the rest of the community. I cite a single example. It would be perfectly legal in the county schools of England to teach the divine origin of Episcopacy because that is held by at least two denominations. It seems to me almost a reductio ad absurdum that there should be cases like that, and there are even stronger ones. Well might we say, as the Bishop of Chichester argued yesterday, that they do these things better in Scotland.
Under the new syllabus clauses, what was formerly permissible is now made universal. You must face the fact that you are creating a new establishment of

183
religion by so doing. I do not object, rather I welcome it. If Christ be preached, even though I think inadequately, I can only rejoice; but what I do and must object to is that this good thing, as I think it, should be accompanied by an immense burden on my own community, and indeed on others. That is the stark and governing fact of the situation. I know it is felt by some that if we have been met in some ways it is unworthy to enlarge upon the purely financial side of the question. This enlarging on the financial side of the question is not a matter of parsimony or acquisitiveness, but it is a matter of necessity. The noble Lord, Lord Latham, talked of the financial burden this would lay on the local authorities, though he has the whole rateable value of the County of London and this particular City of Westminster behind him. How very different indeed must it be with a single denomination which, on the average, is the poorest in the country. In asking for this to be recognized for my own communion, I would give exactly the same to everyone else.
It is true that the single-school areas create a separate problem, and I think, as my noble friend Lord Perth said yesterday, that that could be perhaps alleviated more than it has been so far, and although, as I think, the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, went rather excessively far, there is some substance in what he said. If you have schools for Anglican children approved by Anglican parents, schools for Methodist children approved by Methodist parents and other Free Church people, and, of course, schools for the Jewish community under the same conditions, I would give them exactly the same as I am asking for my own people. I think the grievance and the injustice in these cases is the same in kind though not in degree. I might mention that I think it is a most unhappy thing that the Methodist body, years ago, abandoned their schools, and I know that was the view of such people as the late Chancellor of the Exchequer.
LORD ROCHESTER: Will the noble Lord forgive me? We have over a hundred left. Our policy was only to abandon them when a county school was available to take their place.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I hope that the hundred will get a proper and suffi-
184
cient grant and exact equality with what I want for the people of my own communion. I admit that there are great mitigations in the Bill of the burdens. If the burdens had been exactly the same as previously I think the task thrown upon us would have been impossible. I very much doubt whether it will be possible, even now, to do what is required, but at any rate we are going to try and see what we can do. I admit that the loans proposal has made a great difference and the revival of the 1936 Act is a help, but a very uncertain help. The provision as to schools destroyed by the enemy will also help, as will the provisions for playground extension and transport. But the main onus remains. And what is it? It is the enormously increased cost of school places in the last few years.
The Government have issued three different estimates as to what that increase may be over pre-war costs. In the White Paper it was put at 15 per cent.; in the Memorandum attached to the Bill as it entered the House of Commons it had risen to 20 per cent. That Memorandum is not attached to the Bill as it reached here. Under inquiry and pressure the latest estimate of the Government is 35 per cent.—20 per cent. more than their first estimate. We obtained the opinion of a great authority on municipal finance and he said that the complexity of the situation was so great that he really could not prophesy with assurance. The best estimate he could make was 50 per cent, increase. I notice that another authority on building, speaking at the general meeting of the Abbey Road Building Society, Sir Harold Bellman, put the increase at 60 per cent, and I am told that the experts of the London County Council put the increase for the London area—and that would apply also to the centres of large towns—at 65 to 75 per cent. The benefit of the concessions will be swept away if the increase comes to anything like even the mean of these figures.
The estimate is that we should pay on the Government loan for bringing the schools up-to-date a sum of £450,000 annually in interest and sinking fund for thirty-five years, but all these estimates are subject to aggravations and the competition of other works—Lord Portal's great schemes, for instance. Another thing is we do not know what the building regulations will be. Why have they been

185
concealed so far? Why have they not been issued? Why cannot we base our arguments upon the building regulations that the Government are about to issue, Again we have been told that if the Government estimates are too low the situation will be met by the fact that the wages of our contributors and supporters will rise. That, in effect, is an admission that we shall have to depend, in order to raise these great sums, on the pence of working men. A good deal has been heard about fees, but now the fees that used to be paid to the elementary schools are to be changed for the pence of the poor who have to support them. I will not dwell on the question of new schools. The burden may easily rise to £700,000 a year or more for the thirty-five years. When we are told that we have been given more under this Bill I am afraid I shall in reply have to quote the doctrine of relativity. It is quite true we are given certain concessions but they are only relative concessions and the burden that is put upon us is out of all proportion to the concessions that are given.
What must our people think about this? They see that in Scotland they have all they want—perfect fairness. Mention of Scotland reminds me that I was a little surprised by what was said by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of (Wake-field yesterday. He spoke of an agreed syllabus in most of the public schools in Scotland just as perhaps there should be in England. There may be an agreed syllabus in Scotland but it is all governed by Presbyterian doctrine. There are no doubt different schools in the Presbyterian Church. There are supralapsarians, sub-lapsarians, Morrisonians and others. They may no doubt get agreement among themselves. But the fact remains that the Presbyterian religion dominates the majority of schools in Scotland just as the Catholic and the Anglican Episcopalian religions dominate the minority there. I agree that there are great possibilities in what was said by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester, that a true solution lies in the application of what is done in Scotland. People look to other parts of the world. They look to Ulster. In Ulster all the ordinary expenses of primary education in denominational schools are met by the Government. It is true there is a voluntary rate for improvements but the teachers are all paid from Government
186
funds and new schools are built out of Government funds. I need not go further to Holland.
How in those circumstances can our people accept this as a settlement? True they will do what they can to work it, but they will do so with a keen sense of an abiding injustice. This is no ecclesiastical agitation. It is from below, and I have been struck very much by it. It is from ordinary people, the ordinary parents of children in elementary schools. It is they who feel most strongly about it, and among such people there is distinct dissatisfaction with the fact that our episcopal leaders did not take a more militant attitude. When you think of it, "the pity of it." The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, spoke of segregation. It is just because we do not want to be segregated from the mass of our countrymen that we feel that we shall be thrown back and put apart if we do not get some amendment in the present position. And this happens just at a time when we were all coming together more than ever before, thinking more of the things we agree about than the things we differ about. Our people have fought like the rest, they have suffered like the rest, they have prayed like the rest, but I fear that for many the hoped-for joy of victory will be dimmed.
The LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANS: My Lords, those of us who have persistently contended now for not merely a quarter of a century but for half a century that the only true education must be based upon a definitely Christian point of view cannot but be thankful for the fact that at long last—and it is rather a long last—this fundamental principle is recognized in this Bill. I should like to join in the expressions of gratitude to the President whom I am delighted to see is going to be Minister of Education. It reminds me of a certain speech I ventured to make in your Lordships' House a year or more ago. He has stood up for this principle. But there is a second principle we have contended for and still contend for. That is that those who teach the Christian religion in our schools should be qualified to do so. I am not going to be inveigled into drawing swords with the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, because I have another job very soon and time is getting on, but I do want to remind him that whatever else the Church schools

187
have done for this country in the past churchmen have stood firm in that belief. In the meantime what has the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, been doing? He has been accepting quite calmly the position that in the national system of education religion may be taught by people who have no qualifications whatsoever. I do not mean to say that many of them have no qualifications, but no qualification is demanded of them. I will leave it at that.
Why did not the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and those associated with him join with us in demanding that there should be qualifications of knowledge and of conviction, which as a matter of fact from the Christian point of view mean that the teacher of religion should be a practising member of some worshipping Christian community? So far as I know, we have had no help from any minister of the Free Churches or any of their people. It has taken a long time—seventy-four years now—for the country to awaken to the fact that people who teach religion should be qualified to do so. Even now, as a matter of fact, the only necessary qualification is that they should know the subject which they teach. Provision is being made now, as your Lordships know, in this Bill for the first time, that men and women training to be teachers shall have the opportunity of taking this subject of the Christian religion as one of the subjects which will qualify for a certificate. Up to date it has been an extra optional subject that did not count. That is the encouragement which up to now Governments have given to the religious education of the children of this land through teachers. To-day even it stops there.
Church schools have from the beginning been maintained at great sacrifice. We hear people talking of the large amount of money Church schools have received from the State. Does the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, realize that we have had to pay rates and taxes just as much as he has, and that in addition we have saved millions of pounds to the State by doing work which the State ought to have done? That ought to be taken into account and it has been taken into account in this Bill, and in the White Paper acknowledgment is made. It is about time people stood up for these wretched Church schools, whether Anglican or Roman Catholic. They have done
188
their best. Now we are told that children are not to be taught except in brand new, up-to-date buildings. Thank God I was not taught in one. It makes a great deal of difference to the future of your mind. The settlement of which the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, speaks is not a settlement. No one imagines there can be a settlement. Nothing is static in this world, not even the Bishop of St. Albans or Lord Rochester. We are both going somewhere. As time goes on this question will of course be fought out again, and in time amended. I hope it will not be another seventy-four years before this country wakes up to the fact that you cannot teach religion unless you believe it. Well, you try it. I have tried it for goodness knows how many years now, and I know perfectly well that you cannot get across to other people anything unless you are convinced of it yourself.
There is a third tiling we have stood for and stand for to-day, and please God are going to stand for to the last ditch. Christianity is a way of life, and that way of life, as the most reverend Primate reminded us two days ago, is a way of fellowship. It is a way of fellowship first with God and through God with man, remembering the two great Commandments which I expect are familiar to all members of your Lordships' House—first God and then man. We are convinced, and I believe everybody else is if he would only admit it, that you cannot learn to live the Christian way of life except by practising that way of life as a practising member of some living, worshipping, working, witnessing and fighting Christian fellowship. Therefore we contend that there must be a real living liaison between the instruction given in the class-room and the living, worshipping, working fellowship outside.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, imagines we want to have Church schools in order that we may inveigle those who do not belong to the Church of England into the fellowship of the Church of England. I would say to him, as I have said again and again in public—and personally I believe you would not find a single Bishop or a single parish priest who would disagree in this—that we would rather have a hard boiled Baptist than a half-baked Anglican. I hope he will remember that. We are absolutely convinced that this is the only

189
way of Christian education. We realize that it takes a long time to get that into the head of even Lord Rochester, and a longer time still to get it into the heads of ordinary people in this country, but we still stand for it. And I want to say another thing for the benefit of my noble friend Lord Rochester and it is this. For the last twenty-four years (and a half, nearly) since I have had the honour to be Bishop of St. Albans, I have again and again, publicly and privately, invited, on behalf of those responsible for Church schools in my diocese, any Free Church minister, or person authorized by him, to go into a village school—if it is a Church school—and teach their own children. I have made it clear that they would be given every possible facility to teach not only their doctrines, whatever they may be—I cannot teach them myself because I do not know what they are, and if I do know I do not like some of them—and to get into personal touch with their children. I have said to them: "That is what we want you to do." But none of them will do it. My goodness me, it is awful; I have not had a single response. I do not know why it should be so, but there it is. And then to say we are trying to keep the teaching to ourselves—but I will not pursue that point.
It would be entirely dishonest if I gave the impression that I thought that the arrangement envisaged in this Bill was a settlement. With regard to that matter I am entirely at one with the noble Lord who has just spoken so strongly. I do not think that there is anything to be said for the justice of the provision made by this Bill under which, as has already been said, we have to pay 50 per cent. for those schools that the Roman Catholics and the Anglicans have got to put up. I know that nobody can justify it on a basis of justice, but we are prepared to do it for the good of the country if that is all the country are prepared to give us. I have myself shown that I do want to co-operate. With the good will of my diocesan conference, clergy and laity, and all concerned who know anything about it, I have now issued an appeal for £250,000 to be raised in the next ten years. If you know Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire you will know that the area is one of the poorest little areas among the counties of England. I believe we can achieve what we are aiming at. I will not weary you as to the scheme but
190
I think the money can be got in ten years—if we are given twenty years for a loan, all the better. But we are determined to do our best.
If we fail, we fail. But that does not matter. What does matter is that this country should not lose the power of religious conviction. We did lose it in the interval between the last war and the beginning of this, and when the history of that period comes to be written it will be a poor chapter in the history of England as in the history of the Church, in the widest sense. There was a landslide, a land slide from the moral standards of Jesus Christ. We want men of conviction today, and we want groups of people in every parish in the country who feel that it is worth any sacrifice to see that the children of this land are brought up not only to know the Christian faith but to believe it, and to be practising members of a Christian fellowship to the glory of God and the welfare of their fellow men.
EARL GREY: My Lords, we have been listening for nearly three days to a succession of speeches, and we are rapidly drawing to the time when we are only anxious for the noble Earl who is going to reply for the Government to get up and say what he has to say. Therefore, people who intervene between him and your Lordships are deeply suspect. I promise your Lordships, however, that I will try to cut down what I want to say as much as possible. Had there been more time I should have liked to urge the enormous importance of doing all we can to increase the status and prestige of the new Minister of Education so that—as has been so well said by previous speakers— we may get away from the practice of looking upon the Board of Education as a stepping-stone to promotion. It is of the greatest importance that the master hand which drew the blue print should be left to guide the building of the structure which it portrays.
I should like to say something about one aspect of the McNair Report which, as yet, has not been very much mentioned. Quite obviously the sort of teachers we are going to have is a matter of first importance in connexion with this Bill. The President of the Board of Education lost no time on his appointment in 1941 in appointing the McNair Committee. It was appointed in 1942, and it is not that Committee's fault that its Report

191
did not appear until last month and was not in the hands of Parliament, before this Bill was introduced. Had the Report been available it would have been a very great help. But even now the decks are not clear for action. The McNair Committee was split quite evenly upon a fundamental issue, and until a great many points have been decided by the Board of Education the university training departments and the training colleges will not be in a position to know what is going to be expected of them, or how they can prepare to play their parts.
I have been in close connexion with twenty-six Church training colleges on the administrative side for many years. I want to say two things about them as showing the great potential value of the contribution they have got to make. The Church Assembly has no money of its own except what is given to it by the dioceses, and dioceses do not give money to something of which they do not approve. Over the last twenty years, of all the money that has passed through the hands of the Treasurer of the Church Assembly nearly a quarter has gone on legislative and administrative expenses, nearly one half on the pension scheme for the clergy, and a full quarter to the Church training colleges. That is striking evidence of the value which the Church attaches to the training colleges. If any noble Lord had the time to read through the evidence which the group of speakers representing the Church training colleges put before the McNair Committee, they could not fail to be struck by the very close similarity between what was advocated in that evidence and what the McNair Committee recommend in their Report. That, I suggest, is proof of the quality of the contribution that the Church training colleges have to make.
I should like to express on their behalf our great gratitude to the McNair Committee for the admission in their Report, on page 13, that what is chiefly wrong with the majority of the training colleges is their poverty and all that flows from it. The Report recognizes that that poverty is no fault of their own. The colleges are financed in part by fees from the students and in part by a capitation fee in respect of every student from the Board of Education, but the amount of that capitation fee has been static for twenty-seven years, and during that time it can well be understood
192
that the expenses have risen enormously, while the income of the colleges from the Government has not. The noble Lord, Lord Soulbury, called attention to the drop in the number of teachers. One reason for that, no doubt, was that in the "financial blitz" the Treasury cut down the grant which was allowed to be given for training teachers. I can only hope that if another "financial blitz" comes after this war similar action will not be taken. The McNair Report, in paragraph 156, gives hope of a much more helpful and broad-minded attitude towards training colleges in the future. It is worth mentioning, I think, that if we take account of the fact that the total expenditure for education services in this country is going to exceed £200,000,000, we shall realize that to be cheeseparing on the very small amount which goes to the production of teachers would be very false economy.
Had there been time I would have said something about the anxieties which anyone who is a member of a county council must feel at the tremendous amount of work which is going to be placed on those bodies. Your Lordships' House is very rich in experience of local government. The building problems, the regrouping problems and the teaching problems which are going to be thrown upon educational bodies are vast, and, with the best will in the world, I do not see how we can be ready as soon as a great many speakers in another place hoped that we should be to give effect to this great scheme.
I should like to say a word about the difference in the atmosphere in another place and in your Lordships' House so far as the whole religious controversy and its effect upon education generally in this country are concerned. We must be conscious that it was the fault of the Churches themselves that Governments for the last forty years have taken so little interest in religious education in our schools. It was because of the insistence of the Churches on the points to which they attached different values, instead of witnessing to the essential unity of their common allegiance, that Governments were led to adopt a neutral attitude on this matter. It was forgotten that in the matter of Christianity there is no such thing as neutrality. For forty years successive Presidents of the Board have given the impression that this was not a "safe" subject. That impression has spread to directors of education and local authorities, and from them it

193
has permeated downwards to wherever men and women have looked upon the propitiation of their superiors as a step-ping-stone to promotion. In truth it has been a case where those who are not for us are against us.
This blow was not struck against one Church, but against all Churches. Now, however, we have a Prime Minister who has a courage and convictions above politics, and a great historical sense. He spoke in glowing words at the Guildhall rather more than a year ago of his conviction that the glorious past of our race and our hope of a continuing future in which we might still have pride, lay in our continuing search for the will of God. Why should a democracy shrink from assimilating that conviction into its system of education? "Thou shalt love thy God and thou shalt love thy neighbour"— what greater help could any Government have than for that to be the general rule of its people, and where else are the Four Freedoms so firmly embedded?
I imagine that one difficulty which the President of the Board has had to meet is that many of his colleagues have not yet appreciated how far the centre of gravity in the Churches has moved away from the controversies of the paat, especially amongst their younger members. This began long before the war; it is no war movement, although it has been very much helped and accelerated by the war. Up and down the country there is a vast and increasing amount of co-operation going on between the Churches, and between the Churches and the teachers. I venture to suggest that the recent creation of the Council of British Churches was an extraordinarily significant development, even if its importance has escaped the notice of Whitehall. I wish chat the Government would show that they share the conviction and enthusiasm of the Prime Minister and of the President of the Board, and would avoid the use of the word "generous" in describing the treatment of denominational schools. I do not like that word. We are not asking for generosity; we are asking for justice— justice to the Roman Catholics, to the Free Churches, to the Jews and to the Church of England. Many small nations are going to look to us for justice in the coming months, and it would give great encouragement to them and to everybody else if we could have the courage to practise at home what we preach.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords, it is my intention merely to speak very briefly upon one aspect of this great measure which has not yet been fully considered. The British Film Institute, of which I am President, has sought for many years to make known the importance of films and visual aids for educational purposes; and it is on this point only in this vast and complex measure on which I desire to trouble your Lordships. Films and radio are, as your Lordships know, the normal background of every child's life; he is accustomed to listening and to looking, and the educational method of teaching should take cognizance of this. In my opinion, and I believe in the opinion of many others both in this House and in another place, all schools and colleges, where possible, should be provided with a special room for cinema instruction, with an instrument and an instructor.
Arrangements should be made to produce more films for educational purposes. For instance, natural history and the growth of the flower or animal can be taught better by means of a coloured film than in any other way, and the screen has proved in this war to be of immense value for training the Home Guard and the Regular Army, as well as for many other purposes. For that reason I feel that the Board of Education could well take cognizance of this fact and make it their ultimate aim that every school, from the nursery to the university, should be equipped with visual apparatus; in other words, visual aid should be a most important feature of primary and secondary education. It has often been said, and truly, that the screen unites pleasure, interest and useful instruction, both for elders and for children, and I therefore hope that His Majesty's Government will not forget this important point before this great measure becomes law.
THE MINISTER OF ECONOMIC WARFARE (THE EARL OF SELBORNE): My Lords, your Lordships have honoured this great Bill with a worthy debate, very fittingly introduced by my noble friend the Minister of Reconstruction, because this is not only the first fruits of the Government's reconstruction programme, but I think probably the greatest measure in it. Therefore I also would like to pay my tribute to my colleague the President of the Board of Education for the great

195
patience, ability and skill with which he has steered this measure for so many months. I think the speeches we have heard this afternoon have shown us that he has not got quite safely to port yet, but I hope that under his captaincy we shall ultimately get into completely smooth waters. My problem in replying in this debate is to answer within the short time that remains to me the very numerous points that have been raised during the debate by noble Lords with great experience and interest in these matters, who are very well qualified to express opinion and to advise the Government. It really is quite impossible for any speaker to attempt to cover all the ground that has been so ably traversed. Therefore I must confine myself to endeavouring to select one or two outstanding points, and if I fail to answer any particular point of any noble Lord then I hope he will approach me or my right honourable friend, or else raise the matter at a subsequent stage.
The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and the most reverend Primate both drew attention to the urgent need of smaller classes, and the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, added to that his plea for the smaller school, with which I have the greatest sympathy; while Lord Latham asked questions about the priorities of the Government's programme. The programme of my right honourable friend is to have smaller classes, to raise the school age to fifteen and ultimately to sixteen, to have young people's colleges and to promote further education. But the programme of the Bill is in a bottleneck at the present moment, a bottleneck which must continue for some time to come. The whole development of the Government's plan is dependent on two things: the supply of teachers, and adequately trained teachers—what the noble Earl, Lord Grey, said in that respect was, I felt, very true—and the supply of buildings. The people who are demanding that the school-leaving age should immediately be raised to sixteen remind me of the people who in 1942 used to chalk up on walls, "We want a Second Front." These things cannot be achieved in a moment. The Government's order of priority in its plan is roughly this: to raise the age to fifteen, and to bring about smaller classes pari passu with post-primary reorganization. That is what we regard as the imme-
196
diate task ahead—and it is sufficiently formidable—but before it is finished the young people's colleges must be started. After that comes the question of raising the age to sixteen. But in all these phases there must be a certain degree of overlapping.
Then there are the administrative problems that were mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, and other noble Lords, the problem of recruiting some 70,000 or more teachers. The noble Lord, Lord Gorell, spoke on that subject too. I am bound to say the purport of his speech really had nothing to do with the Bill, because what he was asking for was administrative action and not legislative action, and I cannot go into that matter with him this afternoon. My right honourable friend is well aware of the formidable nature of the task awaiting him in this respect. No progress can be made until we have got the right stamp of teacher, and got him properly trained. As has already been mentioned, the President of the Board of Education has sent a circular to local education authorities urging them to facilitate increased provision of secondary school education for promising boys who are coming forward now from the elementary schools; but that is all that can be done at the moment. We must look to the men and women who are now serving in His Majesty's Forces as the great recruiting ground for the school teachers, and what Lord Gorell said in regard to the Army Educational Service I have no doubt is very true—namely, that they cannot be demobilized prematurely.
The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, drew attention to a very important point, to which I am sure my right honourable friend will give most careful consideration. Whether what he desires, and what I think all of us desire, can be furthered by any alteration in the Bill is a matter upon which I should not like to pronounce this afternoon. He told us that he is going to propose an Amendment, and that can be considered at the proper time. I am very much obliged to him for having drawn attention to what we would all agree is a most important point.
Then there is the problem of the local authorities which are situated in not very rich neighbourhoods—the poorer local authorities. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, is quite mistaken in his supposition

197
that the Government's 55 per cent, grant is a flat rate. It is not a flat rate at all. It is a variable rate, so framed that the local authorities in the least well-to-do areas can get proportionately larger grants. In addition there is the special grant for the poorest local authorities which will amount to something very near to £2,000,000. Therefore I do not think my right honourable friend can be accused of not having taken that problem into account. Lord Latham, Lord Buck-master, and Lord Monkswell rather doubted whether any local authority could stand the great expense which this Bill would bring to it. I think we have got to make up our minds to the fact that we cannot get education on the cheap. But if the education is good it will be cheap. The country at all times is master of the amount it desires to pay for social reform and its own improvement.
The noble Lord, Lord Soulbury, asked me certain intricate questions of which he was kind enough to give me notice. He called attention to the devolutionary provisions of the Bill, and asked whether an excepted district can prepare its own development plan. My noble friend seems to be under a slight misapprehension in this matter. The authority which must be responsible for the development plan is the local education authority—the county council—but there is nothing to prevent a county council from delegating responsibility for the preparation of that part of the plan which relates to an excepted district to the executive of that district. Therefore, while final responsibility for the development plan must rest with the local education authority, there is nothing to prevent the responsibility for the preparation of a particular part of the plan being delegated to an excepted district. He also asked whether divisional executives could dismiss teachers. The answer is that circumstances vary. Some of these divisional executives will be very experienced authorities who have been engaging and dismissing teachers for forty years, whereas other executives may not have the same experience. Therefore it would be absurd to say that no divisional executive should exercise these functions. Each case will have to be dealt with separately on its merits by the scheme. The same applies to the question whether divisional executives can lay down conditions of service for their employees. Finally, my noble friend asked whether the local
198
education authority could inspect the maintained schools in excepted districts. The answer for that question is "Yes." The local education authority is responsible, and must have the right lo inspect so as to see that the education is efficient.
The most reverend Primate and the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, spoke strongly on the need for developing adult education. The noble Viscount suggested that a special body charged with the duty of promoting adult education should be set up. Adult education is part of my right honourable friend's programme, and it is embodied in Clauses 39 and 40 of this Bill. Under this Bill, local education authorities are bound to include in their schemes for further education provision for adult education. The progress of adult education in this country must however depend on demand. Grown-up Englishmen cannot be dragooned into being educated against their will. It must be a matter of development of public opinion, and the universities, the local education authorities, the Workers' Educational Association, and similar agencies can ail play their part. I am bound to say that I do not quite agree with my noble friend when he seemed to be disparaging vocational education as compared with cultural education. It may be that vocational education will be the path by which adults are led to cultural education; they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. These are surely early days in which to say how this great movement will develop. It will develop, I hope, in an English way, as a plant of natural growth. I do not think we can hustle it. We certainly ought not to hinder it. We ought to do everything we can to promote its natural and sturdy growth.
The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chief Justice, raised a question about Clause 51. I need hardly say that what he said about that clause is perfectly true, but it is, I suggest, a point which can be dealt with on the Committee stage. That brings me to that part of the Bill which. I think is clearly recognized by your Lordships as the most important part, and that is the part that deals with religious education. It has been recognized here, as it was in another place—and if I may say so I was greatly encouraged by what fell from the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, in his eloquent speech—that unless our

199
education is based on the Christian religion, and unless this nation is brought up as a God-fearing, practising Christian nation, there is no hope for our future, and all our vaunted progress in other directions will crumble into dust. But I do feel it is equally true that religious education cannot come only from the school. Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Quicks-wood, I could not help reflecting that the principles which he laid down, and to which I heartily subscribe, have been in vogue for generations in the great historic schools of Winchester, Eton, Harrow, and the like, but whether these public schools turn out Christians or not has, in my humble judgment, depended more on the homes from which the boys came than on the school. I do not believe you will easily "sell" religion to a child if its father and mother do not set it the example themselves. The foundation of religion must be the home and family churchgoing, and when we are considering an Education Bill the important point is that the school should not be out of harmony with a Christian family life.
Does the Bill fulfil that criterion? Of the great sections into which Christianity is divided in this country, I take my friends of the Free Churches first, and I confess I was sorry to hear the speech—the eloquent speech—of my noble friend Lord Rochester this afternoon. I think the President of the Board of Education has made a great attempt to meet the Free Church grievance in regard to the single-school areas. This Bill assures syllabus teaching in every single-school area, in every parish whether there is an aided or a controlled school. I do not think my noble friend should regard it as a hardship that where there are only a few children who want syllabus teaching they should be conspicuous in demanding it. I do not think that Christians ought to object to being conspicuous; in fact it is one of the things that is enjoined upon us, and known as "bearing witness." With all respect I would say to my noble friend that you will not solve this problem, or any other problem, by ignoring the grievances of the other party and reiterating one's own. We have got to understand the difficulties that each of us feels. I am fortified in my hope that my noble friend does not represent in this matter, however much he may represent it in others, the bulk of Free Church
200
opinion. The very interesting and encouraging speech we heard from Lord Clwyd yesterday approached the problem from a very different angle.
In regard to the Roman Catholics I was very glad that Lord FitzAlan and Lord Rankeillour, while still maintaining their criticisms of the Bill, have, I think, modified their attitude a little from what it was last year in view of the efforts my right honourable friend has made to meet the Roman Catholic community. I think it is fair to say that 95 per cent, of the cost of Roman Catholic education will be paid for by the State and I make no secret of the fact that I would be glad to see 100 per cent. paid.
Lord RANKEILLOUR: May I interrupt my noble friend? Surely he is now referring only to the cost of future maintenance, not to the cost of replacement and rebuilding.
The Earl of SELBORNE: No, I am referring to what the cost of Roman Catholic education will be when all these factors have been taken into account. I would gladly see 100 per cent, defrayed by the State but we all know that if that was proposed we should not get even that degree of national unity which my right honourable friend has been able to achieve. We have seen this afternoon, from one or two speeches, that my right honourable friend has not succeeded in getting complete unanimity, but he has got the consent, the approval and the support of the large majority of Free Churchmen and Anglicans. I do not think that if the claim of my noble friends were acceded to he would be able to maintain that support; in fact we all know that he could not.
My noble friend Lord Perth asked me some specific questions connected with an ingenious point on which I should like to congratulate him. As an old diplomat he pulled out of his pigeon-holes the Polish Treaty, the Czechoslovakian Treaty and the Albanian Treaty, all of which he had probably negotiated or drafted in early youth. He pointed out that these treaties insist on equitable treatment of religious minorities, and that Great Britain was a party to these treaties. He asked me two questions—namely, do His Majesty's Government still stand by those treaties and if so do they think that this Bill is compatible with the spirit of those treaties? I have no hesitation in answering both those questions in the affirmative.

201
Of course we stand by the treaties which we have signed, and I do not think it is fair to say that this Bill is contrary to any provision in those treaties. There are two articles to which the noble Earl drew attention. He did not draw quite so much attention to one as he did to the other. Article 8, I think it is, lays it down that every minority denomination must have an equal opportunity, an equal right, to defray out of its own pocket educational and religious service; for its own people. That is not interfered with by this Bill. The other article lays it down that every denomination must have an equitable share of the common pool of money that is spent on educational purposes.
The Earl of PERTH: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl but if he had followed this matter more closely than he appears to have done, he would know that Article 8 has nothing whatever to do with moneys provided from public funds. That is solely found in Article 9. Then the noble Earl lay stress on the word "equitable." May I inform him that it has always been accepted by experts that equitable in this connexion meant that equal money was to be given to minorities as to majorities?
The Earl of SELBORNE: I am neither a diplomat nor a lawyer but I have been assured by someone who has both diplomatic and legal authority which my noble friend would admit, that equitable and equal are not the same tiling. I am asking him whether he really thinks that the provisions of this Bill to Roman Catholics are inequitable in the sense meant by those treaties? I would like to put this point to him. The Roman Catholics will be getting millions of pounds out of this Bill. Does my noble friend really think these sums will be less than Roman Catholics contribute to the rates and taxes? If he really thinks that and can prove it, I think he might make out a case that they are getting inequitable treatment, but if he cannot I do not see how under the terms of the treaties he has cited it can be held that his minority is being oppressed.
Then we come to the Church of England. The Church of England is in a different position to other denominations because that Church is responsible, not merely for her own congregations, but also for the great population not attached to
202
any denomination in a way that no non-established Church can be. What is there in this Bill to justify the support of Anglicans? It is this, my Lords, that the Bill lays down for the first time that there must be religious teaching in all schools and daily worship. Furthermore it provides that His Majesty's inspectors are to see that all syllabus teaching is efficient. I would remind your Lordships that the President of the Board of Education has decided to make religion one of the qualifying subjects for teachers in taking their teacher's certificates. My right honourable friend has also urged local education authorities to provide for teachers increased refresher courses in religious knowledge. The Bill repeals the limitation that religious instruction must be confined to the beginning or end of a. school session, and finally it rescues the endowments of Church schools which were alienated by the Act of 1921 and returns them to their proper use of denominational or general education.
This Bill creates a great education structure and Clause 8 lays on the local education authorities the duty of taking into account the wishes of parents in framing their development plans. I think that is one of the most important provisions of the Bill to which not quite sufficient attention has been directed during this debate. It means that the local education authority is bound to try to facilitate denominational teaching for those who want it. Those are great advances, and I would ask the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester and noble Lords who have qualms about the Bill to consider how it affects the Anglican child. Under the new system the child from five to eleven can either be educated in a county school or a controlled school or an aided school. If he is educated in a county school of course he will be taught the agreed syllabus. There is no change in practice there. The grievance which the Anglicans have always had in that matter remains and is not touched. But I would like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said in that connexion. A very great work has been done by those who drew up the syllabuses. They have eased the problem to an appreciable extent. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester asked whether we are going to be sure that there will be teachers to teach the syllabus. The answer must be that

203
there never has been any difficulty in getting teachers to volunteer for this teaching. Whatever one may say against that system I think it is important, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield said yesterday, to safeguard against the possibility of people giving religious instruction merely because it would pay them professionally to do so. We know that the men and women who now give religious instruction do it because they want to.
The Lord Bishop of CHICHESTER: The point to which I stated my objection was making religious instruction compulsory by Statute. I am content to let the position continue on the present basis with encouragement. I do not want to trespass on the conscience of teachers.
The Earl of SELBORNE: There really is no practical change in the administration of the law in that respect. If the child goes to a controlled school, he will get denominational instruction twice a week. Here the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester is under one or two misapprehensions. He said no reserved teacher could ever become a head teacher. That is an entire mistake. There is nothing to prevent a reserved teacher becoming a head teacher. Of course if he becomes a head teacher he ceases to be a reserved teacher, but there is no professional bar to the career of reserved teachers. The right reverend Prelate seemed to contemplate that there would be an insuperable problem about giving denominational teaching to children in some controlled schools. He said that 6,000 schools were so small that there would be no reserved teacher in them because there would be only two teachers. But either of those two teachers could volunteer to give denominational instruction and if neither wished to do so then the parson or any qualified layman could give it. Really I think the clergy and the laity must be prepared to take their share in doing this work. The third case is that of the child from five to eleven who goes to an aided school, which will be denominational as in the past, but with this difference that the Nonconformist child mil have the right to have syllabus teaching if his parents so desire. That is a right which I as an Anglican welcome. I sympathize with the Free Churches in this matter. I think we ought, and I know the
204
most reverend Primate has said the same thing on many occasions, to do everything we can to remove the single-school-area grievance. But that cannot be done by denying Anglicans their religious education. We want to give Free Churchmen the opportunity to get the religious education they require for their children.
When we come to children of the age of eleven to sixteen this Bill makes very important changes and very important improvements in regard to denominational education. In addition to the aided and controlled school of which I have already spoken, there is the special agreement school which is purely denominational—denominational in the sense to which we have been accustomed. But the great majority of children I think will go to the county secondary school and in that case we must look to Clauses 24 and 25. The most reverend Primate is perfectly right in what he said about those clauses. If the parents of children attending county secondary schools demand that their children shall receive denominational education then denominational education shall be given either outside the school premises or inside, if the children cannot conveniently be withdrawn, as long as it is not at the expense of the State. It must not be at the expense of the State, but the denomination is given the opportunity of giving that education in school hours either outside the school premises or inside on the basis I have explained. That I think is a most valuable provision, especially taken in conjunction with Clause 8. I think one is justified in saying that under that system the Anglicans will get much more Church education than they have received up to the present.
Then we come to the young people's colleges dealing with students from the age of fifteen to eighteen. The most reverend Primate asked me whether religious instruction could be given in these colleges if the young people asked for it. Well, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent it being given as part of the ordinary instruction, but I am bound, in candour, to say that in my right honourable friend's opinion it would be inadvisable. In the first place, the time available is exceedingly limited, and in the second, my right honourable friend thinks that there would be a danger of arousing some antagonism among these young men and women if they felt that this instruction

205
was being forced upon them in any way, even though it were given in response to a request. But that is a matter of administration. The most reverend Primate also asked me whether we could not insert in the Bill somewhere a statement to make it clear that the instruction and worship that are spoken of in the Bill shall be Christian instruction and worship. My Lords, I am advised that technical difficulties stand in the way of the exact amendment that he desires, but the Seventh Schedule makes it absolutely certain that the instruction and worship must be Christian, because a committee is therein set up on which the denominations are all represented, and that committee has to report unanimously. I think we shall all agree that there is not the slightest danger of any syllabus being passed by that committee that is not Christian.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakelield, in a most interesting maiden speech which I am sure will make your Lordships desire to hear him on many other occasions, said that he thought the schedule was obscure. That is a point which can be raised on the Committee stage, bat I think the effect of the schedule is really quite clear, and, in this connexion I would like to assure the most reverend Primate that the fear to which he alluded, that there might be ethical worship, is groundless. It is not allowed by the Bill. Ethical worship would not be religious worship as required by the Bill. I can give a most unqualified assurance on that score.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chiehester made two criticisms of the Bill. First, he said that it docs not provide a uniform system. I quite agree with him; but I rejoice in that fact. I think we require diversity in a national
206
system of education. Then he and other noble Lords said that the Bill does not provide a final settlement. I entirely agree; there can be no finality in educational progress. But let us progress in concord and not in bitterness. The scheme put forward by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chiehester, however much it might be acceptable to people like myself and other Anglicans, would not be acceptable to other parties, and therefore it would not produce concord. Therefore my right honourable friend's scheme embodied in this Bill holds the field as what most people have regarded as a fair compromise. There are some things about which you cannot compromise, but compromise is justified if what is gained by agreement is greater than what is lost by concession. If we have gained harmony among Christians then, my Lords, we have gained a pearl of countless price.
I hope that the passage of this great Bill will not be the end of our religious discussions and our religious conferences. I hope that Roman Catholics, Anglicans and Free Churchmen will continue in concert and in concord to see how we can improve the religious education of the children of this country, to see how we can meet each other, help each other, and work together. My right honourable friend has done a great work in setting us on the paths of educational progress and denominational understanding. In sending this Bill forward we must continue in the direction that he has pointed out to us.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned.