Sitting of 28 June 1944

PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (AIR-RAID WARNINGS)
Order (24th November, 1943) relative thereto read, and suspended until the House otherwise order.—[Mr. Eden.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  GREEK GUERRILLA FORCES (SUPPLIES)
  Mr. Vernon Bartlettasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether munitions and money are still being supplied to the E.A.M. movement in Greece and to the military organisations under its control.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): Yes, Sir; the supplies are sent to the E.L.A.S. guerrilla forces, which form the military branch of E.A.M.
  Mr. Bartlett: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he will maintain his policy of supplying arms to any of these armies that are fighting?
  Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir; that is our policy, but I am none the less anxious, as I understand the whole House is, that the effort of Monsieur Papandreou, the present Greek Prime Minister, to unite all parties in his Government, should receive the fullest support.

  TANGIER (JAPANESE OFFICIALS)
  Mr. A. Edwardsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the position with regard to the Japanese Consul-General and his staff in Tangier; and whether he is satisfied that their presence is not prejudicial to military operations of the United Nations' Forces.
  Mr. Eden: There is not and has never been any Japanese Consulate in Tangier. As I informed the House on 17th May, a member of the staff of the Japanese Embassy at Madrid, who had been residing in Tangier in recent months, was requested by the Spanish Government to leave Tangier for Spain, which he did on 29th May. There are, therefore, no Japanese officials in Tangier and the second part of the Question does not arise.

  FLYING BOMBS (PAPAL ATTITUDE)
  Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will instruct His Majesty's Minister to the Holy See to bring to the attention of his Holiness the Pope the use by the Germans of pilotless aircraft and to express the hope that his Holiness may feel moved to condemn this use of an undiscriminating engine of war.
  Mr. Eden: No, Sir. His Holiness the Pope is no doubt already aware of the use which is at present being made by the Germans of these pilotless aircraft.
  Mr. Driberg: Is it not the case that the Pope has, in the past, expressed general condemnation of indiscriminate warfare against civilians? Could it not be put to him respectfully that condemnation by him of this particularly barbarous weapon would carry great weight with the German Catholic hierarchy and, through them, with their flocks?
  Mr. Eden: That is a matter for the Pope himself. I do not propose to make any request of this kind.

  MONARCHY, ITALY (CONTINUANCE)
  Mr. Bellengerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent pressure has been brought to bear on the Bonomi Government, either by His Majesty's Government acting alone or in collaboration with the U.S.A. Government, with the object of influencing them towards the maintenance of the monarchical system in Italy.
  Mr. Eden: No pressure has been brought to bear on the Bonomi Government by the Allied Governments with the object of influencing them towards the maintenance of the monarchical system in

  699
  Italy. It is, however, the opinion of the Governments represented on the Advisory Council for Italy that the question of the continuance of the monarchy in Italy cannot be decided until Italy has been liberated and the whole Italian people is in a position to express its views. This opinion was conveyed to the Bonomi Government and has been accepted by it.
  Mr. Bellenger: Then we may assume from that answer that, as far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, they allow complete freedom to the properly constituted Government of Italy to decide their own Constitution?
  Mr. Eden: Not only His Majesty's Government, but what the Advisory Council—which consists of the Allies mainly concerned—said was that, in their view, this question should be settled when the whole of Italy has been freed, and that view has been accepted by the Italian Government.

  INTERNATIONAL SAMPLES FAIR, BARCELONA
  Mr. de Rothschildasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any diplomatic representative of Great Britain attended the official opening of the International Samples Fair recently held at Barcelona; how many British firms exhibited there; what commodities were exhibited by them; and how British representation at this fair compared with that of the United States, neutral and enemy countries.
  Mr. Eden: His Majesty's Government were represented by Mr. Consul Vibert, who was at that time in charge of His Majesty's Consulate General. No British firms exhibited at the Fair. The only foreign countries which participated were the United States of America, Sweden, Switzerland and Chile.
  Mr. de Rothschild: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform us why no British firm was there? Does he realise that the United States Ambassador went there in state and was at the opening of this fair? Does it not look uncommonly as if Uncle Sam had slipped a fast one over the simpler Sam?
  Mr. Eden: I will leave my hon. Friend to draw his own conclusions, but I can
  700
  tell him that this matter was considered by the Department concerned, and in view of the total absorption of British industry in matters connected with the war, we did not think we could usefully participate in this affair at this time.
  Mr. Molson: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise the importance of preserving our goodwill with a view to exporting after the war?
  Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, I do. That is precisely why we examined this question with a desire to do something about it——
  Mr. Stokes: And did nothing.
  Mr. Eden: —and we concluded—with, I hope, the hon. Gentleman's endorsement —that the war must come first.
  Mr. A. Edwards: Does the right hon. Gentleman not notice the immense sums of money spent by firms in this country on preserving goodwill?
  Mr. Eden: I do not underrate at all the importance of goodwill and, wherever we can, we take action. In this particular instance we felt, on balance, unable to do it, but I would not like the House to think this matter was not considered.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Parliamentary Franchise (Register)
    Mr. Quintin Hoggasked the Secretary of State for Air what information is now to hand regarding the number of officers and men in the R.A.F. who have applied for registration for the Parliamentary franchise as a result of the promised inquiry.
    The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): I have received reports of the results at a number of units but as I should like to give the House a representative picture I would prefer to wait a little longer before making a statement.
    Mr. Hogg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War gave us fairly full information about a week ago? Is he not rather mortified to be so behind the Army in this matter?
    Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir. I have some reason to hope that when I can present the picture it will not be found at all a mortifying one.
    Mr. Leach: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that his own officers are doing their best to facilitate this arrangement?
    Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, Sir, I am glad to say that I am satisfied that that is so.

    Officers (Clothing Coupons)
    Mr. Burkeasked the Secretary of State for Air how many clothing coupons are allowed to officers per year for the renewal of uniform, etc.; and of these how many may be used for the purpose of civilian clothing.
    Sir A. Sinclair: R.A.F. and W.A.A.F. officers receive forty-four clothing coupons in the first year of commissioned service and eighty-eight in each subsequent year for the maintenance of uniform and other clothing. Twenty-one of these coupons may be used for the purchase of certain specified articles of civilian clothing which are not worn with uniform.
    Mr. Burke: Will the Minister make that concession available to other ranks as well?
    Sir A. Sinclair: I should require notice of that question.

    Motor Car Accident (Compensation)
    Sir Richard Aclandasked the Secretary of State for Air whether his Ministry is now prepared to accept general responsibility for making a reasonable compensation to Miss Anette Mills in relation to a motor-car accident, of which he has been given particulars in correspondence.
    Sir A. Sinclair: As the hon. Member has been informed, the Air Ministry accepts financial responsibility for any legal liability which attaches to the driver of the Service vehicle. The question whether there is such a legal liability would, in the absence of a settlement between the parties, be decided by the courts.
    Sir R. Acland: Does that mean that the step which this lady has to take is to bring a legal action against an officer who regrettably is now missing? Would it not really be right for the Air Ministry to accept liability for this accident, and arrive at a satisfactory settlement?
    Sir A. Sinclair: I have no reason to suppose there will not be a settlement between the parties.
    Sir R. Acland: If there is an early settlement, that will be satisfactory, otherwise I will seek to raise this matter on a suitable occasion, because it has been dragging on for a very long time.

    Northern Ireland (Civilian Employees)
    Dr. Littleasked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the criticism by one of the Ulster resident magistrates regarding the employment of a man at an air base in Northern Ireland who had no residence permit, he will, in the interests of public security, give instructions that in future no one is to be employed at any air base in Northern Ireland until he produces his residence permit and identity card.
    Sir A. Sinclair: Civilians employed at R.A.F. Stations in Northern Ireland are required to hold a National Registration identity card and, where applicable, a residence permit.
    Dr. Little: I sent my right hon. Friend a copy of the remarks of the resident magistrate, which caused a sensation in Ulster and were brought to my notice and the notice of the Air Ministry. There never was anything like it said before, and I would like to ask my right hon. Friend if he will make an inquiry into the whole thing and issue regulations.

    Personnel, Iceland (Local Leave)
    Sir John Mellorasked the Secretary of State for Air why local leave has not been allowed for personnel of the R.A.F. stationed in Iceland.
    Sir A. Sinclair: There is no ban on local leave in Iceland. In practice, few applications are made because of the absence of suitable facilities for leave in Iceland.
    Sir J. Mellor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of men serving in the R.A.F. in Iceland are under the impression that it is banned?
    Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir, I was not aware of that. If my hon. Friend can give me any particulars about it, I will gladly look into the matter.

    Damaged Bicycle (Claim)
    Sir J. Mellorasked the Secretary of State for Air what steps were taken, and on what dates, to examine the claim brought to his notice by letter, dated 30th

    703
    May, from the hon. Member for the Tam-worth Division, for damages to a bicycle by a R.A.F. vehicle at Sutton Coldfield on 10th August, 1943, liability for which was not disputed; and how long the damaged bicycle was immobilised pending inspection by the Claims Commission.
    Sir A. Sinclair: The first intimation of a claim for compensation for the damaged bicycle was received on 28th April, 1944, when the claimant stated that she had purchased another bicycle. The claim was passed to the Claims Commission who, after correspondence, notified the claimant that the bicycle would be inspected. This inspection took place on 12th June. An immediate inspection would have involved a special journey by road of over 50 miles. Payment of agreed compensation was made on 26th June.
    Sir J. Mellor: As my right hon. Friend said in his letter of 9th June that this claim was being given priority, could he say how long it takes to deal with a claim that is not given priority?
    Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir. This lady had informed us that she had purchased another bicycle and it would have required a 5o mile journey to make a special inspection of the old bicycle. If the story was a little longer than it should have been, at least it had a happy ending.
    Sir Herbert Williams: Is the Air Ministry quite incapable of getting somebody locally to inspect the bicycle? Would any business firm behave with such folly?
    Sir A. Sinclair: This bicycle had to be inspected, not by the Air Ministry but by the Inspector of the Claims Commission.
    Sir H. Williams: Surely they could get a local policeman or anyone else to do it?

    Flying Bombs (Launching Sites)
    Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueterasked the Secretary of State for Air whether the launching sections of robot aeroplanes have been located from the air; and whether any details of the method of launching these flying bombs have been obtained.
    Sir A. Sinclair: A considerable number of launching sites have been located and destroyed. This process is continuing. It would not be in the public
    704
    interest to disclose the extent of our information about methods of launching.
    Sir M. Sueter: Could not the Secretary of State give full information to the public about this, because there is no secrecy about where the stations are located, on the coast or inland? Surely we ought to have the fullest information.
    Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir. I think it is very important that the Germans should not know the extent of our information, or the nature of our defence against this weapon.

  AFRICAN COLONIES

    Prisoners' Aid Societies
    Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in how many African Colonies a Prisoners' Aid Society has been appointed or is established.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Colonel Oliver Stanley): Prisoners' Aid Societies exist in Kenya, Tanganyika, and Zanzibar and the formation of such a society is at present under consideration by the Government of the Gold Coast.
    Mr. Turton: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend draw the attention of the Governors to the desirability of establishing a Prisoners' Aid Society in each Colony?
    Colonel Stanley: I would not like it to be thought that because there is not a Prisoners' Aid Society in all Colonies steps are not taken for the rehabilitation of prisoners.
    Mr. Turton: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend draw the attention of the Governors to the matter?
    Colonel Stanley: Yes, Sir.

    Corporal Punishment
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give the latest available figures of the number of cases of corporal punishment inflicted on Africans for legal offences committed in Uganda, Kenya and Tanganyika; and what steps have now been taken in these and other African Colonies to reduce the number of offences involving this form of punishment.
    Colonel Stanley: As I indicated to the hon. Member on 14th June, the most recent figures available are those for 1938. In that year the totals for the three Territories mentioned were 375, 50 and 174. I am asking the Governors concerned for more up-to-date information which I will send to the hon. Member. It was suggested to Colonial Governments in 1939, and again in 1940, that the number of offences for which corporal punishment might be awarded should be reduced. Several African Colonies have since that date amended their legislation in order to reduce the number of offences. Several of the African Colonies have also enacted ordinances establishing a system of probation.
    Mr. Sorensen: Would it be possible to give hon. Members of the House particulars of cases of corporal punishment in the East African Colonies?
    Colonel Stanley: I will let the hon. Member know when I have the information, and perhaps he will then put another Question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. John Dugdale: Would the Minister issue an instruction that only those offences punishable by corporal punishment in this country, will be so punished in the Colonies?
    Colonel Stanley: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that Question on the Order Paper, too.

  WEST AFRICA

    Soldiers' Relatives (Allowances, Payment)
    Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many travelling pay vans are at present operating in the Colonies of Nigeria and Gold Coast for the purpose of the payment of family remittances and separation allowances to relatives of serving soldiers.
    Colonel Stanley: Three travelling pay vans are at present operating in the Gold Coast to supplement the normal system of payment of allowances by district treasuries and by district commissioners, both in their stations and on tour. Travelling pay vans are not employed in Nigeria, where payment is made at about 150 centres widely distributed throughout the territory.
    Mr. Turton: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the making of these payments takes up undue time of the district commissioners? Will he consider the establishment of more travelling pay vans?
    Colonel Stanley: There is certainly a great burden on the already over-burdened officers.

    Organisations (Memorial)
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what consideration he has given to the memorial presented to him on his visit to the West Coast of Africa last year by organisations including the National Congress of British West Africa, the Ratepayers' Association and the West African Youth League; and what steps he proposes to take to implement the concrete proposals made in the Memorial.
    Colonel Stanley: I have given careful consideration to the memorial referred to by the hon. Member and I have communicated with the Governor of Sierra Leone with a view to a full reply being returned to the petitioners on my behalf. I will ask the Governor for a copy of the reply actually sent and forward it to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Gallacher: In view of the very interesting and valuable character of the memorial, would the Minister consider placing a copy in the Library?
    Colonel Stanley: It is certainly long and interesting. The first item, which might appeal to the hon. Member, was a 'proposal that the control and ownership of minerals should be transferred from the Government back to private hands.
    Mr. Gallaeher
    Mr. Speaker: I have called the next Question; the hon. Member is too late.

    BRITISH HONDURAS (EMPLOYMENT)
    Mr. Edmund Harveyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now able to give further information with regard to measures which are being taken to deal with unemployment in British Honduras, both as regards internal employment for returned foresters and

    707
    others and recruitment for work in the U.S.A.
    Colonel Stanley: Yes, Sir. Employment was found on a main road under construction for the majority of the returned foresters, and for others in the neighbourhood of Belize who applied for work. In one district there was some difficulty in providing for 47 men, including foresters, who registered for work, but arrangements which were in progress for providing work have now been abandoned because of the opening of recruiting for the United States. Recruiting for labourers for the United States began on 6th June and nearly 700 applications had been received by the end of that week. It is hoped to complete recruitment by 28th June but movement of workers to the United States, I am informed, may be somewhat retarded owing to lack of shipping.
    Mr. Harvey: While thanking the Minister for his reply, may I ask him whether road work will be continued, as required by the conditions of employment?
    Colonel Stanley: It depends on the number of people seeking work.

    MAURITIUS (DISTURBANCES, REPORT)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the report of the Commission inquiring into disturbances in Mauritius last year will be available.
    Colonel Stanley: The report has been received and arrangements are being made for it to be printed in this country. It will be published as soon as printed copies have reached Mauritius.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is it a full report?
    Colonel Stanley: Yes, Sir.

    RAILWAYS (CONTROL AGREEMENT)
    Sir J. Mellorasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he has considered the recent representations from the railway companies on behalf of their junior stockholders that the financial provisions
    708
    of the existing Control Agreement should be revised; and whether he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): Yes, Sir. My noble Friend has met *the Chairmen of the four railway companies. They presented to him the views expressed by their proprietors in favour of a review of the financial terms of the Railway Control Agreement, and they suggested that the extension of the area of the war at the end of 1941 constituted a case far revision. They asked for an increase in the guaranteed annual payment and for some adjustment to cover intensified user of maintainable assets. In reply my noble Friend has pointed out that the revised arrangement made in 1941 relieved the railways of uncertainty as to the effects of the war upon their net revenues and he has stated that the Government are unable to regard the extension of the war area as a reason for revision or to agree to any increase in the amount of the fixed annual payments. The Control Agreement itself enables an allowance, over and above the basic figure for maintenance, to be made for abnormal wear and tear of maintainable assets, if such allowance is shown to be justified, and my noble Friend has offered to examine this matter.
    Sir J. Mellor: As the Control Agreement deprives some of the junior stockholders of all possibility of dividends for the duration of the war and for one year thereafter, is it fair to insist upon this financial arrangement continuing indefinitely?
    Sir Irving Albery: Will His Majesty's Government, in view of the very important war services rendered by the railway companies—[HON. MEMBERS: "And by the men."]—and by the men, treat them as fairly as other war industries which, in many cases, are allowed to earn profits of 10 to 12 per cent.?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I cannot now argue the merits of the revised Control Agreement but the Government have always held that it was fair and just.
    Mr. Watkins: Is not the trouble mentioned in the Question due to the overcapitalisation of the railways. If their capital structure was reformed, is it not a fact that this trouble would not arise?

  MINISTRY OF INFORMATION

    Irish Workers, Great Britain (Censorship)
    Lieut.-Commander Hutchisonasked the Minister of Information whether the correspondence of agricultural workers from Eire who are temporarily employed in Great Britain is subject to censorship.
    The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): Yes, Sir, all correspondence between Great Britain and Eire is subject to censorship.

    Members of Parliament (Fees)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Information how many of those hon. Members who have broadcast for the B.B.C. since the outbreak of war have refused to accept the normal fees for so doing.
    Mr. Bracken: If payments have been made to any hon. Members for broadcasting, this is an entirely private matter between them and the B.B.C.

  ARMED FORCES, MIDDLE EAST AND MEDITERANNEAN (AIR MAILS)
  Major Yorkasked the Postmaster-General whether he will now lift the restrictions on the number of air mail letter-cards which may be sent home by Servicemen in the C.M.F. and the M.E.F., and cancel the postage charge of 3d. on these letter-cards in order to conform to the practice of Allied armies in those areas.
  The Postmaster-General (Captain Crookshank): The possibility of increasing the ration of homeward air letters is at present being considered by the Departments concerned and I will acquaint my hon. and gallant Friend when a decision is reached. So far as I am aware only the British and Dominion troops in the Middle East and Mediterranean theatres use the air letter, and in no case is it issued free.
  Colonel Clarke: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend appreciate that a concession of this kind might do a lot to prevent a very large number of matrimonial troubles which now, to my personal knowledge, are occurring with men who have been a long time abroad?
  Captain Crookshank: I do not know about matrimonial troubles. It is because we think it would be a very good thing, if we could increase the ration, that it is now being considered.

  HOUSING

    Prefabricated Houses
    Mr. A. Edwardsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works whether he can state the cost of the amended prototype emergency house.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hicks): My Noble Friend has stated a figure at which he was aiming. The amendments introduced will necessarily affect this, but as soon as the final decision is taken it will be possible to work out the approximate cost of the improvements introduced.
    Mr. Edwards: Has not my hon. Friend already sufficient information to show that permanent houses can be built at a lower cost than this temporary house? Has he not changed his plans altogether?
    Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Do the figures which have been published relate to the house as it is, with magnificent fittings, or to the house as it will be, with very inferior fittings?
    Mr. Hicks: The figure aimed at by my Noble Friend is for the show house outside the Tate Gallery with fittings as shown. When the houses are mass produced, their fittings will be those finally chosen but similar to those in the show house.
    Sir H. Williams: Is the prototype now the official description of what was known first as the Churchill house and subsequently as the Portal house?
    Mr. Edwards: Has not my hon. Friend told, the House that he had information to prove that the Tarran type of house is very much cheaper than the house that he proposes, and also that permanent houses are very much cheaper? I have the information from the Minister himself.
    Mr. Hicks: Before this canard goes any farther, I can definitely say that the information that we have at the Ministry does not coincide with my hon. Friend's statement, that houses built by others, of a permanent character, are cheaper.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Ian Fraserasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works whether he is satisfied that the camber of the roof of the proposed prefabricated houses is sufficiently steep to stand the heavy weights of snow which are common in the Northern part of the Kingdom.
    Mr. Hicks: Yes, Sir.
    Sir I. Fraser: Will the hon. Gentleman put one of these houses up this winter in the North and see whether experience confirms this? Also will he show the house around in the North so that others can see it besides Londoners?
    Mr. Hicks: I have given the House the information that the Secretary of State for Scotland has had one built in Scotland, that other prototypes are being made and that they will be available in each region this year.

    Letting Agreement (Children)
    Mr. Edgar Granvilleasked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the fact that landlords are serving notice to quit on the wives of Service men, when they are expecting to have a baby, because of their objection to having children in homes or furnished rooms; and if he will take whatever steps may be necessary to invalidate existing No children clauses in letting agreements.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): My right hon. and learned Friend's attention has been drawn from time to time to this matter, and inquiries are being made to see how far the practice is an extensive one. If there is reason to suppose that it is at all common, he will certainly consider whether action can be taken to check it, by a more extensive use of requisitioning powers or otherwise.
    Mr. Granville: Has the hon. Lady seen the statement of the Bristol City Council and other councils referring to this state of affairs, and will she investigate that aspect of it?
    Miss Horsbrugh: My right hon. Friend is anxious to investigate any facts that are brought to his notice.
    Mr. Sorensen: Surely the hon. Lady is aware that this practice is very widespread. It has been going on for years.
    712
    When a baby is coming, the woman is turned out.
    Miss Horsbrugh: Perhaps the hon. Member would send me the name and address of any case that he knows.
    Mr. Edgar Granvilleasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that Mrs. R. Howie, of Slough, Buckinghamshire, wife of Petty-Officer W. A. Howie of the Royal Navy, has been turned out of her lodgings because she was going to have a baby, although she has been engaged upon war work; and what steps he proposes to take to enable Petty-Officer Howie, who has been wounded in recent operations, and his wife to obtain suitable living accommodation.
    Miss Horsbrugh: No, Sir, but, if my hon. Friend will supply Mrs. Howie's address I will have inquiries made.
    Mr. Granville: Is the hon. Lady aware of the scandalous overcrowding in this district? Will the Department take steps to requisition large houses and fit them up as hostels for these young Service wives during this period? Is there any reason why it cannot be done?
    Miss Horsbrugh: There are extensive powers of requisitioning, which are being used. I will deal with any particular point that the hon. Member brings to my notice.
    Mr. Granville: I have given the name and address already in the Question.
    Miss Horsbrugh: The hon. Member has given the name, and I have asked if he will provide me with the address.
    Mr. Granville: Is the hon. Lady not aware that her own billeting officers at Slough, Eton or Windsor could supply the address to the Ministry by telephone?

  ROYAL NAVY

    Parliamentary Franchise (Register)
    Mr. Quintin Hoggasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what information is now to hand regarding the numbers of officers and men in the Royal Navy who have applied for registration for the parliamentary franchise as a result of the promised inquiry.
    The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): The inquiry which I promised my hon. Friend should be made,

    713
    is in hand, but he will appreciate that a little time must elapse before sufficient information will be available to enable a true impression as to how the scheme is working to be formed. If, however, he will put down another Question in a few weeks' time, I hope to be able to give the House a reliable and representative picture.
    Mr. Hogg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Army have already provided this information and that the Air Force, through the Secretary of State, have expressed considerable self-satisfaction about the information that they have, and is not this carrying the tradition of the silent Service rather further than is reasonably necessary?
    Mr. Alexander: It is just the fact that a large part of the Navy is almost continuously at sea.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    North East Coast (Industrial Position)
    Miss Wardasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the official anxiety for the future industrial position of the North-east coast; and what steps he is taking to safeguard the full employment of industry and the industrial community.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): My right hon. Friend is fully aware that the North-East coast is one of the areas requiring special attention. In reply to the second part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the Government's White Paper on Employment Policy and to the full statements made by my right hon. Friends during the Debates on that Paper.
    Miss Ward: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend not aware that we are getting tired of "words, words, words"? When will he be in a position to state, in definite terms, what action is being taken?
    Captain Waterhouse: The hon. Lady should already be aware. Industrialists seeking to set up new industries are being advised to go to that as one of four areas.
    Mr. A. Edwards: Is not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is one thing that he must do as the first step? Is he not aware that the ship-
    714
    building industry has prevented the development of shipbuilding for 4o years, and that the first thing to do is to remove the restriction?
    Captain Waterhouse: That is another question altogether.
    Mr. Burke: When the right hon. and gallant Gentleman refers to three other areas, is Lancashire amongst them, or are they depressed areas only?
    Captain Waterhouse: Lancashire is not included as one of the areas requiring the most urgent attention, but the needs of Lancashire are by no means forgotten.
    Miss Ward: Why does my right hon. and gallant Friend express anxiety, if he believes that everything is perfect?
    Captain Waterhouse: I am very far from believing that everything is perfect but I have pointed out that steps are being taken by the Board of Trade, and it is not merely "words, words, words."
    Mr. A. Edwards: My previous question was implicit in the Question on the Paper. Middlesbrough had a most prosperous shipbuilding industry. Now there is not a single site in action, owing to the action of Shipbuilding Securities, who have prevented shipbuilding in my constituency for forty years. That is a very important question.
    Captain Waterhouse: I am well aware of its importance but the Question refers to the industrial position in general. If the hon. Member would like specific information on a specific industry, I will supply it if he puts down a Question.

    Tooth Brushes (Empire Requirements)
    Sir M. Sueterasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what arrangements have been made to supply foreign tooth brushes to certain British Dominions and Colonies; and has the brush export group been informed of all the arrangements;
    (2) why the proposal made to his department that the Governments of the British Colonies affected by the arrangements for the supply of foreign tooth brushes should purchase bulk supplies of tooth brushes without trade marks for distribution through normal channels in order to retain the goodwill of British industry for the post-war period have been disregarded.
    Mr. Harcourt Johnstone (Secretary, Department of Overseas Trade): The requirements of the Empire for tooth brushes cannot all be met from this country at present. Part of the requirements is accordingly being met from the United States through ordinary commercial channels. The Brush Export Group have been kept informed.

    British Cinema Industry (Merger)
    Mr. John. Dugdaleasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the merger announced between D. and P. Studios and the Rank interests was made with the previous consent of his Department, since it conflicts with the previously announced policy of avoiding monopolistic control of British film production.
    Captain Waterhouse: Mr. Rank acquired a controlling interest in D. and P. Studios in 1942. The recent consolidation has, therefore, no bearing on the use of the studios. Consequently, it does not conflict with the policy announced by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Dugdale: Does the Department intend to take any steps to prevent the Rank interest gaining control of the film industry?
    Captain Waterhouse: Adequate steps to that end have already been taken.

    LIEUT.-COLONEL CYRIL ROCKE
    Major Sir Jocelyn Lucasasked the Secretary of State for War what steps he has taken to arrest Colonel Rocke who has been broadcasting in Italy during the war.
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for War what action is being taken in respect of Lieut.-Colonel C. Rocke, formerly of the British Embassy in Rome, who broadcast propaganda for the Italian Fascist Government during the present war and has now established contact with British Forces in Italy.
    The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I would refer my hon. Friends to the answer given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Colonel Sir A. Evans) yesterday.
    Sir J. Lucas: In view of the fact that the colonel stated recently that he hoped he had been able to be of some help to
    716
    us during the war, could the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether, in fact, he has been working for us?
    Mr. Henderson: I have no information.
    Mr. Driberg: Would it not be perfectly easy to check the record of this colonel, and what he broadcast for Mussolini, with the B.B.C. monitoring service?
    Mr. Henderson: No doubt that and other relevant matters will be considered when the time comes to take a decision.
    Mr. Driberg: Has not the time come to take a decision that people Like this man and William Joyce are traitors?
    Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that in this country it is customary to collect all the evidence together, before a person is dealt with under the penal law.
    Mr. Bellenger: Did not my hon. and learned Friend collect the evidence when the War Office decided to withhold this officer's retired pay in 1940?
    Mr. Henderson: That may be, but a good deal has happened since then and we wish to gather all the relevant evidence before we take a decision.

    SERVICE PAY AND ALLOWANCES
    Miss Wardasked the Prime Minister if he can make a statement on the abolition of anomalies with regard to Service pay and allowances.
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Certain minor points regarding Service pay and allowances are now under consideration by Ministers. A statement will be made as soon as possible.
    Miss Ward: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that a statement will be made before the Recess?
    Mr. Attlee: It will be much sooner than that; it will be in a very short time now.

    PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE (SERVICE REGISTER)
    Mr. A. Edwardsasked the Prime Minister whether he will make arrangements with the B.B.C. to broadcast a notice or a short talk to all Services, calling

    717
    attention to the necessity of completing the requisite form to ensure inclusion in the electoral register.
    Mr. Attlee: Two broadcast talks have already been given on this subject. The question of a further talk is being considered.
    Mr. Edwards: In view of the fact that the majority of men in some of the Services have never heard of the forms that have to be filled in, and that it is not usual to find more than an infinitesimal percentage of the men filling in the forms, should it not be the duty of the officers to see that the men get the forms, and not simply put them up in some out of the way place?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is giving information or opinions and not asking for facts.
    Mr. Attlee: My hon. Friend had better put any question on details to the Service Ministers concerned. It is not within my province.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the forms have been distributed widely?
    Mr. Attlee: I have not heard a word of the question.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Soft Drinks
    Sir George Broadbridgeasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that the Soft Drinks Industries (War Time) Association, Limited, have issued an order to their members prohibiting the use of ordinary corks for squashes, alleging that ordinary corks are not satisfactory as a re-closure, although they have been used for soft drinks for over a century; that many of their members object to this prohibition, which is a violation of a Statutory Order (British Standards Institution Schedule 1048, 1942, Table 23) which permits the use of screw cap, stoppers and ordinary corks; and if he will take steps for the removal of this embargo on ordinary corks.
    The Minister of Food (Colonel Llewellin): I am aware that the Soft Drinks Industry (War Time) Association have instructed their members not to use plain driven corks without tops in packing
    718
    squashes for the Association. This action is not a contravention of the containers and packaging Order, number 404 of 1944, and I see no reason to intervene.
    Sir G. Broadbridge: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is an ample stock of ordinary corks in this country for the use of the soft drinks industry; and is he also aware that other forms of stoppers take up valuable shipping space, and that, as they cost three times as much as ordinary corks, the loss to the Treasury on foreign exchange is considerable?
    Colonel Llewellin: As a matter of fact, corks are not the best kind of stoppers to keep these drinks in good condition.
    Dr. Littleasked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the increasing demand, he will authorise a larger supply of soft drinks to be manufactured in order that no one may be driven to partake of alcoholic liquor through the shortage of non-alcoholic beverages.
    Colonel Llewellin: No, Sir. I regret that the labour and raw materials available do not at present permit an increase in production.
    Dr. Little: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend keep in the forefront of his mind the necessity of providing a sufficient supply of these drinks to meet the demand?
    Colonel Llewellin: The output is being kept up and is now equal to what it was in 1940.
    Mr. Mathers: Is the improvement of the quality also being considered?
    Colonel Llewellin: I think the quality of these drinks is very good.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that many of these soft drinks drive drinkers to alcohol?

    Cereals (Brewing)
    Sir William Waylandasked the Minister of Food if, in view of the widespread dissatisfaction at the shortage of beer coming both from the civilian population and the Army, he will, in view of the better food situation, allow the use of additional barley to brewers in order to remove this complaint and permit of a better beer being brewed.
    Colonel Llewellin: No, Sir. I regret that the labour and cereals available do not at present permit an improvement in either quantity or quality.
    Sir W. Wayland: In view of the immense importance of this question to millions of people, will my right hon. and gallant Friend keep it constantly under review?
    Colonel Llewellin: I will certainly keep it well in the forefront of my mind.
    Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Does not my right hon. and gallant Friend consider that the best way to salute the soldier would be to improve the quality of his beer?
    Mr. Mathers: Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the same concern about the quality of soft drinks, that he has expressed about beer?
    Colonel Llewellin: There is another Question on that subject.

    Fish Friers (Fats)
    Mr. Higgsasked the Minister of Food whether he will soon be able to increase the allowance of fats to fish friers.
    Colonel Llewellin: No, Sir, so far as can be foreseen, the oils and fats position is not likely to improve sufficiently to permit of any increase to fish friers in the near future.
    Mr. Higgs: Is the Minister aware that the increased supply of fish is useless to fish friers, without an additional supply of fat?
    Colonel Llewellin: I am well aware of that, but unfortunately the fats position does not allow of any more being allocated.
    Mr. Buchanan: Could not the Minister look at this matter again? Is he aware that in great working-class districts, fried fish is a very useful food and a fine thing for great masses of people?
    Colonel Llewellin: I am well aware of that, but the fat ration in the home is not too large either.
    Mr. Buchanan: Is not this the most economical and best way to use fats?

    Rabbits
    Mr. Higgsasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that it is not worth
    720
    while catching rabbits to sell them at the controlled price and, owing to the rapid increase in the numbers of these pests, can he see his way clear to allow them to be sold in a free market.
    Colonel Llewellin: No, Sir. The present prices are sufficient to encourage the killing of rabbits where trapping can be effectively used. Moreover, I am advised that, apart from the usual seasonal increase, the number of wild rabbits in the country has generally decreased.
    Mr. Higgs: Is the Minister aware that rabbits are on the increase again now, that they are being gassed, and that that is destroying human food? Will he not, therefore, give further consideration to the matter?
    Colonel Llewellin: Rabbits always do increase about this time of the year.
    Mr. Woodburn: If the Minister has any difficulty about this pest, will he invite the workers to help him get rid of it?
    Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend keep a close watch on the agitation for an increased price in commodities like rabbits as the price is already 250 per cent. higher than before the war?
    Colonel Llewellin: It is not as high as that: it is about zoo per cent. However, I fully agree with my hon. Friend, and I am not inclined to increase these prices.

  PARCELS FROM OVERSEAS FORCES (DUTY)
  Major Yorkasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now lift the restrictions on the number of parcels which British soldiers may send from the C.M.F. and M.E.F. in order to conform to the practice of the United States Army.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): I have been asked to reply. I assume that this Question relates to the concession introduced last year, under which members of the Forces serving overseas are allowed to send home free of Customs duty not more than four parcels a year. While my right hon. Friend cannot see his way to increase this number, he has recently authorised the raising of the maximum value for each duty-free parcel from 30s. to 40s.
  Major York: Would my right hon. Friend say how the Government justify the differentiation between the practice of our own Forces and that in the American Forces in this respect?
  Mr. Assheton: I am afraid there are many differences between our own Forces and the American Forces. We are not such a rich country as the United States.
  Mr. Bellenger: Is the amount of duty derived from taxing these parcels from the Forces substantial; and if it is not could not the Government consider doing away with it altogether as it is an irritation to both members of the Forces and their dependants at home?
  Mr. Assheton: I could not possibly consider that.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP B)
  Mr. Douglas Cooke reported from the Committee on Group B of Private Bills, That Mr. Ritson, one of the Members of the said Committee, was not present during the Sitting of the Committee yesterday.
  SELECTION (COMMITTEE ON UNOPPOSED BILLS) (PANEL)
  Colonel Sir Charles McAndrew reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had added the following six Members to the Panel of Members appointed to serve on the Committee on Unopposed Bills: Mr. Gretton, Mr. Guy, Mr. Jewson, Mr. Reakes, Mr. Wilfrid Roberts, and Major York.
  SELECTION (AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL) (JOINT COMMITTEE)
  Sir Charles McAndrew reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had nominated the following two Members to serve on the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Lords on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill: Mr. Grenfell and Mr. Gretton.

NAVY, ARMY AND AIR EXPENDITURE, 1942
Resolved:
"That this House will on Friday resolve itself into a Committee to consider the surpluses and deficits upon Navy, Army and Air Grants for the year ended 3rst March, 1943, and the application of surplus receipts realised under certain Votes for Navy, Army and Air Services towards making good deficits in receipts under other Votes in the respective Departments.—[Mr. James Stuart.]
Ordered:
"That the Appropriation Accounts for the Navy, Army and Air Departments which were presented 18th January, be referred to the Committee."—[Mr. James Stuart.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  FINANCE BILL
  As amended, considered.
  FINANCE BILL

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Increased reduction of duty on publicans' licences in respect of diminution in supplies of wines and spirits.)
    In section thirteen of the Finance Act 1942 (which provides for a five per cent. reduction of duty on publicans' licences in respect of the diminution in supplies of wines and spirits) for the words "five per cent." there shall be substituted the words "twenty-five per cent."—[Sir P. Hannon.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Sir Patrick Hannon: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    In this proposal I am asking the Chancellor to give some regard to those who supply spirits and wines. The Financial Secretary will recall that when the Finance Bill, 1942, was going through the House of Commons, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer made a concession of five per cent. to licensees of public houses in order to compensate them to some extent for—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] I am trying to speak as loudly as I can, so that Members can all hear me, in spite of the noise. We are now asking for a 25 per cent. concession of the licensee's duty, as the necessity for some relief is even more pressing now, than it was then, owing to 'the very great reduction that has taken place in the available supplies of spirits and wines for public-houses, and other places of entertainment. For instance, the supply of whisky is less than 50 per

    731
    cent. of what it was when the former concession was given. I have had a number of letters from local licensed victuallers' associations, appealing in strong terms for a reconsideration of this question. In one letter, the President of the Welsh Federation of Licensed Victuallers makes a very strong case of the hardship which exists among licensees in Wales, because of the continued magnitude of the duty. When Sir Kingsley Wood was making the concessions in 1942, he said that the reduction of five per cent, which he conceded in the licence duties payable by publicans was all he was able to do, in the circumstances that were facing him at that time. I suggest that circumstances facing the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day are very much more favourable than those which faced Sir Kingsley Wood, and I am certain the right hon. Gentleman will not wish to be a party to the continuance of unjust conditions among licensees everywhere in the country.
    Throughout the war, the licensed traders have had a very difficult part to play in our social life, because of the increase in our Armed Forces, and the advent among us of American forces and forces from other countries The difficulties confronting a licensed trader become very acute occasionally, when he runs entirely out of wines and spirits. I hope that the Treasury will take account of these difficulties and give the licensed trader some consideration. The Financial Secretary knows how seriously the volume of trade has been reduced in licensed houses during the last few years. If the canons of taxation are to be observed, there should be justice all round, and the consideration for which we ask should be extended to the licensed trade. While I am not very hopeful that the Treasury are in a mood to make concessions to any part of the country, I see on the Government Front Bench my right hon. and gallant Friend the former Financial Secretary to the Treasury, looking with very careful and considerate attention at the proceedings on this Bill. I feel that if he were responsible for replying to this proposal, his kindly, generous and soft heart would impel him to do whatever he could for the licensed trade of the country.
    Sir Irving Albery: I beg to second the Motion.
    732
    From what my hon. Friend has said, it is clear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer recognised, in 1942, that some concession was due to licensees in this matter, and he appears also to have recognised that the concession he made was not adequate to do justice to the case. I notice a tendency on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whenever he considers that, owing to altered circumstances, or actions that have been taken by private individuals, some deficiency occurs in the Revenue, to take drastic action to remedy the matter. We are glad that he does so, and we support him in seeing that the Exchequer obtains that which is its due. On the other hand, it appears to me to be clearly shown that if some injustice has been done to a class of taxpayers owing to the incidence of the war, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not equally forthcoming. He seems to be 10th to alter legislation to put right grievances of taxpayers, in matters of that kind.
    Sir William Wayland: I support the Motion. I should like to point out that when we pay Income Tax we do so according to our incomes, but when the publican pays his licence duty, he has to pay the same amount as he paid prior to the war, despite the fact that the amount of stuff he is able to sell is considerably less. It is, therefore, just that the licence duty should be decreased. This matter has been before the House of Commons on many occasions, and on more than one occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised redress. A small redress was given, but I certainly think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should still further, and considerably, reduce the duty. If the Ministry of Food had only accepted my proposal and had allowed more beer to be brewed, perhaps this proposal would not have been necessary.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): The House is always very sorry, as I am, for any section of the community which has suffered in consequence of the war. Hon. Members are, naturally, just as sorry if it is a publican who has suffered, as if it is anybody else, but I would draw the attention of the House to the concessions that were made in the Finance Act, 1942. I doubt whether my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Sir W. Wayland) has fully appre-

    733
    ciated what those concessions really were. They were in two Sections of that Finance Act—Sections 13 and 14. Section 14 provides licence duty relief, in view of the general shortage of supplies and diminished trade, for all retail liquor licences. Except as regards the publican's licence, which is a composite licence to sell any liquor by retail, this relief is based on the trade done in each separate liquor, and applies to each separate licence. The amount of relief is two-thirds of the amount of the diminution in trade. As far as publicans are concerned, this relief is calculated on the trade in beer alone or, in Scotland, on the trade in spirits. It is at the same rate as for separate licences. This takes no account of the shortage of wines and spirits in public-houses, and a special relief of 5 per cent. for publicans was allowed by the other Section of the Act to which I have referred—Section 13. That was designed to give partial compensation for the loss of trade in wines and spirits.
    I admit that this does not give full compensation in the circumstances. None the less, I think the House appreciates that we cannot always do what we would like to do, and we have to consider the revenue. The concession for which my hon. Friend asks would cost £600,000, and I am sorry to say that in view of that sum, my right hon. Friend does not feel able, in present circumstances, to make the concession.
    Sir P. Hannon: Is it the policy of His Majesty's Government to continue an injustice in order to keep the revenue at a certain level?
    Mr. Assheton: No, but His Majesty's Government made a concession, and they feel that it is as far as they can go at the present time; they cannot go any further.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Registration of trademark and deduction as expenses.)
    Notwithstanding anything in Rule 3 of the Rules applicable to Cases I and II of Schedule D, when, after the first day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-four, a person carrying on a trade pays any sum for the registration of a trademark in any part of the British Empire outside the United Kingdom or in any foreign country, the sum paid may be deducted as an expense in computing the profits or gains of
    734
    the trade for the purposes of income tax.—[Mr. Lewis.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Lewis: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer has, on several occasions, told us how sympathetic he feels to any proposals calculated to extend our export trade after the war, and it is with that object in view, that this proposal has been put forward. Hon. Members will appreciate that this question of the cost of the registration of trademarks for overseas markets may be, to a big established corporation, a very small matter, and it it were merely urged in their interests, I think the case would be 'bound to fail. But the position is not the same in the case of small firms. On that, I would like to say that if we desire to extend our exports after the war, I think we should be very foolish to rely entirely on trying to sell those things we have sold before. We should try, on the contrary, to discover new products which we can sell abroad, and, in order to do that we should encourage enterprising people to start businesses with the idea of selling new products abroad. To such a small firm charges of this kind are a serious consideration. I understand that to cover available markets abroad and in the Colonies might cost as much as £1,000 which, to people struggling to establish a business, is a substantial item. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that in the public interest, it might be desirable to allow this charge to be offset against Income Tax in the event of profits being earned. It may be that, for some reason, my right hon. Friend will not desire to add this Clause to the Bill at this stage. I would be satisfied if he would undertake seriously to consider the matter. I know that when the present Chancellor says he will consider a thing, he can be relied upon to do so. If I can have an assurance in that sense I shall be satisfied.
    Sir Harold Webbe: I beg to second the Motion.
    Mr. Assheton: Without going into the merits of the case which my hon. Friend has been putting, I can give him the assurance for which he asks. This problem is one of many which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is to con-

    735
    sider in connection with questions relating to post-war taxation. In those circumstances, I am quite sure he will be good enough to withdraw his proposed Clause.
    Mr. Hammersley: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend could give us a little further explanation. I was rather surprised to see this new Clause on the Order Paper, as I was always under the impression that expenditure of this kind, which is necessary for the conduct of a business, was, in fact, allowed as a trading expense. Certainly in some businesses the registration of trademarks abroad is absolutely necessary. One of the great disadvantages under which the Lancashire cotton trade laboured in the past was that their trademarks were so frequently copied by Japan. Is it to be said that those cotton merchants, who produce special lines and have trademarks under which these special lines are sold, are not to regard registration of those particular lines as a legitimate trading expense? The position is obscure and if, in fact, the registration of a trademark abroad is essential for the carrying on of the business, is it not a legitimate trading expense?
    Mr. Assheton: If, with permission, I may be allowed to answer my hon. Friend, a great deal is admissible as a deduction against trading profits for taxation purposes. The registration of a trademark constitutes the acquisition of a capital asset, however, and is part of the general question which my right hon. Friend has undertaken to consider.
    Mr. Hammersley Mr. Hammersley rose——
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak.
    Mr. Lewis: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 21 of Finance Act, 1943.)
    Section twenty-one of the Finance Act, 1943, shall have effect and be deemed always to have had effect as if the word "coal" were inserted after the second word "to" in the fifth line thereof.—[Mr. Keeling.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Keeling: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    736
    This new Clause refers to the Excess Profit Tax. To explain it, it is necessary to go back, not only to the 1943 Act, but to the Finance Act of 1941. Section 31 of that Act gives certain relief from Excess Profit Tax to companies or firms producing metals or oil where the Treasury certify that the prosecution of the war requires an abnormal production of those things, and therefore an accelerated wasting of assets, and a shortening of the life of the concern. At that time the Chancellor resisted any extension of the relief to other minerals or to clay, stone, chalk or gravel. He said that he had endeavoured to meet only exceptional cases, in which the Government were asking for exceptional efforts. Surely that applies now to coal. If there is a mineral in the production of which exceptional efforts are required, it is coal. In 1943, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave way as regards other substances. He agreed to the extension of this benefit of the 1941 Act to certain minerals, namely, asbestos and mica, and to sand, chalk, gravel and limestone. If the concession can be given to these substances, why cannot it be given to coal?
    Although the output of coal generally, as we all know, is far below the pre-war level, there are certain collieries, especially in Leicestershire and South Derbyshire, which are producing very largely in excess of their pre-war output. Incidentally, I may mention that they are the only districts which have consistently earned the output bonus. In Leicestershire, in 1943, the production was 173 per cent. of the 1938 production, and in South Derbyshire it was 151 per cent. In some cases the life of these collieries is short, and the burden of full Excess Profits Tax, when the assets are being thus rapidly wasted, is serious, although the concession for which I am asking would not be a very serious matter from the Exchequer point of view. It would be only fair to extend to coal the concession which is given to metals, oil, asbestos, mica, chalk, sand, gravel and stone.
    When the question was raised on the Finance Bill last year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked whether it had been discussed with the mineworkers. Thereupon discussions took place. At first the Mineworkers Federation agreed to the concession, on the condition that the relief should be used for the improvement of the mines, not for the payment of divi-

    737
    dends. To that condition the colliery owners agreed; but subsequently the Mineworkers Federation withdrew their consent, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer intimated that if this was going to be a matter of political controversy he could not agree to it. I ask my right hon. Friend to deal with it on merits. I have already shown that the merits are considerable. Moreover, the mineworkers will benefit if this concession is given. It is not in their interests, but far otherwise, that the owners should be impoverished through paying away their resources in Excess Profits Tax, to the detriment of their capacity to improve the collieries. In view of the national importance of coal, I submit that the concession already given to other milling and quarrying industries ought to be extended to coalmining.
    Mr. Hammersley: I beg to second the Motion.
    I think that my hon. Friend has put the case very clearly. He has intimated to the House that certain wasting assets—in the first case, oil and metals, and, later on, sand, gravel, limestone, igneous rocks, chalk, asbestos, and mica—if they are used at an accelerated rate for the purposes of the war, receive special treatment. He has suggested that there is no reason why coal, which comes into that general category, should be singled out. He has intimated that the reason why it has received special treatment, is that there is no agreement between the Mineworkers Federation and the coalowners. If that is the case, it seems to me that we ought to decide this matter not on points which are affected by agreement between these trade associations, but purely on their merits.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): I confess that I had been hoping to hear a little more of the cons, as well as the pros, in connection with this Clause. I am sure the House would wish me to offer the best judgment that I can on this matter. I have looked into it. The effect of the Clause, if it were accepted by the House, would be limited to the case in which there were increased output and excess profits, and where the mine could be shown to have a short life. In another connection, coal-mining has already been admitted to certain benefits, conceded in the case of wasting assets. I refer to the allowance
    738
    on capital, which can be increased where the capital investment has a short life. The benefit of that increased allowance, which, I think, is of the order of 1½ per cent., has been extended to coal. When the provision which it is now sought to extend was strictly limited to certain metals and to oil, the case for excluding a whole range of other wasting assets was, I think, definitely stronger than it is now, when the concession, as the result of an Amendment passed last year, has been extended to almost everything that is won out of the earth. I will not repeat the catalogue, that we have already had twice, of the various minerals and substances that are extracted from the earth, and are treated, for the purpose of Excess Profits Tax, as wasting assets. If the matter is to be viewed strictly on merit, I cannot myself see, apart from the history of this particular Amendment and the suggestion that there might be controversy, any substantial ground for treating coal as the one exception to a general practice which the House has approved. Therefore, unless it were clear that this was going to arouse further controversy in an area from which we all are anxious to banish controversy, I would say, on behalf of the Government, that I should be prepared to accept this Clause.
    Mr. E. J. Williams: I would like to put a question—perhaps I ought to put it to the mover of the new Clause rather than to the Chancellor. The question is, whether the coalowners will observe the offer they made last year, and see that any concession they may get in this connection will be directed to the benefit of the industry?
    Sir J. Anderson: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    CLAUSE 32.—(Increase of standard profits in certain cases.)
    Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 19, line 36, at the end, to insert:
    "(2) Where—

    (a) a trade or business is carried on by a partnership or by a company the directors whereof have a controlling interest therein; and

    (b) the standard profits of the trade or business are ascertained by reference to the minimum amount specified in subsection (2)

    739
    of section thirteen of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1939; and

    (c) there are three or more working proprietors in the trade or business;

    subsection (1) of this section shall have effect as if for the reference to one thousand pounds there were substituted a reference to such greater sum, not exceeding two thousand pounds, as is arrived at by allowing five hundred pounds for each working proprietor in the trade or business."
    As the Clause left the Committee, provision was made, in the case of small businesses, whether partnerships or director-controlled, for adding to the standard a sum of £1,000. In the case of a business with one working proprietor the addition was £1,000, and in the case of the business with two working proprietors the addition worked out at £500 for each working proprietor. During the Committee stage an argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley), which received a measure of support, was directed to making a case for including the small business with more than two working proprietors. The suggestion was that the purpose of the Clause, which was to encourage the small man and give him the means of expanding his business, and putting profits back into his business, would be more effectively met, if the line were not drawn at two working partners. On behalf of the Government it was promised that consideration would be given, between the Committee stage and the Report stage, to the possibility of making some slight extension of the principle embodied in the Clause. I have gone into the matter, and I feel that, while any extension of the £1,000, in order to meet this particular case, would, to some extent, mar the symmetry of the proposal I put before Parliament, which was that there should be a flat addition of £1,000 in the case of all alternative standards—everything but the ordinary profits standards—I am bound to say I was influenced by the arguments put forward. I think, on the whole, we might hold that a case has been made out for giving to the small business with three or four working proprietors, the same proportional advantage per working proprietor as is proposed in the Clause in the case of two working proprietors. For that reason, I have submitted this Amendment for acceptance by the House.
    Mr. R. C. Morrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman satis-
    740
    fled that the concession he is proposing will not be liable to abuse?
    Sir J. Anderson: I am pretty certain that it will not be liable to abuse, because we are guarding ourselves elsewhere against abuse in regard to the number of working proprietors, and I think I shall be able to show, when we come to an Amendment to Clause 33, that we have taken effective measures to that end. I am very anxious, and I believe the House is anxious, to give every encouragement to the small working proprietor business, and I think we shall not go far wrong if we make this small extension. I ought to tell the House what the cost to the Exchequer is likely to be, because that will enable hon. Members to judge of the practical effect of this concession. Making allowance for the additional Income Tax that will be collected, when the excess profits standard is raised, the best estimate I can give of the probable cost is £600,000 a year.
    Mr. Woodburn: While not disapproving of the Amendment I must point out that it does raise a question in regard to the adjective "working". We understand that that will be interpreted literally, because the large number of sleeping partners in industry to-day who draw considerable incomes from companies, though playing no effective part in production, is a scandal, and I would not like to think that that was to be assisted by a side wind in this way.
    Sir J. Anderson: I think I can safely give my hon. Friend that assurance.
    Sir Arnold Gridley: May I, very briefly but very earnestly, thank the Chancellor for agreeing to meet us on this point in the way he has? His concession will be very much appreciated; and, as he himself has recognised, a good deal of that which he gives with one hand, he will collect back with the other. I hope the House will unanimously agree to the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 19, line 37, leave out "Sub-section (1)," and insert "The preceding provisions."—[Sir J. Anderson.]

    CLAUSE 33.—(Tax avoidance.)
    The Solicitor-General (Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I beg to move, in page

    741
    21, line 41, after "transactions," to insert:
    "being a transaction which involves, or transactions one or more of which involve—

    (a) the transfer or acquisition of shares in a company; or

    (b) a change or changes in the person or persons carrying on a trade or business or part of a trade or business."

    The object of this Amendment to what is now Clause 33 is to carry out the suggestion that I made at the conclusion of the Debate on the Committee stage, when I said that my right hon. Friends and I were quite prepared to consider any Amendment which would clearly delimit the target at which we were aiming, but would not in any way lessen the powers which we thought were necessary. We suggest this Amendment as carrying out that purpose. The House will see that it limits our attack on this tax avoidance to the two cases which I stressed and which were generally admitted:

    "(a) The transfer or acquisition of shares in a company; or

    (b) a change or changes in the person or persons carrying on a trade or business or part of a trade or business."

    My hon. Friend the Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) will see that in (b) we have clearly aimed at, and clearly attacked, the abuse of the working proprietor position. Paragraph (a) deals with what we call familiarly the "birth, marriage and divorce" of companies for purposes of improving their excess profits standard. These were the two evils at which our anti-tax avoidance provisions were aimed. The other matters which were mentioned and especially stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett), such as expenses of advertising and research, and certain matters of prices, will no longer be struck at. These were the innocent transactions, which my hon. Friend and other hon. Members were afraid might, unwittingly, be struck at by this Act. I hope the House will feel that by this Amendment we have maintained exactly the spirit and letter of the suggestion that I made to the House, that is, to make quite clear that the target at which we are aiming is not in any way lessened, nor is the strength of the missile which we aim at it.
    Mr. Benson: Once again the Government have given way to the pressure from hon. Members behind them.
    742
    [An HON. MEMBER: "Why should they not?"] Because it is the duty of this House to safeguard the fisc and not to facilitate the activities of people who wish to evade taxation. When this provision was introduced in 1940, tremendous pressure was put upon the Government to weaken it by introducing the words "main purpose." After two or three years' experience, it was found that that modification allowed a large number of people to indulge in transactions which did avoid tax, and now, once again, the Clause is weakened by the Government introducing a strictly limiting Amendment. It is true that the Solicitor-General, when he was defending the Clause on the Committee stage, pointed out that the vast majority of the cases of tax avoidance, with which the Inland Revenue had had to deal, had been cases where companies had bought up other companies, for the purpose of manipulating their standards, or where limited companies and private companies had introduced additional working partners or directors, obviously with the purpose of improving the standard. Admittedly these two types of avoidance are still brought under the Clause as amended, but is there any reason why a Clause like this, which, I suggest, contains adequate safeguards for the taxpaper, should limit the target to such a small area?
    We have had a long experience now of legislation against tax avoidance and history has repeated itself time and time again. A Clause has been drafted, and it may or may not have been improved in its passage through the House, but in a few years it has been found that the Clause was drafted too narrowly. If we draft a narrow Clause, to say exactly what is illegal, by doing so we also say what is legal, and the ingenuity of the tax avoider enables him to look around and find some loophole. Every hon. Member knows that that has been the history of tax avoidance legislation in the past 20 years, and here again we are commiting the same blunder. We are limiting the Clause and narrowing the target to such an extent that any other form of tax avoidance will be legal—if it has not previously been stopped. I suggest that there is adequate protection for the taxpayer in this Clause, Sub-section (3) of which says that a transaction shall be regarded as having for its main object the avoidance of tax if the main benefit to be derived from that action is the

    743
    avoidance of tax. If the main benefit to be derived from any particular transaction is the avoidance of tax, is there any reason why that transaction should not be voided? Here, again, we have a safeguard in that the ultimate decision upon whether the main benefit is, or is not, the avoidance of tax, rests with the Special Commissioners. It does not rest with the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.
    Again, I suggest, we know from long experience that, as an appellate body, the Special Commissioners have always been extremely careful to protect the rights of the taxpayer. This is not the first occasion upon which an Attorney-General, a Solicitor-General or a Chancellor of the Exchequer has come to this House and explained that what he is proposing to do is to strengthen a Clause, because the decisions of the Special Commissioners have allowed so many fish to escape his net. I suggest that Sub-section (3) is adequate protection, and if we delimit the object of the Clause, it will only be a year or two before the Chancellor comes again and attempts to strengthen the Clause. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider this matter very seriously.
    Sir Peter Bennett: I am rather surprised at the attitude taken up by my hon. Friend, because he will remember that when we discussed this in Committee, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Solicitor-General made it quite clear that they must have sufficient powers to deal with the tax-dodging which had been brought to light by the experience of the last three years. The officials of the Inland Revenue have got the cases, and they know exactly what they are aiming at. We said that we were in sympathy with that and wished to help them, but that we did not want to have the wording so wide that it would hurt people who were not engaged in tax-dodging, but were carrying out normal business activities. I submit that if the officials are satisfied that the words are sufficient for their purpose, that is exactly what we are aiming at. If they say that they have sufficient weapons to deal with the cases made out, I think that the Solicitor-General is doing the right thing in carrying out the promise he made, that he was shooting at a certain target, and that that
    744
    was the target he wanted to hit—or, to put it another way, that he had decided to shoot a solid shot at the target and was not using a high explosive, so that the rest of us would not be hurt by the blast. I hope the Amendment will be accepted by the House.
    Mr. Hammersley: If the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) were agreed to, it seems to me that one essential tenet of taxation, namely, that the taxpayer should know as near as he can where he stands, would be lost.
    Mr. Benson: Surely, under Sub-section (3), the taxpayer is the best person to know what is the major benefit arising from taxation, and, if it is avoidance of tax, he will know it before the Inland Revenue know it.
    Mr. Hammersley: It may be that a transaction which is perfectly innocent, and absolutely desirable, might have a benefit in this direction, and then, under the Clause as it is now drawn, it would be the duty of the taxpayer to show that it was not the main benefit. There was a great deal of apprehension that this Clause was too widely drawn, and we received the information that the cases that the Chancellor had in mind were, in fact, cases of this kind. They were share transactions, and transactions in respect of working proprietors. We asked that the cases of abuse should be definitely decided and delineated in the Clause, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done that. We are very grateful to him for so doing. Although it is wise that he has done this, I do not think it is right that the taxpayer who is innocent should be in jeopardy, and should have to prove that he is innocent. That is the point. The taxpayer would not finally escape taxation, but he would be put in the position of a tax inspector making directions, and he would then have to go to the Special Commissioners. Of course, if he were innocent, nothing would happen, but, in the meantime, he would be in an uncomfortable and invidious position, and, it may be, he would refrain from doing something which he ought to do in the interests of the community. For these reasons, I wholeheartedly welcome the Amendment.
    Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I do not think there is any real

    745
    difference of opinion in any part of the House, on this matter. We are all agreed that tax avoidance with the object of evading a burden which is falling upon others shall be stopped, and I think we are all agreed that if there are perfectly innocent people, engaged in a transaction for ordinary purposes, they shall not be penalised by the decisions in this Bill.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) says that in the past this particular method of tax avoidance has consisted of certain actions, but if this House, at the instigation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, confines the penalties in this Clause to an action of a precise and specific nature, is it not possible that those who want to practise tax avoidance will go a little out of their way and adopt a new method which, in view of this Amendment, will not be specifically prohibited by the law of the land? That is not a question of sentiment, but one of practical effect and I want to ask the Government and the Chancellor two questions. First, is the Chancellor reasonably sure that the fear which my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield has raised is not substantial? Is it possible, or likely, that those who have used methods of tax avoidance which were open to them in the past, would be stopped from doing so in the future if the Clause were carried out in its entirety, or, is it possible that they may find a loophole in consequence of the Amendment which he is moving to-day? That is the first question.
    The second question is: Will the Chancellor give us the assurance that if—in spite, it may be, of any statement which he makes in answer to the first question—there is, again, definite proof that tax avoidance has arisen out of this Amendment, he will come to us again? Will he hold himself perfectly free in, say, two years' time, or at the first available opportunity—it cannot be next year because time must elapse—not only to strengthen the law, but to make it retrospective so that those who are taking improper advantage of the Amendment which has been moved to-day will not gain any advantage by such improper action?
    Sir A. Gridley: If the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) will forgive me, I would like to say that I thought it a little unworthy of him to suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of all
    746
    people, is more likely to yield to persuasions from this side of the House, than from any other quarter.
    Mr. Pethick-Lawrenee Mr. Pethick-Lawrenee indicated dissent.
    Sir A. Gridley: We all know how difficult it is to get concessions from the Chancellor, no matter to what party we may belong, and, therefore, I think that the hon. Member's remark, if I may respectfully say so, was a little unjust and uncalled for. I took part in the Debate on this Bill in the Committee stage, and pressed strongly for some limiting of Clause 32, as it then was and as then drawn, and the Solicitor-General, in endeavouring to meet the arguments, divulged to us that the great majority of cases were of the type which the Chancellor is still seeking to catch by the provisions of this Amendment. I would point out to the hon. Member for Chesterfield that paragraph (a) of this Amendment, which deals with the transfer or acquisition of shares of a company, is still extremely wide. Therefore, I think that his fears that improper share transactions may still be sought have very little foundation. Since the Committee stage, there is one paint which I did venture to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We heard of cases in which juniors had been brought into partnership. Such cases had been taken to the Commissioners, who, although they felt that the arguments for bringing in a junior were ridiculous, could not prove that the motive was not a bona fide one. Therefore, I would like to see brought within the ambit of this Clause, something to the following effect:
    "No person under 21 years of age at the passing of this Act, or who was under that age before the appropriate date in 1941, may be deemed to be a partner or working proprietor under the provisions of Clause 32 of this Act and of this Clause."
    The wording of that may not be altogether appropriate, but I see no reason for not ante-dating an age limit, because anyone round about that age during the last two or three years ought to be either in military service, or directed to work of greater national importance. I do not know whether the Chancellor has considered whether or not it would be appropriate to get this further power, and make it impossible for anyone under the age of 21 to be made, or to be deemed, a work-

    747
    ing partner. Perhaps, when he replies, he will be good enough to deal with the point. May I thank him once more for the way in which he has met the criticisms brought out in the Committee stage?
    Sir Waldron Smithers: May I ask one question on what the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) has said about the part of the Clause which deals with the sale of shares? Some share companies, on being offered a price far shares, may try to avoid E.P.T., but others may sell their shares perfectly innocently. I would like to know if something can be done for those people who sell their shares innocently, and have no idea whatever of tax avoidance.
    Sir J. Anderson: As regards the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Sir W. Smithers), I think I know the case which could best be quoted to illustrate the point he makes. In that particular case, if my conjecture is correct, some innocent shareholders may have been concerned in the scandal which arose in connection with that transaction, and which was such that I am sure all hon. Members in this House, with very few exceptions, would agree that there was good ground for applying the law with retrospective effect. In regard to the point just made by the hon. Member far Stockport (Sir A. Gridley), I looked at his suggestion, but I would point out to him that, if it were to be adopted, it would involve an increased charge. Therefore, I suppose that that, without a Resolution, would be out of Order, and I felt that I could not consider it further nor, indeed, do I think that the addition he suggested would be necessary, because the Amendment we are considering seems to do all that is required.
    Regarding what the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) had to say, it seemed to me that he was basing his argument, and concentrating attention unduly, on Sub-section (3) of the Clause, and was leaving out of consideration altogether the fact that there is a provision in Subsection (2), which, taken by itself, would go a long way towards tightening up the provisions in the earlier Finance Act which have been found, in practice, to be defective. The Amendment which is proposed to Sub-section (3) has no effect
    748
    whatever in weakening Sub-section (2). Let us, therefore, look to see just what the effects of the proposed Amendment to Sub-section (3) will be, and what are the arguments on which the Amendment rests. As Sub-section (3) stands in the Bill, in regard to every transaction, the mere fact that it has the result of lightening the burden of tax is taken as conclusive proof that the main purpose, or one of the main purposes, of the management was to avoid tax liability. Experience has shown that, in regard to the types of transaction which were so fully discussed during Committee stage, it is extraordinarily difficult to produce evidence to rebut the suggestion that, though the main effect of a transaction was to relieve the taxpayer of part of his tax burdens, that was not his purpose, or one of his main purposes. Experience has shown that it is difficult to make the fact of tax avoidance conclusive proof as to purpose or intention, and what we have to ask ourselves is whether, in regard to other actions by taxpayers, which have the effect of reducing the burden of their tax obligations, it would be reasonable to apply the same principle. Quite frankly, I do not think it would. There is no experience which suggests that it would be necessary to apply the provision of Sub-section (3) to other classes of transactions, and there are very many transactions, of a perfectly legitimate character, in regard to which it would be unjust to claim that tax lightening was the intention of the taxpayer, and that there was proof of evasion.
    Let me take a simple case of an enterprising firm, which believes in research and starts a new research establishment, in the course of the year, to do some long-term research. The immediate effect is to lighten the burden of tax, and it may be very difficult to show that, in the long run, that expenditure will be remunerative, and that there was no other real purpose than to lighten the burden of tax. It is of the essence of fruitful research, that it may be undertaken in many cases where the hope of direct reward is somewhat remote. Many other cases could be given where a perfectly legitimate action is taken by a taxpayer, which has the immediate effect of reducing the tax burden, but where a reasonable person would concede at once that the purpose of what had been done was not tax avoidance. To say, in such

    749
    cases, that the mere fact that the immediate effect was tax avoidance, must be taken as conclusive proof of a purpose, that no reasonable person would attribute to the taxpayer, would not be good sense. Therefore, I think the problem that confronted us in the Committee stage was really a practical one. Could we devise words which were widespread enough to cover the only serious abuses without such a sweeping rule? If we have succeeded, as I think we have, I think it is reasonable that the Clause should be amended in the manner we are now proposing.
    In regard to the point put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), I can certainly say, as I have already indicated to the House, that I feel reasonably assured that there is no substantial danger, on the experience that we have had, of the effectiveness of the Clause as we have sought to amend it being in any way impaired in practice by the Amendment that has been produced. I will also say that if, contrary to my fairly confident anticipation, experience should show that some other kind of expedient has been discovered by ingenious taxpayers—would-be tax avoiders—which requires correction and remedy, I will not hesitate to come to this House with an appropriate Amendment.
    Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: And make it retrospective?
    Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir. It will be retrospective.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 40 (Application of Part VI.)
    Sir Alexander Russell: I beg to move, in page 27, line 11, at the beginning, to insert:
    "The last preceding Section shall have effect in the case of all persons dying after the twenty-seventh day of Tune, nineteen hundred and forty, but save as aforesaid."
    The object of this Amendment is to extend the provisions of Clause 39 of the Bill, to the case of all persons dying after 27th June, 1940, which was the date on which the Finance Act, 1940, became law. Clause 39 amends Section 44 of the Finance Act, 1940. That Section was directed against avoidance of Estate Duty,
    750
    which took the form of giving a lump sum during the life of the donor to a relative, in exchange for a life annuity calculated actuarially. On the donor's death, no charge to Estate Duty arose in respect of the cessor of the annuity, and the gift, being for full consideration, was also not chargeable. The remedy provided by the Section was, in such a case, to make the whole of the gift chargeable to duty on the donor's death. The Section, however, made no provision for any deduction in the case in which the annuity payments to the donor, up to the date of his death, exceeded the income earned by the property given by him to the relative over the same period, although in fact, such an excess is, clearly, in substance, a refund of part of the gift by the relative and should not, therefore, be charged to duty as part of the gift on the donor's death. Clause 39 makes provision for the deduction of this excess from the gift but its scope is limited by Clause 40 to the case of persons dying after the date on which this Finance Bill becomes law.
    This limitation, I suggest, is clearly unjust, for it will exclude from relief all past cases in which duty has been charged, ever since the date of the passing of the Finance Act, 1940, on a basis now admitted to have been wrong. The remedy should be dated back to the date on which the wrong basis was first enacted, and I hope, therefore, that the Government will see their way to accept my Amendment, which will have that result.
    Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir J. Anderson: The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Sir A. Russell) has explained, quite correctly, the effect of the Amendment proposed and the case for it. The case for it is, quite briefly, that there are provisions in the Bill, as it stands, for correcting any inequity which has existed since the Finance Act, 1940, and it is perfectly logical and quite reasonable that, if the inequity is to be corrected, as we propose, it should be corrected from the date on which it arose. I do not think that any practical difficulty is likely to result, and I recommend the House to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORS (WAR-TIME REGISTRATION) BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORS (WAR-TIME REGISTRATION) BILL

    CLAUSE 1.—(Qualifying date and qualifying period.)
    Sir Irving Albery: I beg to move, in page 2, line 15, to leave out "is satisfied," and to insert "has reasonable cause to believe."
    I do not intend to speak at any length on this Amendment. It was put down on a former occasion, when this House was informed that certain powers were being given to the Home Secretary. I suggest that there is more adequate protection in the words proposed than in the words "is satisfied." It seems to us that, in this Bill, the Home Secretary has a very large and important discretion, and his advisers—I believe they were the Law Officers—have previously said that the interests of this House could best be safeguarded by the words on the Order Paper. In those circumstances, I cannot but believe that the Amendment will be accepted by the Minister. If I am to be disappointed, I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will give us adequate reasons for refusing to accept it, and, possibly, will explain why what was suitable on one occasion, is considered to be unsuitable on the present occasion.
    Commander Sir Archibald Southby: I can only suppose, by the look in the Under-Secretary's eye, that he is not going to accept this quite moderate Amendment, but if he refuses it, I presume it will be upon the ground that the words mean something different, as indeed, I consider they do, from those words which appear in the original Bill. But if the words "has reasonable cause to believe" mean something different from "is satisfied," one is at a loss to know why, in this case, there is a difference in the meaning, whereas when the matter arose over Regulation 18B, it was held by the Attorney-General and others that there was then no difference whatever in the meaning of the words. On the other hand, the Under-Secretary may be in a somewhat yielding mood, and may be prepared to accept this excellent Amendment, so ably moved by my hon. Friend. In that case, he will presumably
    752
    tell us that the words do not mean something different. In any case, it will be interesting to hear what the Under-Secretary has to say on the matter.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): My hon. Friends have moved this Amendment in most reasonable terms and I am grateful to them for so doing. The Amendment is, I think, in the nature of a hang-over from the Debate on Regulation 18B, which took place on 76th June. It is true that these words, "has reasonable cause to believe" have been the subject of judicial decision in the highest Court of the land, and have given rise to some controversy and even to some difference of opinion in that tribunal. During the Debate on 16th June my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General referred to his speech of 26th November, 1941, in which he explained very clearly the difference between these two forms of words. The Attorney-General said in the course of the Debate that day:
    "In addition to those changes the words 'has reasonable cause to believe' were substituted for 'is satisfied.' That change…was made to emphasise what the majority of the House desired to emphasise, namely, that these were cases to which the Home Secretary must direct his personal attention… Those words emphasise and make clear to the Home Secretary not that there is an alteration in the legal position in the sense that they give a resort to the courts, but that it is a matter to which he must direct his personal judgment and of which he must personally weigh the pros and cons. Everybody knows that the scope of modern Departments is such that in many cases "——[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1941; Vol. 376, c. 807.]
    The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): I ought to remind the right hon. Gentleman that he is getting away from the subject and is quoting from a Debate on a rather different subject.
    Mr. Peake: I was basing myself upon the opinion—I myself not being highly versed in the law—of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. The point is that in Defence Regulation 18B these words were put into the Regulation to make sure that the Home Secretary gave, in a matter of the highest importance, namely, the liberty of the subject, his own personal undivided attention, and took upon himself the responsibility of investigating each individual case upon its merits. If we are to be asked, in a matter which involves a question only of whether

    753
    certain arrangements are or are not administratively feasible, to import these same words, then we are obviously raising the matter of administrative feasibility into the same order of importance and priority, as the question of the liberty of the subject under Defence Regulation 188. My hon. Friend who moved this Amendment, I am sure, would not wish to do that. If in every Statute—and there are very many Statutes—where a Minister has to form an opinion and has to be satisfied of something, we have to say to the Minister, "You have to give to this matter the same amount of personal attention, and take the same amount of personal responsibility as you have to take in the case of the detention of a British subject without trial," we are going to over-burden the Minister with a weight of responsibility which he cannot individually sustain, and we shall jeopardise the currency of the high value we at present place upon the liberty of the subject.
    It is clear, in this matter, that it is a question of whether certain machinery is available and ready for use in connection with Parliamentary elections and that the Home Secretary must give his personal attention to it. But, as my hon. Friends are aware, in order that these arrangements under the 1943 Act with regard to elections may come into operation, the Home Secretary has to be satisfied that the arrangements are complete in every constituency. He has to be sure that they will work universally and simultaneously. The election machinery is to take automatic account of removals from one constituency to another, and if the administrative arrangements are incomplete or inadequate in one constituency, many other constituencies will thereby be affected. The Home Secretary must have the general responsibility for seeing that these arrangements are properly completed, but it is asking too much of him to say that he must investigate the position of affairs, personally, in the office of every clerk of a county, or every town clerk throughout the country, and be prepared to say to the town clerk or to a clerk of the peace, "Your arrangements are not adequate, you ought to take on additional staff, you must do this or that." That is, clearly, class of work which must be left to the ordinary day-to-day administration of the Home Office. I hope that with that explanation my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment.
    Sir I. Albery: My right hon. Friend, with his usual courtesy and ability, has given a somewhat detailed explanation of his case. I cannot say, personally, that I feel he has met it. I do not think that anything can be much more important than the action which the Home Secretary would have to take under this Bill, arid certainly the Committee would expect him to give his direct personal attention to these matters, and, if the Bill so determines, that at a certain time it would be upon his direct responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman's chief difficulty probably arises from the somewhat false interpretation which has previously been given to the words. As a layman, I should have said that a person might have reasonable cause to believe something without being satisfied, but, on the other hand, I fail-to see how a person can be satisfied unless he "has reasonable cause to believe." I rather think that is the dilemma with which the right hon. Gentleman has been endeavouring to deal with great courage, courtesy and ability, but I do not think his reply is convincing.
    Sir A. Southby: If my right hon. Friend will look once more at the portion of the Bill we are seeking to amend, he will see that it says:
    "This section shall expire with the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-five:
    Provided that
    (a) if at any time while this section is in force, not being less than two months before the date on which it would otherwise expire, the Secretary of State is satisfied that sufficient staff and facilities are available for the operation of the principal Act as originally enacted, he shall make an order advancing the date of expiration to a date specified in the order;"
    All through the Debate in the House yesterday there ran an under-current of fear that this amending Bill might perhaps be used for the purposes of a General Election, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bethnal Green, South-West (Sir P. Harris) pressed the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to give a categorical assurance on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman was much too "fly" to give any such undertaking but confined himself to saying that it was a thousand to one against such a contingency arising. It is obvious that the House as a whole does not want to have, in this amending Bill, the means whereby the register should be compiled for a

    755
    General Election. It is a stop-gap Measure meant to put right something which was found to be amiss. Surely, the second greatest concern of the Home Secretary, and of the Under-Secretary, with regard to the liberty of the subject is to ensure that the subject should have an opportunity of giving his vote at a General Election in the best possible way, and that the best possible register should be compiled. I suggest that we have made out an overwhelming case that these words should be altered for the very reason which the right hon. Gentleman himself provides. His speech was the best speech for the Amendment we have had yet. He said that it was so important that the Home Secretary had to give his personal attention to it. He admitted that the proposed words made a great difference and laid a particular duty upon the shoulders of the Home Secretary. I cannot help thinking that he ought, therefore, to accept the Amendment so that there shall be no doubt whatever that when the Home Secretary has satisfied himself that there are staffing facilities available, he will, in the terms of the Bill, begin to act.
    Mr. Peake: My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery), in his second speech on the Amendment, seems to have contradicted his first, because in his view the words "is satisfied" in the Bill demand a higher degree of proof than the words "has reasonable cause to believe" which he seeks to substitute for them.
    Sir I. Albery: I put down the Amendment in the belief it was the kind of Amendment the Government wanted to accept, because it coincided so completely with their views of the meaning of the words, "have reasonable cause to believe," but my view has always been the contrary.
    Mr. Peake: I hesitated for some time whether I should or should not accept the Amendment. By so doing I should have taken the wind out of the sails of my hon. Friend. At the same time, I take the view that I should have been thereby debasing the currency of the very high value which we place upon the words "has reasonable cause to believe" and which we have put into the Regulations, especially Defence Regulation 18B, where the personal liberty of the subject is involved. I am a little sur-
    756
    prised that my hon. Friends who take such an interest in that subject should seek to introduce these words into a Statute dealing with Parliamentary elections.
    Sir A. Southby: Why should my right hon. Friend be surprised at our taking an interest in any method which particularly concerns the subject?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North): I am loth to intervene in this small Debate, but the point which has arisen is rather interesting. I am sorry, Mr. Williams, that you ruled the Under-Secretary of State out of Order when he was reading the explanation of those particular words which was given by the Attorney-General, in a previous Debate. I am an ordinary man and for the life of me I cannot see that either form of wording imposes any duty on the Home Secretary personally to inquire into anything at all. Therefore I should advise the right hon. Gentleman not to take such a very high view of the particular words which he has put in the Bill, and to accept the Amendment, because it is perfectly clear that what the mover of the Amendment said in the second of his speeches is correct—"satisfied" is a much stronger word than "has reasonable cause to believe." What we in this Committee are interested in, is that the Home Secretary should be satisfied. He need not inquire personally. He has a large office with officials and he knows whom he can trust among those officials. Therefore, the personal liability of the Home Secretary is no greater whichever of these words you take. He is finally responsible to Parliament. If the Under-Secretary puts such tremendous faith in these particular words, which he has put into the Bill, then by all means let us have them, and let it be perfectly clear that the Home Secretary is more responsible in this matter than we should otherwise believe the words to imply. I should like to put it even more strongly, and say "is personally satisfied."
    Mr. Woodburn (Stirling and Clackmannan, Eastern): I suggest that the Committee should reject this Amendment on the ground that two words say quite well, what is is now proposed to say in five. No one in his senses could see any serious reason why the Committee should waste its time discussing this, and I think the Bill should be left as it is.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I support what my hon. Friend has just said and would express the hope that the two hon. Members on the other side, having had their quiet enjoyment and, as the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department said, their hang-over from a previous Debate, will now be willing to let this matter rest. I think it would be wrong for the Minister, having announced that he had no intention of accepting this Amendment, now to change his mind and accept it. It is obvious that the two words "is satisfied" are quite sufficient to express the meaning which it is found essential to express, and any longer form of words which the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir Irving Albery) himself admitted was not as strong, should not be substituted for the words which are now in the Bill.
    Mr. Mathers: The vital difference that I see between these two sets of words is in the first place that the words "is satisfied" are much firmer than "has reasonable cause to believe." We do want the Bill to be as firm as possible. The other distinction between the two sets of words is that, in my judgment, the words "is satisfied" are intended to deal with a set of circumstances that are more capable of proof than in the other case. Hon. Members will definitely weaken this Bill—where there is a much greater measure of the possibility of proof—if they bring in words that relate only to things connected with the opinion of the Home Secretary, and this Measure should be as strong as possible.
    Mr. Lionel Berry: I do not agree with the last speaker. There is a question of principle involved. I support this Amendment because, on a previous occasion, the whole question was thrashed out, of which form of words is right and which is wrong. Personally, I am not satisfied myself that anyone can be satisfied unless he "has reasonable cause to believe." Are we not entitled to have some explanation, from say the Solicitor-General, who I see is listening to the Debate?
    Sir I. Albery: I do not regard this matter as trivial. It may be that it is a little unfortunate that it has had to be raised on this issue, but there are very important issues at stake and we want to test these words. We have given our
    758
    view as to the meanings of the words, and the right hon. Gentleman has given his but, after all, the people who got us into this dilemma were the Law Officers of the Crown, and the least they can do is for one of them to speak now and get us out of it.
    Sir Ernest Shepperson: Could not both sides in this dispute be satisfied if both forms are kept in—"is satisfied" and "has reasonable cause to believe"? Than everyone will be pleased.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Sir I. Albery: I desire formally to oppose Clause 1, in order to give the Solicitor-General an opportunity of saying something.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, without Amendment.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    Mr. Edmund Harvey: I wish to ask my right hon. Friend a question. I take it that the difficulties which have caused this Bill have arisen in connection with the ordinary constituencies and that nothing in this Bill affects the position of the electors registered at universities? An assurance on that point would give satisfaction, though I feel no doubt as to the answer.
    Mr. Peake: My recollection—and I think it is pretty clear—is that the Act of 1943 had no bearing on the compilation of the register, so far as university students are concerned.
    Commander King-Hall: I think I shall just be in Order on the Third Reading, in expressing my regret that this Bill does not include——
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): I am sorry but the hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot have any regrets on the Third Reading.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."[Mr. Adamson.]
  Mr. Tinker: The point I wish to deal with arises on a Question which I put to the Minister of Health on 25th May. I asked the Minister if he was aware
  "that the payment for rent under the supplementary old age pension is, in the case of the single person living in lodgings, being calculated as being two-thirds for rent and one-third for heating, lighting and crockery; and will he state if this is in accordance with the Assistance Board's ruling."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 25th May, 1944; Vol. 400, c. 931.]
  The Minister of Health in his reply said that it was so, that the Assistance Board in attributing the amount to rent take into consideration the circumstances of the individual case; that is to say, if a man pays a certain amount for his lodgings then it can be sub-divided under certain heads. I will give the House an illustration of that point.
  Some time ago I was in the public library at St. Helens. I would like to advise hon. Members who may want information about people who are hard up and in difficulties, to go to public libraries because these people congregate there to let off their views and to give others an idea of what is happening to them. This man asked me whether I was aware of his position. I said I was not. He said, "I am living in a common lodging house and am getting 22s. 6d. per week from the Assistance Board and my old age pension, that is, 12S. 6d. from the Assistance Board." I said, "What do you pay for your lodgings?" He said he was paying 5s. I said, "You are entitled then to 25s." That was my idea but, to be quite sure of my position, I put a Question to the Minister of Health and asked whether I was in order in giving that information. He said that this man was entitled to look upon himself as a single man living alone and was entitled to rent plus the £1 per week, but did not say definitely what the amount should be. I assumed from that answer that what the man was paying in lodgings—whatever the sum might be—would be under the heading of rent, and he would get that in addition to the £1per week which is his old age pension and supplementary pension. He might be
  760
  paying 5s. or 6s. and that would be called rent. I told old age pensioners of the ruling from the Minister of Health.
  Later I met an old man and in the course of conversation I asked him his circumstances, being moved to pity for he had not a decent suit of clothes on, and his shoes were worn down, yet I knew he was respectable. I asked what he was getting by way of old age pension and he said 23s. a week, that is, 10s. old age pension and 13s. supplementary pension. I asked him where he was living and he said he was living with a woman who took in lodgers, paying 6s. a week for his lodgings. I said, "You are entitled to more than 23s. Go to the Assistance Board and tell them from me that in my view you are entitled to 6s. for rent, that is, 16s. in all from the Assistance Board." He said that he had had so much trouble over it that he did not like to face these people. However, that did not satisfy me so I took up the matter myself and I wrote to the area officer of the St. Helens district and told him that in my view, on a ruling of the Minister of Health, this man was entitled to 6s. per week for rent. He said they would examine the case again and they sent for the man and increased his allowance from 13s. to 14s., making it 24s. in all, but the officer said I was wrong in my calculation that this man was entitled to the full 6s., that the Assistance Board ruling was that this should be sub-divided and that a certain amount of the rent he paid for lodgings should be applied in other directions. He said, "In this case the ruling from my Board is that 2s., or one third of 6s., shall come under the head of lighting, heating and crockery, therefore this man is entitled only to 4s., which we are giving him. We have recommended another 1s. on your application, and have made it 24s."
  I said I should have to raise this matter on the Floor of the House of Commons because I was not satisfied, but before I did that I would like to see him personally to discover the point of difference. So we met in his office and talked, and I asked if what he was doing in St. Helens was typical of the whole of the country. He said: "I believe so. I think that is the ruling of the Assistance Board, and therefore what we are doing is in keeping with the rest of the country."

  761
  I could not believe it was so, and I said, "I want to give you warning that I shall raise this by Question and answer, and if in the House of Commons we do not get full satisfaction in reply to a Question, we raise the matter on the Adjournment." This I have done, so the matter is now before the House to find out exactly what is meant. This position is deplorable. Many of these people have no regular homes, either because their homes have been broken up or because they may not have married. They may go into a common lodging house, or live apart from relatives, and have to pay 5s. or 6s. a week. I always understood that in such cases it would be said that such payments would come under the heading of rent, and would be paid by the State. I do not want it to be thought that if a man pays 10s. a week, or some such relatively high sum, he would get all that money from the State, but a reasonable sum like 5s. or 6s. should be repaid as rent. It is hard that this odd shilling or two should be taken away from supplementary pensions. I find that what I have said is the generally-accepted rule in the country, and if that is so I appeal to the Ministry of Health to review the whole position. Men who are in dire need should not be deprived of a few shillings a week which they are legitimately paying for lodgings. I have brought this matter forward in order to get the light of publicity thrown upon it. As I sat here listening to the Debate on the Finance Bill—I was not paying great attention to it because the Amendments on the Order Paper did not cause me to do so—I became aware that the Chancellor gave way on a number of points.
  On directorships, he said that where there were two or more directors the increase in their fees should be excluded from Supertax. He said it would cost only £600,000 a year. If the House of Commons can grant £600,000 to well-to-do people, is it too much to ask the same House of Commons, later in the day, to give, say, £50,000 to these poor people? This House of Commons should not be a rich man's Parliament; it should be a Parliament for all our people. I imagine that the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary has come here to-day primed with what she has to say. I know she is sympathetic in her heart, but she has not
  762
  the power or authority to do what we would like her to do, and I wish that her chief, the Minister himself, had been here to answer this case. I am always more at home when fighting the male rather than the female. [An HON. MEMBER: "Because the hon. Member is a bachelor."] Perhaps it is that, but at any rate I am sorry that the Minister himself is not here. If the hon. Lady refuses to accept our plea I shall be indignant, but I should be far more indignant with the Minister if he were here.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) has put forward his case with his usual sincerity and eloquence, a type of case that must appeal to the hearts of every Member of this House. I am in a little difficulty about the matter, because if this contribution is to be treated wholly as rent what happens to such a contribution in the case of a lodger who is living with old-age pensioners? I then become hoist with my own petard. If the rule is that half the lodger's payment is to be regarded as rent contribution is that all the old-age pensioner is entitled to when he is living with other people? Conversely, if it is all to be treated as rent and the lodger is living with old-age pensioners, the whole amount will be deducted from the rent before they get the rent allowance. That is my difficulty. In the case of old-age pensioners who are living in lodging-houses there ought to be no question about meeting my hon. Friend's case, because it is a special type of case, in which the amenities provided are very small. After all, they will not get such a warm welcome in an ordinary lodging-house as in a private house, and there ought to be a concession as regards that part of my hon. Friend's case, especially after all the concessions we heard of earlier to-day to coal owners and directors. This concession will cost much less than the concessions to coal owners and directors.
  Now I come to the point of the pensioner who was living with other people, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend. I admit there is a difficulty in that if you say if he pays rent and is living with a non-pensioner it is good for him, but that once he goes to live with a pensioner it will be bad for them all. I do not see how the Parliamentary Secretary will get out of the dilemma, but I hope she will

  763
  endeavour to meet the case of old age pensioners who are living in lodging houses.
  Mr. Buchanan: I, too, would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider sympathetically the matter which has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). When people live in model lodging houses—I have never been able to understand why they are called "model"—a definite charge is made for rent. It may well be that they get a little light or heat, but we are getting very near to the Micawber attitude when we start to sub-divide these little things. When we get to that stage we are becoming pernickety and miserable. Nobody can divide these things with accuracy. Not being good at anything, I always find difficulty in adding, subtracting and dividing, and most of these poor people find difficulty, too. When they come to me I say, "I cannot follow these mysteries myself, but I do know that after I have argued the case the Ministry will prove that what is being done is according to scale, and that is the end of the matter."
  These people feel that in some way or other they are not getting what they are entitled to get. These pin-pricking deductions do not make anybody any happier, even the officials. I would be the last to say that the Assistance Board officials were bad men and women; they must feel the irksomeness of all this, and that what they are doing is not quite right. Therefore, I appeal to the hon. Lady to make a new approach to the matter. When the Regulations were introduced the Minister of Labour made a case for abolishing the winter allowance. Few of us are as smart either as the Cabinet Ministers who pilot these Regulations through or the officials who run them. We can launch out millions at times on a particular object but, in dealing with these people, we apply the narrowest and meanest of tests.
  There is another point I wish to raise with the hon. Lady. I doubt if much can be done, but I would ask her to look at this again. Under the Savings Clause, money put into a Trustee Savings Bank up to a certain figure is exempt. Will she see if she cannot get the term "Trustee Bank" extended? One or two cases have come to my notice where people
  764
  have saved money since the war but instead of putting it in a Trustee Savings Bank they went to a branch of the Clydesdale Bank or the Union Bank, where the teller was civil and courteous. The rate of interest does not matter. What they want is security and, above all, a readiness to help in little matters, so they put their money into an ordinary bank. Then the husband dies and the widow has to make a claim. The sum, though it is used in the same way as money in a Trustee Savings Bank, is treated differently. I know that it is possible to use cute dodges to get over the difficulty, by lifting the money and transferring it, but they should not have to go to that length to get what is obviously intended by the Regulations. I hope the hon. Lady will deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend about persons in lodging houses. Possibly, if the Government were more generous to old-age pensioners, we might not worry about such a little point, but it is because the margin is so narrow between want and terrible misery that we raise it. I hope the hon. Lady will look at these issues again and try to get them readjusted.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): I know the difficulty about the Savings Bank, but, as the hon. Member knows well, the point about these savings is that it must be new money lent to the Government. The difficulty is the difference between a Trustee Savings Bank or the Post Office Savings Bank and the banks the hon. Member has mentioned. To change it would mean legislation, but I think one can get round it. I am certain that the teller in the Clydesdale Bank would say that the money could be put into Savings Certificates or Bonds instead.
  Mr. Buchanan: If it was a sum of £200 and it was in the Post Office they could lift it to pay the rent, say £3 each quarter.
  Miss Horsbrugh: If they do not want to put it in a Trustee Savings Bank does not the hon. Member think that, in most cases, there is a post office fairly near the home of the pensioner? There may be cases of difficulty, but I do not think there can be any very great hardship. They could get Savings Certificates or Bonds which they could lift, but, at the same time, there is the post office, if they

  765
  wish to draw it out more quickly. The hon. Member also raised the subject of the winter allowance. There were sometimes difficulties in the beginning, but now that the scheme has been rearranged and the winter allowances are spread over the whole year I think the particular difficulties that the hon. Member refers to will have been got over.
  I come to the main point raised by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). We have to look at this from both sides. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) saw some of the difficulties himself. It has been said that these are pernickety things, and the hon. Member pointed out clearly that we want all these pernickety things in the case of a lodger living with pensioners. We call it "pernickety" and "Micawber" in one case, but if we did not do it in the other both hon. Members would be on Adjournment after Adjournment pointing out that we were not doing what we ought to do. Take, first of all, the straightforward case of an old-age pensioner getting £1 a week plus rent. That rent will be the actual rent paid for the house, but that old-age pensioner out of the £1 a week is paying for fuel, light and everything else barring the actual expenditure on rent. We have agreed to that and that is what is working nov If we did not make this difference for the person who is paying an inclusive sum for rent, light and fuel, if we were being fair to one we should be unfair to the other, who would naturally feel that he was not getting a fair deal.
  We have tried to get a fair scheme, and we hoped that this scheme with the actual rent—a reasonable rent—would help us. But if we are to put under the heading of "rent" the other things that I have enumerated, naturally every pensioner is going to say he is not getting a fair deal. The £1 a week is given for everything else except the actual rent. A person who is living in a lodging house pays a sum which includes certain other things besides rent, such as fuel and light; and if it did not stop there we should get on to food next. It would not be fair to the other pensioner who is having to use his £1 a week, which is given for those expenses. He would naturally say, "In addition to the a week and the rent I also should in fairness be given the money that I spend on
  766
  fuel, light or any other things that are supplied." I think hon. Members will see what difficulties we should get into and that the £1 a week which is given separate from rent would have to be augmented if payment were given to other people in addition for fuel, light OT anything else charged in that sum. We want to get the thing fair and to treat people in such a way that they may see that it is fair.
  The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) pointed out how difficult it is to understand the intricacies of the scheme. What we have to make clear is that in the case of the £1 a week plus rent the rent really means rent as he and I know it—the actual shelter afforded by the house. If we do what is now suggested we are going to make it more difficult for people to understand and the people who are paying for fuel and light out of the £1 a week will naturally say they are not getting a pension on the same scale as the others. I am sure that hon. Members will come forward with that exact case. I do not wish to labour the point of what it would mean if we went to that extent and then had to use the same scale when a person was lodging with a pensioner. In this scheme there is fairness between one and the other. If we depart from it we shall get into further difficulties and make it unfair and make it difficult for people to understand. I hope I have made it clear to hon. Members. It is perhaps a good thing that the point has been raised. I am sure the hon. Member for Caerphilly sees the danger if we pursue this any further.
  Mr. Tinker: I still think that where it is a small sum of 4s. or 5s. it ought not to be cut into.
  Miss Horsbrugh: It all depends what the person is getting for his 4s. It is difficult to put the case with these hypothetical sums.
  Mr. Maxton: I think the hon. Lady is wrong in saying that old-age pensioners as a whole believe this to be fair. I hope she will not go back to her chief and report that she has had a controversy with three hon. Members and left them all perfectly satisfied. Things move so rapidly that even this, which is only six months old, is already out of

  767
  date, and the old-age pensioners' conditions have deteriorated relatively since the House passed that Act. I was anxious to reintroduce the petition for a flat rate of 30s. a week for all pensioners. When I came to discuss it with one or two people who are interested in the matter I found that there was a general view that 30s.
  768
  was not now adequate. I hope that the hon. Lady, in conveying a report of this discussion to her Minister and her Ministry, will tell them that in the House there is great discontent with the whole position of old-age pensioners.
  Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

  YUGOSLAVIA SITUATION
  YUGOSLAVIA SITUATION
  ADMIRALTY INDUSTRIAL CIVIL SERVANTS FEDERATION
  ADMIRALTY INDUSTRIAL CIVIL SERVANTS FEDERATION
  EQUAL PAY (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  EQUAL PAY (ROYAL COMMISSION)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Farm Lands (Requisition)
  Farm Lands (Requisition)
  Service Magazines
  Service Magazines
  W.A.A.F. (Billeting Allowances)
  W.A.A.F. (Billeting Allowances)
  SCOTLAND (STEEL WORKERS)
  SCOTLAND (STEEL WORKERS)
HOUSING
  Rents
  Rents
  Interest Rates
  Interest Rates
  Prefabricated Houses
  Prefabricated Houses
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (RESERVE FUNDS)
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (RESERVE FUNDS)
  ROYAL PARKS (CHAIRS)
  ROYAL PARKS (CHAIRS)
  DAY-OLD CHICKS (MORTALITY)
  DAY-OLD CHICKS (MORTALITY)
  U.N.R.R.A. (SCIENTIFIC ADVISERS)
  U.N.R.R.A. (SCIENTIFIC ADVISERS)
  COLONIAL PEOPLE, UNITED KINGDOM (WELFARE COMMITTEE)
  COLONIAL PEOPLE, UNITED KINGDOM (WELFARE COMMITTEE)
  INDIA (GEOLOGICAL SURVEY)
  INDIA (GEOLOGICAL SURVEY)
  BRITISH OVERSEAS INVESTMENTS
  BRITISH OVERSEAS INVESTMENTS
  PATENTS ACT (INVENTORS' CLAIMS)
  PATENTS ACT (INVENTORS' CLAIMS)
  WATER SUPPLIES
  WATER SUPPLIES
  AIR RAIDS (FLYING BOMBS)
  AIR RAIDS (FLYING BOMBS)
  MOUSE TRAPS
  MOUSE TRAPS

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

LORD SCHUSTER.
Sir Claud Schuster, G.C.B., C.V.O., K.C., having been created Baron Schuster of Cerne in the County of Dorset—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
LOUGHBOROUGH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
Message from the Commons that they have appointed a Committee of five members to join with a Committee of this House to consider the said Bill, and request this House to appoint an equal number of Lords to be joined with the Members of that House.

INDIA (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Government of India Act, 1935, in certain respects, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932:

  BOROUGH OF WEDNESBURY ORDER.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
  Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and laid before the House yesterday, be approved.—(The Earl of Munster.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (NORTH LINDSEY WATER BOARD) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (WARRINGTON) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.

ACCOMMODATION IN THE PALACE OF WESTMINSTER.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Message of Thursday last.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Viscount Cranborne, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name.
Moved, That a Committee of seven Lords be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Commons:—

M. Normanby,

E. Stanhope,

V. Mersey,

L. Hare (E. Listowel),

L. Southwood,

L. Teviot,

L. Schuster.

—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.
Then a Message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to inform them of the appointment of the said Committee by this House.

EDUCATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE MINISTER OF ECONOMIC WARFARE (THE EARL OF SELBORNE): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do resolve itself into Committee on the Education Bill. In doing so may I draw your attention to the problem that faces us in regard to time? It is hoped to take the Report stage on the 11th, 12th and 13th of July, but in order to be able to do that it is necessary to finish the Committee stage this week, and we have got only to the end of Clause 51 out of what is going to be, by the time we have finished with it, a Bill with nearly 120 clauses.
In these circumstances might I make an appeal to your Lordships to try to put forward your points as shortly as possible? I think, if I may say so, that we have had most valuable debates and the Bill is going to be considerably improved. It is a very big Bill and a great deal has to be said abort it, but it is necessary to get this Bill back to another place in time for them to deal with it before the adjournment. I hope therefore that your Lordships will express your points as shortly as you possibly can. May I also suggest to your Lordships that in order to expedite matters we should sit at an earlier hour than usual to-morrow and, if necessary, on Friday of this week.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Conimittee.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The LORD STANMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 52:
Power to ensure cleanliness.
(3) A notice served under the last foregoing subsection shall inform the person upon whom it is served that unless within the period limited by the notice, not being less than twenty-four hours after the service thereof, the person and clothing of the pupil to whom the notice relates are cleansed to the satisfaction of such person as may be specified in the notice the cleansing thereof will be carried out under arrangements made by the local
482
education authority; and if upon a report being made to him by that person at the expiration of that period a medical officer of the authority is not satisfied that the person and clothing of the pupil have been properly cleansed then, subject as hereafter provided, the medical officer may issue an order directing that the person and clothing of the pupil be cleansed under such arrangements:
Provided that, any such notice shall also inform the person upon whom it is served that he may within the period limited by the notice notify the head teacher of the school or college at which the pupil is in attendance that he objects to the cleansing being carried out under arrangements made by the local education authority, and if he does so such an order as aforesaid shall not be issued by the medical officer but an order to the like effect may, on the application of any officer of the authority, be made by a court of summary jurisdiction.
(6) Where an order has been made by a court of summary jurisdiction for the cleansing of the person or clothing of any pupil, then, if after the cleansing thereof has been carried out under this section his person or clothing is again found upon being examined under this section to be infested with vermin or in a foul condition at any time while he is in attendance at a school maintained by a local education authority or at a young people's college, the parent of the pupil, or in the case of a pupil in attendance at a young people's college, the pupil shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds.
LORD AMMON LORD AMMON moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "such person as may be specified in the notice" and insert "a person authorized by the local education authority." The noble Lord said: I bear in mind the appeal made by the noble Earl just now. I would remind your Lordships that I called attention to this clause during the Second Reading, as the clause about which the Parliamentary Secretary in another place said the necessity of including such a clause constituted a terrible commentary on our civilization. The particular Amendment that I desire to make is to leave out the words "such person as may be specified in the notice" and insert "a person authorized by the local education authority." If the words at present in the clause are to remain, it will make it very difficult to work this part of the Bill and might nullify its effects. The persons who are appointed to do this unpleasant but very necessary work are all qualified people, and it is quite impossible for any public authority to be sure that the same person shall always deal with the same child. What is required is that the person responsible should be properly qualified,

483
either as a nurse or as a medical officer, and that should be quite sufficient to ensure that what is necessary is done.
There are other reasons also which may be advanced in favour of this Amendment. It does happen that the people who have to do this unpleasant work sometimes come into conflict with parents and guardians, and if the same person is always there he or she is likely to receive a good deal of personal abuse, to have abusive letters, and that sort of thing. I know that that is not fanciful because I have had a good many years' association with schools in South-East London and have seen some of the epistles which these unfortunate persons have received from irate parents who object to the work they are doing, necessary as it is. Not only that, but it is impossible to know in advance which school nurse will be on duty or be available to make the necessary examinations. I submit to the noble Earl in charge of this Bill that what is required is to have one properly qualified person to carry out the duties specified and that that would be sufficient.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 2, leave out ("such person as may be specified in the notice") and insert ("a person authorized by the local education authority.")—(Lord Ammon.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am advised that it would be perfectly possible under the terms of the Bill to specify the school nurse and that the notice would constitute the authority that the person carrying out this instruction would possess. If my noble friend Lord Ammon looks at the matter in that light I think he will see that the words of the Bill, as at present drafted, do carry out that intention.
LORD AMMON: Does the noble Earl mean that a special nurse will be designated by name or that the term "school nurse" will be used?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: "School nurse". It is not necessary to designate the person by name. All that is necessary is that the notice should describe her function. "School nurse" would do perfectly well. That seems to me to meet the point of my noble friend.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD AMMON LORD AMMON moved to leave out the proviso in subsection (3). The noble
484
Lord said: in speaking of the clause in the other House, the Parliamentary Secretary called attention to the difficulties that arose when children who were afflicted with this unpleasantness were allowed to mix with other children. That makes it extremely difficult to understand why the Board of Education are continuing with the clause in its present form. Under the clause as drafted, the words that one now seeks to remove are intended to ensure that it should be possible to move quickly in dealing with a child suffering from the complaint in question. The Parliamentary Secretary said that one of the means adopted would be the exclusion of the child from school. That is the very thing one wishes to guard against. It would be quite possible, under the clause as now drafted, for the child to be kept away from school almost continuously for the whole of its school life.
Note the various processes that have got to be gone through—the notification of the parents, the sending in by them of objections, the reference to a court of summary jurisdiction and so on. All the time that these things are going on the child is mixing with other children travelling in public vehicles, going to cinemas and, thereby, spreading the infection. I am advised that local school education authorities and school managers throughout the country are very much concerned about this. They say that it will not be long before conditions are worse than those which were revealed in the first evacuation from the large towns to the safety areas. With the shortage of housing accommodation and the overcrowding that now exists, the trouble is accentuated, and probably other things may happen when the war ceases and people come over from the Continent. This will tend to make matters very considerably worse. For these reasons I move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 11, leave out lines 11 to 19—(Lord Ammon.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The point is simply this: that if a school medical officer suspects that a child is verminous he may have that child cleansed under the procedure laid down in this clause. My noble friend Lord Ammon wants him to be able to do this at once. The Bill lays it down that notice is to be served on the

485
parents of the child, and the parents are given some opportunity of objecting. My noble friend says that that procedure is too dilatory, and may lead to the child infecting other children at the school. I think that my noble friend has overlooked subsection (7) of the clause which provides that the child can be immediately excluded from the school. If that is done then, of course, the possibility of infection does not arise. If you do that it seems to me to be right to give the parents some opportunity of making a protest if they think their child has wrongly been accused of being verminous.
LORD AMMON: Surely the noble Earl has got the position absolutely wrong. The parents under present conditions are first of all notified and given an opportunity to have the cleansing done themselves, and that is the very thing that the noble Earl now prays in aid. What one wants to guard against is the exclusion of the child from school. When you so exclude the child you increase the spread of the infection. The child plays with other children, travels in public vehicles, and goes to cinemas, while, over and above that, he is losing education all the time. Under the clause as drafted that can go on indefinitely. I have it on the authority of competent education officers that it could even extend over almost the whole of the child's school life. Surely the noble Earl has given the arguments against the continuance of the clause in its present form having regard, as I have said, to the bad housing. The overcrowding that is going on and being added to daily will make it worse than ever, because when the child is kept away from school it has a very much wider range over which it can spread the infection than when it is at school. I must insist on pressing this Amendment, because this matter is regarded very seriously by almost all the educational authorities and medical officers throughout the country.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think the noble Lord has not examined the proviso to subsection (3), which reads:
"Provided that, any such notice shall also inform the person upon whom it is served that he may, within the period limited by the notice notify the head teacher of the school or college at which the pupil is in attendance that he objects to the cleansing being carried out under arrangements made by the local education authority, and if he does so such an
486
order as aforesaid shall not be issued by the medical officer but an order to the like effect may, on the application of any officer of the authority, he made by a court of summary jurisdiction."
That is the answer to the noble Lord's suggestion that this can go on indefinitely. It cannot. If the parent is unreasonable, he can be brought before a court of summary jurisdiction, which can make an order for the compulsory cleansing of the child. I do not think that my noble friend's fears in that respect are at all well founded. It would be tyrannical to take the child and cleanse it without giving the parents any right of appeal or protest.
LORD AMMON: This fails to do what the noble Earl suggests. At present the parent has notice, and it is possible to deal with the matter much more expeditiously. What does this clause say? First of all, the parent has to be informed, and then he has to notify the head teacher of the school or college that he objects to it. Arrangements have then to be made by the local authority, and if necessary the matter can come before a court of summary jurisdiction. From experience in these matters I know what can be done to delay action; there is a definite opportunity of delay at each stage here, and there may be a serious effect on the child's school life. The very words which the noble Earl prays in aid are the words which I think should be eliminated from the Bill.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It seems to me that they are very proper words. My noble friend must remember that this Bill applies to secondary school children and to what are now to be known as county colleges. In the past this business of dealing with verminous children has been confined very largely to elementary schools.
LORD AMMON: This Bill deals with elementary schools.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: But this clause applies to secondary schools and to county colleges as well, and I do not think we can put it in an Act of Parliament that a medical officer can take a person and compulsorily cleanse him, however necessary that may be, without some opportunity being given to the parent of that person or to the person himself, if of the age of 16 or 17, to protest before a police court that it is

487
unnecessary. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will not press his Amendment.
LORD ADDISON: Everybody who is familiar with this procedure is well aware of the abundant opportunities for delay to which this kind of operation can give rise in the case of difficult people, and it is in everybody's interest that a verminous child should be cleansed. That is why this provision is in the Bill. That being so, I suggest that the noble Earl might think again about what procedure could be devised which would be less obstructive than this, because there may be difficult people and these children ought to be cleansed. We ought to be able to secure that this is done. While we want to respect the rights of parents, I suggest that all this procedure is not necessary, and I hope that the noble Earl will think of some briefer method of achieving the end desired.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I cannot help thinking that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill would be wise further to consider this, and perhaps take some steps at a later stage. Here we have a case where the medical officer has actually found vermin on a child, and then we have the elaborate procedure of going before a magistrate who is to decide whether the child is verminous or not. The medical officer will say that he has found vermin on the child; how is the magistrate to decide anything but that, in face of that fact, there should be an examination? It is true that some other method might be adopted which we can hardly discuss now, because we have not the time to do it; but I should have thought it would be quite enough if the parent were able to ask for some other medical authority to be called in, and that could be done without any recourse to the magistrate.
EARL STANHOPE: I think that the noble Lord has great justification for his Amendment. I do not know what happens in regard to notifiable diseases, but I understand that in the case of such diseases action can be taken straight away when the medical officer thinks it necessary, and I cannot see why in this case, where other children are liable to be infected, action should not be taken promptly. I am very much in favour
488
of the freedom of the individual, but this is a case where, for the benefit of others, the medical officer should have power to take such action as is necessary without delay.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: In view of the representations made to me, I will reconsider the point, but noble Lords must not assume that the child is necessarily verminous—a mistake might have been made—and compulsory disinfection without a right of appeal to the court by the person who feels himself aggrieved is difficult. In answer to what fell from the noble Earl just now, I would remind him that the child, from the moment he is thought to be verminous, can be excluded from the school. But I will look into the matter again and confer with my noble friend between now and the Report stage.
LORD ADDISON: Do we understand that that is on the basis of accepting the Amendment and considering alternative methods?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: No, but if my noble friend will withdraw the Amendment I will examine the point between now and the Report stage and get in touch with my noble friend and see whether I cannot satisfy him. If not, I shall endeavour to meet him on the Report stage.
EARL DE LA WARR: We all appreciate the difficulties under which the noble Earl is labouring, in not being in charge of his own Bill, but it would be very much more satisfactory on a point like this, on which the Committee feels very strongly, if the noble Earl would accept the Amendment, and then, if he or the Department did not like the wording, it would be possible to have it altered on the Report stage.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I do not think that I can accept the Amendment. These are rather elaborate Amendments; there are three which all hang together, and I confess that I did not anticipate that your Lordships would not be jealous of the liberty of the subject in this matter.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: This is the liberty of the louse.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I thought that I should have more sympathy; but to accept three rather elaborate Amend-

489
ments when the consequential Amendments, if any which would be necessary, have not been properly examined, would not, I think, be right. I give to noble Lords an undertaking that if we cannot meet otherwise the point which the House clearly has in mind, I will introduce an Amendment on the Report stage.
LORD AMMON: In view of the noble Lord's statement I beg leave to withdraw. In doing so I would point out that on a Bill like this it is out of place to talk about the liberty of a subject.
LORD ADDISON: I hope that unless the noble Earl satisfies us on this point my noble friend Lord Ammon will press the matter further on the Report stage; but I hope we shall be satisfied.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD AMMON: The next two Amendments on the Paper are consequential. I do not move.
LORD AMMON LORD AMMON moved, in subsection (6), to leave out all words after "Where" down to and including "thereof" and insert "after the cleansing of the person or clothing of any pupil." The noble Lord said: The effect of this Amendment will be to retain the existing law, under which a fine can be imposed on parents who allow a child who has been certified as verminous again to become infected. Though that is the law at present, it does not follow that a fine is automatically imposed when a child is allowed to become infected again; but it brings the whole thing to nought and makes nonsense of an Act if you have no power of enforcing the law.
Amendment moved—
Page 43 line 41, leave out from the beginning to ("has") in line 46 and insert ("after the cleansing of the person or clothing of any pupil").—(Lord Ammon.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I should be obliged if my noble friend would allow me to consider this Amendment in conjunction with the preceding ones. I admit this is a separate point, but it ought to be considered with the others.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clauses 53 to 60 agreed to.
Clause 61:
Exemption from building by-laws of buildings approved by the Minister.
61.—(1) Section seventy-one of the Public Health Act, 1936 (which provides for the exemption of certain buildings from building by-laws) shall have effect as if for paragraph (a) thereof there were substituted the following paragraph:
"(a) any buildings required for the purposes of any school or other educational establishment erected or to be erected according to plans which have been approved by the Minister of Education."
(2) Where plans for any building required for the purposes of any school or other educational establishment are approved by the Minister he may by order direct that any provision of any local Act or of any by-law made under such an Act shall not apply in relation to the building or shall apply in relation thereto with such modifications as may be specified in the order.
LORD AMMON LORD AMMON moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "of" ["provision of any local Act"] and insert "relating to the construction of buildings contained in." The noble Lord said: This clause was inserted towards the close of the Committee stage in the House of Commons. It will take the place of Section 166 of the Education Act. It is considerably wider than the existing state of things. It would enable the Minister, when a plan relating to a school is made, to waive any provision of the London Building Act, and that of course would apply in other towns which have their special Acts. The clause would also apply to all independent schools, in addition to grant earning schools, and it is felt that it is not wise that the Minister should have power to override all these Acts, and that the power which already exists should be sufficient.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 9, leave out ("of") and insert ("relating to the construction of buildings contained in").—(Lord Ammon.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. The Bill, as drafted, enables the Minister to override local by-laws when new school buildings are going to be constructed. Now school buildings are designed for a particular purpose, and by-laws which are of general application may not in every case be suitable. Also I think we must face the fact that the by-laws of some local authorities are unnecessarily extravagant, and if the Minister of Education is to get

491
through the tremendous building programme which lies ahead and have schools built in very large numbers in the most efficient way, he will also have to be economical where the health of the children would not be affected or where the suitability of the school as a teaching place would not be affected. Therefore the Minister asks for power to overrule the by-laws. The Minister of Education is not an irresponsible person, and if his building regulations did not meet with the approval of your Lordships you would have an opportunity of rejecting them since they would be laid before this House. The words of my noble friend's Amendment would restrict very considerably the liberty for which the Minister is asking. I hope he will not press his Amendment, and that he will not receive the support of your Lordships in this matter.
LORD AMMON: I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 61 agreed to.
Clause 62:
Exemption of auxiliary schools from rates.
62. No person shall be liable to pay, in respect of the school premises of any auxiliary school, any rate the proceeds of which are applicable to public local purposes, whether directly or by reason of any precept or otherwise, being a rate leviable on the basis of an assessment in respect of the yearly value of property.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, after "school," where that word occurs for the second time, to insert "or of any school not conducted for profit in so far as such school shall relieve the local authority of the cost of education." The noble Earl said: The clause as it stands excludes auxiliary schools from having to pay rates. My Amendment brings in what are known as direct grant schools, so that they may also receive a similar benefit. I entirely agree with noble Lords on the Labour Benches that no child should be excluded from any school because its parents have not enough income to pay fees. I hope quite a number of these old grammar schools will be maintained and that by giving a large number of scholarships and other means they will enable children of all classes and in all ranges of income to go to these schools. Many of these direct grant schools are going to
492
find themselves in great difficulty. I am told that in one case, if fees are abolished, it is going to mean an increase of something like 5d. in the rates. That will obviously make this change extremely unpopular, and it perhaps might also mean that the school would come to an end, with disadvantage not only to the fee-paying pupils, but to those who might also go under arrangements with the local authorities. For that reason I want to try to reduce the burden which lies on these schools as far as possible, and it seems to me reasonable that they should be put in the same category as auxiliary schools and relieved of having to pay rates. If that is done it relieves the local authority of heavy expenditure. It seems to me therefore that there is justification for asking that the so-called direct grant schools should receive the same advantage as auxiliary schools.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 15, after the second ("school") insert the said words.—(Earl Stanhope.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): I venture to think that Lord Stanhope has drawn up this Amendment under some slight misapprehension of the existing position. It is not the object of this Bill in any way to alter further than can be helped the relation between rate-ability and different types of school in this country. At present a non-provided elementary school is exempt from rates. One of the changes made in this Bill is that there is a slight shifting of the boundary; whereas at present you have junior schools and senior schools both under the general heading of elementary schools, the boundary is now to be drawn at a different age, and the older children are moved into a new category.
The object of this clause is not to confer a new benefit upon any class of school, but to see that there is preserved in those schools to which the senior children are going the same exemption from rates as exists already. If you take my noble friend's suggestion it will be seen at once that it raises an almost insuperable difficulty. First of all, it is difficult to conceive of a school of any kind not conducted for private profit the existence of which does not reduce the duty on the local education authority to make educational provision. The children are in that school rather than in another school.

493
If therefore the effect of this Amendment is—as it really is—to exempt from rates all the schools not conducted for private profit, you are going to make a very great change. I do not want to carry the thing to the point of absurdity, but in fact you would be exempting schools like Eton. Eton is a school not conducted for private profit, and there is no reason, under the words of this Amendment, why it should not be a case for exemption.
Nothing of the sort is intended by the Bill. The only case as far as I know in which there is an exemption from rates under the existing law is in the case of non-provided elementary schools. At least that is the principal case. The only new category of school exempted from rates are the auxiliary secondary schools of the grammar school type maintained by the local education authority; but that does not extend to grammar schools of another type—the ordinary country secondary school is not exempt. It is true that, since it is run by the municipality, rating it merely moves the product of the rate into another municipal account, and to that extent it is a case of taking it from one pocket and putting it in another. But a contribution from the rates has got to be made by every sort of public institution—libraries, for example—and there is no intention of changing that at all. I do not wish to say more because I hope I have made it plain to my noble friend, and I also want to follow the counsel of my noble friend Lord Selborne and do my best to limit discussion. I hope my noble friend Lord Stanhope will take it from me that I have looked at the matter, and have had the advantage of advice from the office he knows so well that it is impossible to accept this Amendment without conceding exemption to all sorts of schools.
EARL STANHOPE: I was aware there was no Extension of this to auxiliary schools. I was merely bringing in a county school that now becomes a secondary school. What I was really after was that those who do provide education in the very fine schools of the grammar school type should get an advantage when they give a large number of scholarships to those who are unable to pay fees. I realize there are difficulties and many things to be said against the proposal. I threw it out as a suggestion merely for the Government to consider what can be
494
done. I think that they themselves feel that everything should be done for these direct grant schools, which are so valuable in the life of the nation. I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment now, and I hope my noble and learned friend will think about it and see whether something further cannot be done before the Bill passes.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I shall certainty see that the matter is brought to the attention of the Board and of the Minister, but I do not want to be misunderstood. I think I have been taught correctly the present position, and there are many people who would have to assent before you change one property which is now rateable into a property which is not rateable.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Clause 62 agreed to.
Clause 63 agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved to insert after Clause 63:
"Power of local education authorities to assist governors of aided secondary schools in respect of liabilities incurred before commencement of Part II.
. A local education authority shall have power, so far as may be authorized by arrangements approved by the Minister, to make grants to the governors of any aided secondary school for the purpose of helping them to discharge any liability incurred, before the date of the commencement of this Part of this Act, by them or on their behalf or by or on behalf of any former managers or governors of the school or any trustees thereof, for the purposes of establishing or carrying on the school"
The noble Earl said: This proposed new clause is really only a drafting Amendment, although it does not look like it. These exact words will be found in subsection (2) of Clause 76, and all I am asking is that we put them in the form of a new clause at this point, which is considered more suitable.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 63, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD AMMON LORD AMMON moved, after Clause 63, to insert:
"Power of local education authorities to assist governors of auxiliary secondary schools to increase accommodation.
Where a local education authority are satisfied that the needs of their area require an increase in the accommodation at an auxiliary

495
secondary school the authority may, with the approval of the Minister, make grants to the governors of the school for the purpose of helping them to discharge any liability incurred by them or on their behalf in increasing the accommodation at the school, regard being had to the manner in which the school has been conducted theretofore."
The noble Lord said: I feel I ought to apologize for rising so often. I move this proposed new clause to make good what seems a defect in the Bill—namely, that it is possible for governors or managers of schools to spend money in repairs and to maintain the fabric, but they cannot add to the accommodation. They cannot add a new laboratory or anything of that kind; they would have to build an entirely new school. That seems to be quite unnecessary and imposes a tremendous expense on the local education authorities. I have in mind one or two schools with which I am familiar, such as Wilson's Grammar School. It seems to me that if the Bill goes through as it stands at present it would be impossible under it to make the extensions which have been made to St. Martin's, the Tennyson, and Burlington. I move this Amendment in order to make good that defect because I am sure it is not the intention to cripple schools so that they cannot take any increase of pupils which may come along, but have to build a new building for the sake of adding another room to the laboratory or something of that kind.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 63, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Ammon.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I should very much like to accept this Amendment, but I am advised that if it were embodied in the Bill it would fundamentally upset the balance that the President of the Board of Education has achieved in his structure. He has had to draw up a settlement weighing the different points of view of the Church of England, the Roman Catholics, the Free Churchmen, the teachers, and the local authorities and I am told that this Amendment would be a fundamental departure from that settlement. For that reason I am afraid I cannot accept it.
In answer to one point which my noble friend made, I should like to point out that the new clause I am moving after Clause 102 enables local authorities to tide over temporary difficulties caused by
496
the "Blitz" or by having to bring the new arrangements into force rapidly. The cost of this would not fall on the denominations, but otherwise if it is a question of a new school, or of such an enlargement of an existing school as constitutes a new school, then it is part of the settlement my right honourable friend has achieved that that should be a school provided by the denomination. Therefore I am unable to accept the amendment.
LORD AMMON: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 64 and 65 agreed to.
LORD GORELL LORD GORELL moved, after Clause 65, to insert the following new clause:
".—(1) There shall continue to be a registration council, constituted under the Teachers Registration Council Order, 1926, as amended by the Teachers Registration Council Amending Orders, 1937 and 1941, to whom shall be assigned the duty of forming and keeping a register of such teachers as satisfy the conditions of registration established by the council for the time being and who apply to be registered.
(2) The register shall contain the names and addresses of all registered teachers in alphabetical order in one column, together with the date of their registration, and such further statement as regards their attainments, training, and experience as the Council may from time to time determine that it is desirable to set forth.
(3) The Orders in Council constituting the Council may be revoked, altered, or added to by any subsequent Order."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is of a slightly different character to most of those which have been moved in the Committee stage of your Lordships' house. This is an Amendment not to alter the existing law but to include in this Bill a statement of what is now the law. My submission to your Lordships is that it is not only necessary but absolutely vital to the Bill. It has struck me with astonishment that though we have had very long debates so few of your Lordships who have spoken have dwelt upon what all agree is really the fundamental necessity of the success of this Bill—namely, that there shall be an adequate supply of adequately qualified teachers. We have had a very great deal of discussion upon different forms of teaching. We have had quite a long debate upon the necessity for patriotic teaching. A great many speakers have spoken upon

497
the importance of religious teaching. But, unless we can satisfy ourselves that we are going to have the right kind of teacher to give this teaching, patriotic teaching is dangerous and religious teaching is of no value. In my submission everything depends upon the character and status of the teacher.
I will be as brief as I possibly can, but this is a very important matter. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill stated yesterday in relation to one of the Amendments that a tremendous lot of new blood would be coming into teaching. I do not know upon what that statement rests. It is not a statement of fact. It is an assumption. It is a pious aspiration. One hopes that it will be so but I am perfectly convinced that it will not be so unless there is a change of attitude on the part of the authorities, both local education authorities and the Board of Education, towards the teaching staffs. Increases of pay will not do it. No doubt that will enable a very large number of people hereafter to come into teaching but that of itself will not ensure that they are the right kind of people. You will only get the right kind of teachers in sufficient numbers if you improve the status of the teacher. I have watched this movement now for thirty-three years. I have talked to teachers of every class and kind up and down the country and I can find no sign whatever in any of the statements or debates that have taken place that this fundamental aspect of the problem has been at all recognized.
I would like to say, however, that in moving this Amendment I have nothing personal whatever. I am not now connected with the Teachers' Registration Council. It will not make one penny of difference of any sort or kind to me whether this Amendment is accepted or rejected. I move it at the express request of the 90,000 teachers who are registered. On my Amendment on Clause 4 when I asked for the additional teachers to the Central Advisory Council to be chosen by themselves, the noble Earl graciously agreed with me when I said the Government would require the co-operation of the teachers to make a success of this Bill and he added that nobody feels that more strongly than does his right honourable friend, the present President of the Board of Education. That was said in a speech rejecting co-
498
operation of the teachers and my difficulty in this is that, though I do not for one moment question the sincerity of the President, I can see no signs whatever of any action in offering co-operation. I say, without any fear of reasonable contradiction, that the Board of Education in this matter has a bad record and those who have held the office of President have often after ceasing to be President admitted that that was so. In fact one President having made no use of the registration movement whilst he was President, as soon as he ceased to be President became Chairman of the Teachers Registration Council and made some attempt to amend the omissions of the past. But ever since the establishment of this Council all the education authorities have cold-shouldered it and I say that is undignified, it is indefensible, and, in the present state of our progress towards educational reform, it is, I think, exceedingly unwise.
There is no chance whatever of obtaining the teachers who will be required of the right stamp unless you encourage their aspirations towards increasing their status. In this matter, for thirty-three years the Board of Education has had no policy whatever. I have tried on two occasions in the course of these debates, to obtain from the noble Earl some statement as to whether the Government were going to make any use of the machinery now in existence at a time when they are passing a Bill which is going to give them much greater powers. But I could not get any answer. I suggest that it is fitting that the Government should make up their minds upon this question. What is their policy in respect of the registration movement? It is said, I hope untruly, that the present President does not attach any importance to it. If that is so, it had much better be stated in public, because this movement is a responsibility of the Government. It has been one of the aspirations of teachers ever since 1860. The first Bill to bring it into existence was in 1869. I need not trouble your Lordships with all the aspirations and efforts in between but in 1911 no less a civil servant than Sir Robert Morant drew up a memorandum when Permanent Secretary of the Board on which the Teachers' Registration Council came into existence. My question is very simple—what use if any are the Government going to make of it? In the Committee on the

499
supply of teachers presided over by Sir Arnold McNair there is laid down with great emphasis the need of qualifications of teachers.
What is to be the relation between the qualification of teachers under that Committee's Report and the registration of teachers? Is there going to be any? I think we are entitled to know whether the Government intend to use, to amend or to end the registration movement. They must do one of these three. At present they simply ignore it. I am not pleading in any way for the maintenance of the present conditions of registration. They may not be satisfactory. It may well be that before they could be generally accepted there should be a conference between the Board of Education, the local education authorities and the Teachers' Registration Council. They are not sacrosanct. They can be brought into line with existing rights. They can be altered as necessary. Similarly I am not suggesting that the present constitution of the Teachers Registration Council is necessarily the best that can be used. That body desires the co-operation of the Board of Education officials, but when we invited them to come they were not allowed to come. They should come and so should representatives of the local education authorities. My contention is that it is necessary for the Board of Education either to affirm or to deny the existence of this movement. Yesterday the noble Earl gave an undertaking that he would include in this Bill mention of such movements as youth organizations or community centres. Those are very desirable movements but of no comparable importance to the future of educational reform and progress.
I may be told that it would be bad drafting to insert this clause in the Bill because it is already in existence in the Act of 1907. But my point is that this is a great educational charter. We hope that this Bill will be looked to and used and quoted for a very long time to come. Nobody is going to look at the Education (Administrative Provisions) Act of 1907, most of which has been repealed, and it cannot be said to be bad drafting to insert in this Bill words which are in that Act so that in the Bill of 1944 there shall be a statement that there is in existence this machinery, rather than leave it—as appears to be the policy of the Government,
500
in so far as they have a policy—embedded like a fly in amber and forgotten and ignored. I cannot believe that this omission is really intentional or that the Board wishes no notice to be brought to those concerned with education that there is this registration and that they are not going to use it. I think I am entitled to ask what they are going to do in this matter. There must be some body entitled to judge what are the necessary qualifications of teachers. Is that to be a sectional body, or is it to be one body which is representative of the teaching of the whole profession?
I am aware of the great prestige of such a body as the National Union of Teachers and I hope I shall never be thought to be inimical in any way to that body. Indeed I have the special distinction of being one of its few honorary members and I am very proud of that fact. But that body cannot represent the teaching profession as a whole. It does not represent the universities, it does not represent the specialists and it only very partially represents secondary teachers. Yet more and more power seems to be placed in its hands and less and less in the hands of the one body which represents teachers as a whole. There is, as far as I am aware, and I think I can speak with special knowledge of this, no instance whatever throughout the thirty-five years since this body came into existence of any encouragement at all having been given it by the Board of Education. There is no advantage to any teacher to become registered and when the noble Earl says the registration movement has not made as much progress in teaching as it has in other professions, that is clearly the answer. It is a very remarkable fact that in spite of no recognition whatever having been given to it, no fewer than 102,000 teachers have applied for registration and no fewer than 90,000 are on the register at the present time.
What I ask is that there shall be a new conception. We are engaged in a great educational enterprise to which there are three parties, the Board of Education, the local educational authorities and the teachers. It is no use continuing to regard the teachers as the unconsidered servants, and nothing else, of the local education authority. You must take them into partnership if you are going to make a success of this Bill. I plead most

501
earnestly with the noble Earl to accept this Amendment. It changes nothing, but it is an affirmation that this body is in existence and it will be taken that, if it is in exisence, it will be used. If this Amendment is rejected, it will be assumed that no use whatever is to be made of it, and there can be no doubt that a body of this kind of which no use is made must cease gradually to exist. Ever since 1860 there have been efforts to bring it into being. If it fails then something else will have to be brought into existence. I am absolutely convinced that, unless some use is made of it, some status attached to it and some recognition given to the aspirations towards unity of the teaching profession, many of these provisions that we have been discussing so long will never be brought into operation. They cannot be without an adequate supply of adequately trained teachers. I suggest that there can be no possible reason for rejecting this Amendment, except the intention of the Government no longer to make any use whatever of this registration movement, which is the one movement which is concerned with the unity of the teaching profession, which is one body representative of all sections of the teaching profession, which has never been used but must be used in the future if this Bill is to be a success.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 65, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Gorell.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I should like to add a very few words in support of the general intention of my noble friend Lord Gorell if not of this particular form of Amendment. I do not quite appreciate the way in which this Amendment would fit in. The recruiting of teachers is a matter upon which the whole value of this Bill must largely depend. Recruiting is desperately hampered at present by lack of status of those working in the primary schools particularly and that will be true to some extent of the new secondary schools under the local education authority. If we are to secure all these new teachers who will be required they must be made to feel themselves to be colleagues in the same profession with university professors and the heads of great schools. If we can bring that about we shall have done something great to improve the teaching service.
502
Whether this precise Amendment is the way to do it I am not able to form a judgment, but the aim of the noble Lord is, I am sure, of the greatest importance. Progress at present is very greatly hindered by the divisions which exist in the teaching profession which have been forced upon it by the present mode of organization which depends to a large extent upon considerations more of snobbishness than anything else.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Gorell, on the pertinacity with which he espouses this cause and the eloquence with which he does it. This is the third time he has tried to induce me, on behalf of the Board of Education, to support the policy that he believes to be the right one in regard to the Teachers Registration Council. This Amendment, of course, should be read in conjunction with the Amendment which the noble Lord proposes should be made in the Tenth Schedule. The effect would be to repeal Section sixteen of the Education (Administration Provisions) Act, 1907, and replace it with a new clause in this Bill which, for all material purposes, is identical with it. In other words no useful purpose of reform is served. This Bill is not a consolidating Bill. The noble Lord spoke as if it were, but it is not and does not pretend to be a consolidating Bill. He is trying to induce me to agree on behalf of the Government to take a clause out of one Act of Parliament and put it into another, really in order to get the name of the Teachers Registration Council into this Bill. That is quite unnecessary. I have had to resist attempts which have been made from several quarters during these debates to fix flags on to different parts of this Bill. Noble Lords are interested in worthy causes which they are anxious to get into the Bill by one means or another. But that is not good legislation.
With regard to the main matter of my noble friend's speech, he criticised the administration of the President of the Board of Education and, I gather, of nearly all his predecessors. I have not been able to consult the President of the Board on this point but several of his predecessors are here present and the noble Lord should really address himself to them on this subject. The noble Lord thinks that the Board of Education has not given sufficient recognition to the Teachers Regis-

503
tration Council. That view, of course, is not shared by the President or his advisers. It remains a matter of administrative policy on which possibly there is room for a difference of opinion, but it really has nothing to do with this Bill. This Bill carries out a series of educational reforms and the noble Lord is trying to drag in the Teachers Registration Council without making any alteration as to that position.
LORD GORELL: I was not asking the noble Earl to adopt a policy. I was asking him to declare what the policy of the Government was. He says that I am urging that insufficient recognition has been given to this movement. But that is not my point at all. My point is that no recognition whatever has been given, that no use of it has been made, and that the various measures and reforms of this Bill will not have any success unless there is obtained an adequate supply of properly qualified teachers. This supply will not be forthcoming if the one movement in existence for the unity of the teaching profession is coldly rejected.
It is quite true that I referred to the predecessors of the present President of the Board. But the responsibility remains. This is a statutory body and use should be made of it. If, as I gather is the intention of the Government, this Bill is to go forward without any mention whatever of registration it will be taken that no use is going to be made of this body. The most reverend Primate supported me in my principal aim—I am not concerned with the words, but only with the aim. I am sure this Bill is doomed to failure unless some recognition is given to the desire of the teaching world for unity. The Fisher Act had many provisions which were never brought into force, and my fear is that either this Bill will not be brought into force or that we shall see a very large number of teachers brought into the teaching world by offers of higher pay but without adequate qualifications. That is the only reason why I continue with what the noble Earl has called pertinacity to press this matter. It is not irrelevant. But I can quite see that the Government are adamant. In my view and in the view of vast numbers of teachers that is a short-sighted position to take up. A great obstacle is being placed against recruitment for the teaching pro-
504
fession in that it will not be possible to hold out to men and women of good character and proper attainments that they are entering a profession with great advantages. But it is obviously useless for me to try to proceed with this Amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I do not propose now to move the new clause which I had set down to follow Clause 65.
Clause 66:
Registration of independent schools.
(2) If the Minister is satisfied that he is in possession of sufficient information with respect to any independent school or any class of independent schools, and that registration of that school or the schools comprised in that class is unnecessary, the Minister may by order exempt that school or schools of that class from registration, and any school so exempted shall be deemed to be a registered school.
LORD AMMON LORD AMMON moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Lord said: The Amendment which I am now moving has been put down in order to elicit information. I know that there is a doubt whether under Clause 66 the private schools have all got to be registered. What I desire to know is whether such registration is compulsory or not. It looks as though some schools are in a very much more favoured position than others, and that is my primary reason for raising the matter. Under this Bill schools on List 6o will be deemed to be registered under subsection (2) of this clause. The procedure of making an order exempting schools seems to be unnecessary. I want to ask whether exemption from initial legislation extends to notifications of changes as required under subsection (4). There is a fear that exemption of a class of schools by special order may ensure a special and privileged position for some of them in relation to the register. A certain amount of suspicion has been aroused because under the registration of youth the Eton boys did not have to go to the Ministry of Labour but an official was sent to Eton. Is something like that to be extended to the registration of schools under this Bill? What I desire to ask the noble Earl is whether it is to be mandatory upon every school to register, or whether some schools are to be deemed to be registered and thus

505
placed in a more favourable position with regard to registration than others. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 17, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Ammon.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The object of this subsection is to save the Minister and the Department all the trouble of registering schools which they know all about. The subsection simply says:
"If the Minister is satisfied that he is in possession of sufficient information with respect to any independent school or any class of independent schools, and that registration of that school or the schools comprised in that class is unnecessary, the Minister may by order exempt that school or schools of that class from registration, and any school so exempted shall be deemed to be a registered school."
It is simply to save the labour of going through all the procedure laid down in Part III of this Bill in regard to a number of well-known schools. I ask my noble friend to realize that the Ministry of Education will be overwhelmed with work in bringing this new Bill into law. Therefore, to introduce an Amendment of that character into this registration machinery would be a waste of the time and labour of everybody concerned. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will not press this Amendment.
LORD ADDISON: I am sorry to intervene with a further question. None of us wish to make difficulties for a Minister or credit-worthy schools, but I have in mind that this relates to independent schools. The words used are "any class of independent schools." The noble Earl may remember that on the Second Reading or some other occasion I raised this point. A number of members of this House have spoken to me since in support of it. I was one of those who was in my youth sent to an independent school of an entirely unsuitable kind and I was there for some years. It was a waste of my parents' money. There are multitudes of schools of that sort.
I myself was even approached within the last fortnight by a member of His Majesty's Forces who wanted me to support his application to be released in order that he might resume the proprietorship of a school which he had conducted in a suburb to his personal advantage before the war. I said to him: "What qualifications have you got to be a
506
teacher?" Well, he had not any. I said to him: "I am afraid you will have to go to someone else to find support." He had no qualifications for teaching at all. So far as I could make out he certainly had no academic qualifications; he had not even passed the London Matriculation. But he was a very nice-looking gentleman and he attracted the children of people resident in his neighbourhood and parents paid him fees presumably to teach their children. There are scores, nay hundreds, of these places, and I should like to know whether places of this kind are likely to be exempted from registration or inspection. I sincerely hope that they are not to be so exempted.
I am not impressed by the noble Earl's arguments about the saving of time. As I have said, there are multitudes of these places. So far as the category of schools which we all know about—like those mentioned, Eton, Harrow and Winchester—are concerned nobody raises any question about them. But it is these other places which are called schools that I am anxious about. They are places established in all sorts of districts, and parents are induced to send their children to them presumably to be taught. I am sure the Board of Education will have a lot of work to do inspecting them, for there is a vast number of them. I would like to be assured that they are not going to be exempted from inspection and registration.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I can give the noble Lord that assurance without any qualification at once. This part of the Bill is designed to deal with the evil to which he refers. All this subsection says is that where the Ministry already have sufficient information about the school they need not put this part of the Bill into force in respect of it. They are going to chase the schools, the bogus schools, to which the noble Lord refers. The schools everybody knows, about which the Ministry has sufficient information, this part of the Bill is not aimed at. Therefore, I suggest that the sensible thing is to give the Minister the power of exemption which this subsection provides.
LORD AMMON: I am almost amazed at the noble Earl's reference to bogus schools when I notice that amongst those which are not included in the list are

507
Uppingham, Saint Paul's, Rossall and others. No doubt the noble Earl who knows something about these schools will be interested in that matter. I do not press the Amendment. At the same time it seems to me to be rather a pity that there should be allowed to remain any suspicion of favouritism in any way. This suspicion does mean that there will still be the possibility of certain schools being jeered at on the ground that they have a favoured position compared with others. I think the possibility of any feeling of that sort might now have been eliminated for good. However, as the noble Lord has catalogued the schools in different degrees to be dealt with under this Bill, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 66, agreed to.
Clauses 67 to 71 agreed to.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I do not now move my Amendment to insert a new clause after Clause 71.
Clause 72:
Inspection of educational establishments.
(4) The duty of a person authorized to make an inspection of any school in pursuance of the foregoing provisions of this section shall not include the duty of inspecting any religious instruction given in the school other than instruction given in accordance with an agreed syllabus, and no person who is a minister of any religious denomination shall be authorized to inspect any religious instruction given in accordance with such a syllabus.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 24, after ("institution") insert ("being a training college or institution").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD BISHOP OF TRURO THE LORD BISHOP OF TRURO moved, in subsection (4), to leave out all words after "agreed syllabus." The right reverend Prelate said: This Amendment is a very simple one. It merely removes a hard and fast restriction. I propose to omit the last words of Clause 72 (4) which prohibit a minister of any religious denomination from inspecting any religious instruction given in accordance with an agreed syllabus. In another place it was stated that the intention of these
508
words was to secure that the professional work of teachers should not be inspected by the members of another profession. But we all know instances in which the two professions have been very happily combined. In most types of school among many of the best of the masters there have been some who have been ordained ministers of religion. The one notable exception has been the public elementary school. The 1926 Code of Regulations for public elementary schools contains the following regulation in Section 14:
"No person who is a Clerk in Holy Orders or a regular minister of a congregation can be recognized as a teacher other than an occasional teacher."
This prohibition does not occur in the Secondary Code and I very much hope that when the new Primary Code is laid on the table this prohibition will have disappeared from it.
But to return to the inspection. I entirely agree that teachers should be protected from incompetent inspection. But suppose one of His Majesty's most competent inspectors is a keen churchman who decides that it is less tedious to preach than to listen and takes the steps necessary for ordination without in any way neglecting his duties as an inspector. He desires to devote part of his free time to the work of the Ministry and, for example, to take services in church and preach on Sundays. Why should be not? Why should the Government stop him? Surely that would be interfering unduly with the liberty of the subject. The last four lines of this clause absolutely prohibit any minister of religion, however qualified he may be, however expert he may be in the subject, whatever experience he may have had as a teacher or examiner, from inspecting the religious instruction under an agreed syllabus. I gather that there is no intention to make it impossible for ordained scholars—and all the great denominations are furnished with ordained scholars—to give help in other ways through consultation, conference and so on. I agree that this may well be the usual help which they will be asked to give, but I do not want to exclude them from what is commonly called inspection, if in certain instances their help may prove desirable in that connexion.
I believe that with regard to school inspection ideas are changing. Inspection

509
in the future will be more constructive, consultative and advisory than in the past. It is difficult at the moment to see exactly what the best kind of inspection of the teaching of the agreed syllabus may prove to be. It may prove desirable that such inspection should be of a rather different character from that of the other subjects of instruction. In one county of which I know, by local by-law the local education authority insists on every school being inspected in religious knowledge annually by inspectors of whom they approve. The managers have the right to invite such inspectors, and in some go per cent. of the schools of that county ministers of religion were the inspectors employed. I believe that the result has been eminently satisfactory to everybody, including the teachers. I am informed that similar arrangements have been in operation under other authorities. Why should such arrangements, now in successful operation, be stopped? The omission of this sentence will have the advantage of removing a difficulty in subsection (6). In many auxiliary schools the religious instruction will include both (a), instruction according to an agreed syllabus, and (b), instruction which goes beyond an agreed syllabus. It would surely be unreasonable to allow ministers of religion to inspect (b) but not (a) in those schools.
There are numbers of Christian people who are afraid that the provisions of this Bill will give rise to a form of State religion in this country which will be out of step with all the great Christian denominations and will be in danger of jettisoning some really valuable elements in our Christian heritage and tradition. I am confident that these fears are exaggerated, but the wording of a clause like this, with its very harsh reference to ordained ministers of all denominations, is, I submit, both disquieting and discouraging. The task which this fine Bill sets before us is so exacting that we want the assistance of all who can play a useful part. We certainly do not want to place an impassible barrier between ministers of religion and a field where they may sometimes, under certain conditions, render valuable service. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 12, leave out from ("syllabus") to the end of subsection (4).—(The Lord Bishop of Truro.)
LORD RANKEILLOUR: In a very few words I should like to support this Amendment. Personally, I am not concerned with an agreed syllabus, but those who have worked to bring it about ought to have the right and power to make the best of it, and they cannot do that if some of those who are most qualified to do so are debarred from inspecting the work done. This theory of the proscription of a particular class is an odious one, and it seems to me that in this connexion it is particularly so.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I know of no logical justification for the words which the right reverend Prelate desires to leave out. Under them my noble friend Lord Quickswood and my noble friend Lord Rankeillour could apply to be made inspectors of schools, and both would be eligible for the appointment, but the most reverend Primate and Dr. Scott Lidgett would be ineligible. I do not think, however, that the matter should be approached from that angle. As I have said before, my right honourable friend has built the great edifice of his Bill by trying to find what he judges to be a fair mean between the interests and fears of the great parties to it—the denominations, the teachers, the local authorities and others; and it is a fact that the teaching profession have particularly asked for this provision in the Bill and have attached immense importance to it.
I would remind the Committee that the official inspection of syllabus teaching is a now departure in our education law, and it is one which the teachers' representatives very strongly opposed, at any rate when it was first put forward. This has been one of the concessions which the teachers have been asked to make; and, in order to meet their objections to it, the Government have inserted these words in the Bill which prevent any minister of religion of any denomination from being appointed to inspect syllabus teaching. I am not sure what the objection of the teachers is, whether it is that they think that a minister of religion is labelled of one particular denomination to a greater extent than a layman, or whether they object to one profession being inspected by another. The fact remains that the teaching profession have made a great point about this.
For an inspection to be successful, two things are necessary. Not only is it

511
requisite that the inspector should be competent, but it is also equally necessary that he should be acceptable to the teacher. No one realizes more than the most reverend Primate the necessity of carrying the teaching profession with us in this great educational reform, and there is no doubt that in this part of the Bill they have been asked to accept a feature to which they very strongly objected, but to which the denominations attached, and I think rightly attached, very great importance. Therefore, while I think that logic is entirely on the side of the right reverend Prelate, it does not seem to me to be expedient to force this against the urgent representations of the teachers. Confidence, after all, is a plant of slow growth, and if we want to bring about any increase of confidence and understanding between the denominations and the teachers, I venture to suggest that that ought to be allowed to grow. If we remove from the Bill words for which the teachers have asked it will not promote the growth of that understanding, and therefore it seems to me to be inexpedient.
LORD ROCHE: I am going to venture to make a suggestion which I think will carry out the expressed desire of the noble Earl to meet the views of the teachers, and yet remove what I regard as a most unfortunate expression in an Act of Parliament. I wonder what in five or ten years' time any intelligent foreigner or Englishman, reading those last few words, would think of us! It is like the Indian Criminal Code, which has a section relating to the police which almost indicates that their evidence should be received either not at all or with very great suspicion. That is always nicknamed "the statutory insult to the police." This is almost like that.
Cannot what is wanted be done in the following way? In subsection (4) leave out the word "not"—because the subsection starts with a negative provision which is not very good drafting—and make it read:
"The duty of a person authorized to make an inspection of any school … shall include the duty of inspecting any religious instruction given in the school in accordance with an agreed syllabus, and no other person shall be entitled to make such an inspection."
That would do it, and do it exactly. What the teachers are afraid of I think I can tell the noble Earl—it is the local parson.
512
That is what they are concerned about and my words would rule him out. If you want then to protect the inspector from having to inspect any other religious education do it in subsection (6) where you deal with that. Will the noble Earl consider my words? They would remove what I call a statutory insult and I think they would do the trick. Whether they would do all that the right reverend Prelate wants I do not know—that is for him to say. But at all events they would do everything that I want and I am sure they ought to satisfy the teachers.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I will certainly consider it. The noble and learned Lord will, I hope, excuse me from giving a definite answer at this moment.
LORD ROCHE: I do not desire it now.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I should like to study those words and be able to give very careful consideration to their import. If I can get them from him afterwards—he has not put them on the Amendment Paper—I could study them and nobody would be happier than I to see this subsection improved. But it would be a great mistake to alter it in the teeth of the opposition and, I feel, the resentment of the teaching profession.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I am sure all of us deeply approve the line that has been taken by the noble Earl and the sympathy which he has shown with our contention. If my information is correct I think there is a little misunderstanding about what was the main concern of the teaching profession, as represented in the conference out of which I believe the formula in the Bill emerged. The point that, as I understand, was really objected to by the teachers was that (as it has been put) the teachers' professional work should be inspected by members of another profession. It would be wrong, I think, that any minister of religion not skilled in teaching and not himself a member of the teaching profession should be employed as an inspector, but to rule out as such a minister of religion altogether does seem in itself very invidious. I do not think that was really needed for what the teachers were primarily concerned about. Lord Roche has put his finger on the point, and there is need to protect the teachers from interference that has sometimes afflicted them.

513
What we should be concerned about is that the inspection should be only by His Majesty's inspectors, or properly accredited inspectors of the local education authority—not that one profession, the clerical profession, should be singled out for prohibition. What we should desire, if possible, is that clerical schoolmasters should not be debarred from appointment as inspectors, and what I expect is already permissible—I should be glad if it were quite clear—that the advice of competent clergy may be available to teachers as to the content and method of teaching on an agreed syllabus, when it is desired. That, I believe, is not ruled out. What is excluded is formal inspection and formal report, and nothing else. If it is possible for some words to be introduced which removes this slight (which I think it is) on the clerical profession many of us will be extremely grateful.
I cordially agree that we must be very careful not to take any action that will cause real irritation or antagonism in the teaching profession. I have mentioned that many times, and I have forborne to move many Amendments for that reason. I expect your Lordships are familiar with what is happening in a considerable number of cases, that is, that the local education authority appoint two inspectors for religious instruction, one usually a clergyman of the Church of England, the other a Free Church minister, and they go together. That should be a check on any possibility of any undue denominational bias, and I have not myself heard of any cases where it has been resented by the teachers. They have been appointed by the authority, they go with that permission, and they are selected because of their competence for the work. I am not sure whether there have been objections to that, but I know of many cases where it has worked most happily, and the visits have been welcomed by the teachers. I very much hope that some reconsideration of these lines may be possible, either by their omission now with a view to inserting other words later—for I agree that merely to omit them and put in nothing would not be satisfactory to the teaching profession—or by devising some formula. It would be a great relief to many of us if the words as they stand were removed.
THE LORD BISHOP OF TRURO: I think I must press the Amendment for removing the words as they stand. The suggestion
514
of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roche, could be considered afterwards. That suggestion does not in any way depend on those four lines. The noble and learned Lord's wording is not included in those four lines at all, and an attempt could be made to alter the previous wording if we could leave out here and now those last four lines. I am far from desiring that the local education authority should ever employ the local parson. I do not think that that is contemplated for one moment. It might be in a very rare case that the vicar of a parish was qualified to inspect other places, but I do not think he should inspect the local school. But I do ask that the whole thing should be left open. The Board of Education and the local authority should never invite any person who is not fully qualified and who is not likely to make a success of it; but the fact remains that successful inspections by ministers of religion, generally in pairs, are already very successful in many parts of the country and I think it would be a great mistake to jettison the good feeling that that work has already established in many parts of the country.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: With great respect to the right reverend Prelate I doubt whether his understanding of Lord Roche's suggested Amendment is quite right. It does not represent mine. He has just said that Lord Roche is not proposing to deal with the last four lines of the subsection. I did not so understand it. I thought it was an essential part of his proposal that in line 13 there should be inserted the word "other" ("no other person"). That, the right reverend Prelate will see, does interfere with the words to which he takes exception. I do not want now to discuss whether the ingenious proposal of my noble and learned friend would, as we all hope, meet the feeling that something invidious is being said. As at present advised—I am not expressing any final opinion—I rather question whether his proposal, ingenious as it is, does quite do that. What he proposed was that subsection (4) should run:
"The duty of a person authorized to make an inspection of any school in pursuance of the foregoing provision of this section shall"—
then strike out "not"—
"include the duty of inspecting any religious instruction given in the school in accordance with an agreed syllabus, and no other person shall be appointed for the purpose."

515
The difficulty, I think, is that that does not really express quite the same idea. There really is no desire on the part of the teaching profession to secure that nobody should be appointed because he belongs to the clerical profession, but that he should be qualified; he may belong to it or not, but he should be qualified otherwise. I think it is rather difficult to see how "no other person" should be construed, because one looks back to see what is the person referred to, and I do not think you will find that this conception is included in the description of the person referred to.
I would appeal, in these circumstances, to noble Lords to accept the assurance given by my noble friend Lord Selborne, and let this thing be looked at. The object is to try and get a form of words to which no possible exception could be taken on the ground that they strike out any particular class. I have known legislation in which it was provided that a man may be represented before a tribunal, but, whatever happens, his representative must not be a solicitor or barrister. That has never seemed to me a very intelligent piece of legislation. One would have thought a man would have wished to get the best representation he could get.
In the same way I would be entirely sympathetic to the view that the Bill should not contain anything that was resented. Surely the right way to proceed in your Lordships' House, when it is acknowledged so frankly by those responsible for the Bill, is to withdraw the Amendment at this stage. This clause will have to be, in some way, turned inside out in order to make the right arrangement, rather than take the other course which the right reverend Prelate has proposed.
THE LORD BISHOP OF TRURO: In view of what the noble and learned Lord Chancellor said, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 72 agreed to.
Clauses 73 to 75 agreed to.
Clause 76.
Power of local education authorities to give assistance by means of scholarships and otherwise.
76.—(1) Regulations shall be made by the Minister empowering local education authorities, for the purpose of enabling pupils to
516
take advantage without hardship to themselves or their parents of any educational facilities available to them—

(a) to defray such expenses of children attending county schools, auxiliary schools, or special schools, as may be necessary to enable them to take part in any school activities:

(b) to pay the whole or any part of the fees and expenses payable in respect of children attending schools at which fees are payable:

(c) to grant scholarships, exhibitions, bursaries, and other allowances in respect of pupils over compulsory school age, including pupils undergoing training as teachers:

(d) to grant allowances in respect of any child in respect of whom any scholarship exhibition bursary or other allowance has been granted by a former authority before the date of the commencement of this Part of this Act.

(2) A local education authority shall have power, so far as may be authorized by arrangements approved by the Minister, to make grants to the governors of any aided secondary school for the purpose of helping them to discharge any liability incurred, before the date of the commencement of Part II of this Act, by them or on their behalf or by or on behalf of any former managers or governors of the school or any trustees thereof, for the purposes of establishing or carrying on the school.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM VISCOUNT MAUGHAM moved, in subsection (1), to add to paragraph (c):
"and in particular to grant to any pupil of exceptional ability and character scholarships calculated to enable him free of expense to himself or his parents to receive the full benefit of education and training at any school, college, university or other institution for learning (including scientific or technical training) which the local education authority may from time to time select as suitable for his case, and in addition to receive or to have due provision made for the expenses of suitable residence board and lodging and of travelling and other incidental expenses as may be thought fit whilst he shall be resident at any such school, college, university or institution, the benefits conferred by such scholarship being continued subject to such conditions and till such age as the local education authority shall from time to time think fit and the Minister shall approve."
The noble and learned Viscount said: I shall endeavour to put in potted form the case I was intending to present to your Lordships in some detail, having regard to the injunctions that have been laid upon us by the Minister. The Amendment, it will be seen, is permissive. It imposes no duty upon the Minister. It does not add to his powers. Nevertheless, for reasons I shall give, it is very important that the Amendment should be moved. Your Lordships are well aware that we are now

517
making a revolution in education, and all children from the primary schools, if I may use the old nomenclature, are now to go to the secondary schools without examination. At present, only nine per cent. of those in the primary schools get to the secondary schools, and those who go there are examined. The result must necessarily be that the average intelligence of the children in the classes will be lower. You are going to have large schools which are of great importance to the country and which, unlike the public schools, the grammar schools, and the secondary schools themselves up to the present time, have not been selected in any way. The result must be a lower standard in these classes, and they will not be in my opinion the best places in which to give the best sort of education to the really clever boys and girls.
May I remind your Lordships of this which is something of which I have special knowledge, that there is an enormous difference in capacities between students? It is often hard to realize how great it is. The Tripos at Cambridge was one in which—and I believe is still—the people at the head gained ten thousand marks. Those who just scraped in, and got what used to be called the "wooden spoon," got three hundred marks, compared with ten thousand for the best. I give another example. The late Lord Moulton, who was a distinguished member of this House, was also Senior Wrangler, and it was well known in my time, and the fact has been published since, that Lord Moulton got twice as many marks in the Mathematical Tripos as the Second Wrangler. If you get boys or girls with powers approaching genius it is absolutely foolish to try and pass them through the ordinary mill. If you call pick them out you will be able, to give them special opportunities of getting the best possible education. It may be said that ordinary scholarships can be given. A good many are given now. As a matter of fact 360 were given in the year 1938 of £100 a year. One hundred pounds a year is no good for the sort of lads of whom I am thinking. If you are going to give them a life at the university.—and I am not only speaking of Oxford and Cambridge, I am speaking of the other universities where there is special instruction in various subjects—if they are worried by questions of money they will continually get the feeling that
518
they are obtaining a supplement from their parents which their parents can ill afford.
I want the really able boys to be free from worry of any sort or kind with regard to money, under rules approved by the Minister of Education and, of course, provided they continue to behave themselves properly and to work. At present, the position is that when the parents of really clever boys want them to go on with their education at such a place as a university or another institution of that kind, the lads have to go to their parents for money, and they feel all the time they ought to stop that drain upon the resources of a very humble class of people. The result is that they want, as soon as they can, to earn their own living, and that is the thing that will largely prevent their taking advantage of the opportunities for education that now exist, and which are suitable to the boys and girls of great talents of whom I have been speaking. The scholarships I want should be as large and generous as the Rhodes Scholarships, which entitle people to education and maintenance at Oxford—the system gives them £450 a year. Unless that is done, nearly all the really able people who go to the universities from the secondary schools will want to get into the teaching profession at once to earn their living and to repay their parents for the sacrifices which have been made for them. That is the very thing I want to avoid.
There is this consideration which is worth pondering. There have been a number of books written in recent times about the history of science, the largest and most elaborate of them being the work by Sir William Dampier called The History of Inventions. I have been through it for the purpose of finding out whether the very poor ever make inventions or discoveries and, as far as I can make out, they never have. The son of a ploughman may be a poet or a writer, but the son of a ploughman or a person in really humble position will never get the chance of the education, surroundings, environment, what the French call the milieu, of the people who can attain great eminence in science and invention. You will not get from the poorer parents a Clerk-Maxwell, a J. J. Thomson, a Fleming, or a Rutherford or any people of that calibre. It is impossible. Still less

519
will you get such men as those who have made marvellous discoveries in quite recent times in hygienic science. These men are worth countless sums to the country if you can get them. You will not get them, in my opinion, under the present system.
There is this to be considered. It is true there are very few who, even if they have the scholarships which I want provided for them, will attain the great eminence I am thinking of. I quite agree it will only be a proportion of them, but if it is only 5 per cent. it will be worth while our taking steps to find those people, to select them, to make them marked lads who go through universities (or wherever it is they go) with a knowledge that their parents are not going to have to put their hands in their pockets for a single penny. In a word, the intellectual diamonds are there in that great branch of our population which is the poorest branch, but we neglect to bring those diamonds to the surface at the present time, and I am afraid we may continue not to take the necessary steps to find them and make them of great use to the country.
It may be said that the Minister can do most of the things I want done by this Amendment without the Amendment being passed. I have considered that; I doubt it myself. I think it would be a very doubtful question. The sort of scholarship which is adumbrated in this Amendment is something quite new in regard to education. It does really refer only to education which deals with questions of psychology and the advantages of living in a particular class. These questions really are not merely education; they are something more. Whether I am right or wrong in thinking the Minister has not got the powers now, I am perfectly convinced that unless we get something of the sort—I am not wedded of course to this form of words—in the Bill, unless the clause is there in some form, there will be no encouragement to the Minister or his assistants to take the steps which I desire, and the great advantages which we may possibly gain from throwing open to the poorest class of the community the possibilities of obtaining a great position in science or invention will be lost. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 37, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Maugham.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Everybody must support the object of my noble and learned friend in desiring, especially in the case of the really clever boys and girls, that there should be no impediment to their receiving the best education of whatever type their aptitudes point to, but I submit that the object of my noble friend is entirely covered by Clause 76 (1) (c)
"to grant scholarships, exhibitions, bursaries and other allowances in respect of pupils over compulsory school age, including pupils undergoing training as teachers."
I listened very carefully to my noble friend and I gathered that his real fear is that these bursaries and scholarships will not be of sufficient amount to enable the poorest young men to live at a residential university for the requisite period. I think he mentioned that the Rhodes scholarships were scholarships of £450 a year. I would remind your Lordships that the Rhodes scholars have to come from the other end of the earth and live in England during the vacation as well as during term-time, therefore their expenses are specially heavy. But there is nothing in this Bill to limit the amount of the scholarships, exhibitions, bursaries or other allowances. You could not possibly have wider words than those.
I think the noble and learned Viscount said that these scholarships had been limited in the past to sums of £100 a year. I do not know if he is entirely correct about that. No doubt he probably is, but even if that is so that is no reason why they should be limited to that amount in the future. I am informed that the Board and the local education authorities at present take full account of all the circumstances of the case, the financial resources of the pupil, and the cost of living at one university as opposed to another. Those circumstances are at present taken into account and can, under the Bill, be taken into account. The advice that I am given is that the words which the noble and learned Viscount desires to add to the Bill would not increase the power that the Bill already confers on local education authorities and the Minister, and that they are therefore unnecessary. But it is the desire of the Minister, and I believe also of the local education authorities, to carry out to the full the policy advocated so eloquently by my noble and learned friend.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I rather anticipated that something of the sort would

521
be said by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, and it coincides with the general attitude of the Government not to have any Amendments on this Bill unless they can be shown to be absolutely necessary. My feeling is that it is doubtful whether the sort of scholarships I want given would be given purely and simply as an educational facility. The powers under subsection (1) (c) are limited to educational facilities which you find in Clause 4. Although the noble Earl's criticism about the Rhodes scholarships is quite sound, I only mentioned that as an instance of a really generous scholarship given to people to learn. It may be said that it is too generous. But I am not concerned with that; my point is that the scholarships given should be such that the boy should not have to go to his parents for a single penny, that he should be able to live, clothe himself and feed himself and do everything else without any recourse to his parents. That should continue so that he may get into the environment of the really clever and able people at the university and get the ideas and the notions of those who are doing so much for the world in respect of discovery and invention. However, if the noble Earl refuses to do anything, and inasmuch as this is only a permissive Amendment which throws no further duty on the Minister, I am afraid I must withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The next is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 41, leave out ("this Part") and insert ("Part II").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: This is also a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 43, leave out subsection (2).—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 76, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 77 [Powers of local education authorities as to educational research]:
LORD GORELL LORD GORELL moved to divide Clause 77 into two clauses consisting respectively of subsection (1) and subsection (2).
522
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment, but I think it improves the Bill. It seems rather anomalous that two separate subjects, the conduct of research and the organization of conferences, should be put into one clause. My suggestion is that the clause should be divided into two.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, divide Clause 77 into two clauses consisting respectively of subsection (1) and subsection (2).—(Lord Gorell.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think the noble Lord is perfectly right. It is true that subsection (1) and subsection (2) of Clause 77 deal with really different points. I am very much obliged to him, and I have pleasure in accepting his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 78 agreed to.
Clause 79 [Powers of local authorities to accept gifts for educational purposes]:
THE EARL or SELBORNE: The next is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 28, leave out ("this Part") and insert ("Part II").—(The Earl of Selborne).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 79, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 80:
Extension of power to make schemes under the Endowed Schools Acts, and modifications of those Acts and of 4 & 5 Vict. c. 38.
(2) Where it appears to the Minister to be desirable that a scheme made under the Endowed Schools Acts, 1869 to 1908, in relation to any educational endowment should make provision for the sale of any land forming part of the endowment and the application of the proceeds of sale in accordance with the provisions of the scheme, but that such provision cannot be made by reason of the third proviso to Section two of the School Sites Act, 1841 (which provides that if any land granted in accordance with the provisions of that section ceases to be used for the purposes mentioned in that Act, the land shall revert to the grantor), he may by order direct that the said proviso shall not have effect in relation to the land:
Provided that no such direction shall be given in relation to any land unless the Minister is satisfied, either—

(a) that the person to whom the land would revert in accordance with the said proviso cannot after due inquiry be found; or

523

(b) that, if that person can be found, he has consented to relinquish his rights in relation to the land under the said proviso, and that, if he has consented so to do in consideration of the payment of a sum of money to him, adequate provision can be made for the payment to him of that sum out of the proceeds of sale of the land.

LORD GORELL LORD GORELL moved, in proviso (a) of subsection (2), to leave out "due inquiry" and insert "such inquiry by advertisement or otherwise as the Minister may direct." The noble Lord said: I hardly know myself in the position of somebody who has had an Amendment accepted. I do not know whether the same fate will befall this Amendment, but it seems to me that the words "due inquiry" are a little ambiguous. Anybody might go to court and say there has not been due inquiry, and moreover the clause does not specify who is to make the inquiry.
Amendment moved—
Page 6o, line 29, leave out ("due inquiry") and insert ("such inquiry by advertisement or otherwise as the Minister may direct").—(Lord Gorell.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am advised that the words which the noble Lord wishes to put in would really have a restrictive effect and act in a contrary direction to that which he desires. We all want the same thing; we want a proper inquiry. This clause deals with the case where a school for some reason is given up and the trust deeds provide that in such a case the site and buildings revert to some third person. Sometimes it is the owner of a particular property, sometimes it is the lord of the manor. These cases are common. Once to my great astonishment I suddenly found myself possessed of a school in a neighbouring parish and I had not the slightest idea that such a thing was likely to happen. This clause deals with those circumstances and it provides that the Minister may alter the trust deeds but that before doing so he is to make due inquiry to find out who is the residuary legatee. Sometimes the residuary legatee is quite unknown. My noble friend is asking that the Minister should make such inquiry by advertisement or otherwise. Advertisement may sometimes be quite inappropriate. If you take the case of a local landowner to whom the property reverts, a man who is well known, it would be absurd to insert
524
that advertisement in the local newspaper. The right course would be to approach him by letter. Therefore I submit that the words in the Bill really are wider than the words my noble friend wants to put in. I think they are quite adequate, and I hope he will not press his Amendment.
LORD GORELL: If the noble Earl is satisfied that the words are quite adequate I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 80 agreed to.
Clause 81:
Exemption of assurances of property for educational purposes from the Mortmain Acts.
(2) Every assurance of land or of personal estate to be laid out in the purchase of land, including every assurance of land to any local education authority, shall, if the land or the income thereof is to be used for educational purposes, be void unless the assurance or a copy thereof is sent to the Minister within six months after the date upon which the assurance takes effect:
Provided that the Minister may, either before or after the expiration thereof, extend the said period of six months in any particular case, and if the assurance or a copy thereof is sent to the Minister within the extended period the assurance shall not be void or shall be deemed not to have been avoided, as the case may be.
LORD GORELL LORD GORELL moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Lord had said: I am not quite happy about this subsection. It seems to apply to certain lands which are not really the concern of the Minister of Education, and as far as I understand the law of real property it introduces a novelty in holding up the title to the land until the Minister of Education has decided. I am not satisfied that the subsection is necessary, and so I move to delete it.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 21, leave out subsection (2). —(Lord Gorell.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will endeavour to explain in a few sentences the reason for this clause, and I think I can satisfy my noble friend. The Mortmain and Charitable Uses Acts that are referred to in the first words of the clause are, as your Lordships know, Acts which impose restrictions upon transfers of land, assurances of land and personal estate to corporations because they last for ever, or to charitable uses for a rather different

525
reason. The provisions of these Acts shall not have any effect in respect of the transfer of land for educational purposes. That being the existing law, you would leave it alone if it were not for two defects. The first defect is that, although the law is as I have stated, if land is transferred for educational purposes there is a doubt whether that also is true when it is the income of the land and not the land itself which is transferred. It is a purely technical point, but it is desirable to put it right. Everybody, I think, would agree that the same rule should apply in each case.
The other matter is a little more subtle. As your Lordships will observe there is a provision in subsection (2) that:
"Every assurance of land or of personal estate to be laid out in the purchase of land … shall, if the land or the income thereof is to be used for educational purposes, be void unless the assurance or a copy thereof is sent to the Minister within six months …"
That is not the present law. The present law is merely that there shall be sent to the Minister a copy of the documents. Of course it is not much use enacting that a thing shall be done unless you make some provision as to what is to happen if it is not done. That is particularly true when dealing with big bodies that have a great deal to do and occasionally fail to do what the law tells them to do. You must have some sort of penalty, and the form of the penalty is not one which is going really to interfere with educational projects. It is merely this; that they must, under this penalty, send to the Minister a copy of the deed, transfer or whatever it is, and if the Minister finds for any reason that they have failed to do so there is plenty of room for repentance. Nobody, of course, is going to deprive an educational institution of its trust, but there must then be a sending of the copy within an extended period which the Minister will always concede.
It does make a watertight scheme because it secures that the Minister will get the necessary documents sent to him—and it is very necessary that they should be sent to him. In the first place part of the duty of the Ministry of Education is to prepare records and statistics and it is essential that the Ministry should really know all the cases that there are of this sort. That can only be ensured by their getting the information under this clause. Then, again, cases have actually existed
526
where the original transfer has been lost. Nobody can find it; it has been put into some safe and then forgotten. In such an event it is very important that the Ministry should have a record of it and be able to supply what is otherwise missing. These, I think, everybody will recognize as good reasons.
As for the matter being in line with what is already done, I may I think relieve anxiety on the part of my noble friend Lord Gorell when I tell him that if you had a case of a conveyance of land for non-educational charities then the law is now that if the donor does not send a copy of the assurance within six months to the Charity Commissioners the thing is void. The thing is in being as regards all sorts of charitable dispositions of land but, curiously enough, it has never been done in the case of educational charities. There is nothing more than that in this. I think that clears up the difficulty, and I believe my noble friend will agree that this is a matter that should be made plain.
LORD GORELL: I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord Chancellor for his most authoritative and clear statement, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: Mine is a similar point to that of Lord Gorell. If I understand the noble and learned Viscount aright the provision in the Bill secures that educational land is treated on exactly the same footing as other land and that there is no penalizing of educational land as against other land. In those circumstances I do not desire to move my Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I must be sure that what I have said is quite correctly understood by the right reverend Prelate. At present, in cases of transfer for charitable purposes which are not educational the law is as in this clause. All we are doing is to apply that law to the case of land transferred for educational purposes.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: I am much obliged and I shall not move my Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendment in the name of Lord Selborne is a purely drafting Amendment. The

527
reference in line 42 to "this Part" is a mistake. The reference ought to be to "the date of the commencement of Part II of this Act."
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 42, leave out ("this Part") and insert ("Part II").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 81, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 82:
Appointment of chief education officers of local education authorities.
82. The duties of a local education authority with respect to the appointment of officers under the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1933, shall, without prejudice to the generality of those provisions, include the duty of appointing a fit person to be the chief education officer of the authority, but a local education authority shall not make such an appointment except after consultation with the Minister, and for the purposes of such consultation an authority proposing to make such an appointment shall send to the Minister particulars showing the name, previous experience, and qualifications, of the persons from whom they propose to make a selection. If the Minister is of opinion that any person whose name is so submitted to him is not a fit person to be chief education officer of the authority he may give directions prohibiting his appointment.
LORD SOULBURY LORD SOULBURY moved to leave out all words after the second "authority." The noble Lord said: This Amendment concerns the appointment of a chief education officer, who is usually called the director of education, by the local education authority. When this Bill was under consideration in another place this section it appeared to me was even more drastic than it is now. The Parliamentary Secretary I think admitted it was heavy-handed, and the Government accepted an Amendment which leaves the clause in its present form, giving the President of the Board of Education power to prohibit the appointment of any director of education to whom he objects.
The Parliamentary Secretary defended the conferring of this power by comparing it with the power of other Government Departments over the appointing of county medical officers, county engineers and chief constables. He said that the powers now existing were far less than those exercised by other Government Departments in respect of the three appointments which I have just mentioned. With great respect to him I do not think
528
it is quite accurate. I have looked up the appointment of a county medical officer which, I think, comes under the local Government Act of 1933. So far as I can interpret this, the Government Department cannot make the appointment of a county medical officer subject to their consent, still less can they prohibit it. The appointment of a chief constable is not under the control of a county council, but is made by a Standing Joint Committee. That Standing Joint Committee has a connexion with the county council, but that happens to be an historical accident and it does not make the appointment of a chief constable analogous with that of a director of education. Then take the case of the county engineer. The Local Government Act states that the county council or county borough council shall appoint a fit person, and under the Ministry of Transport Act of 1919 the Minister may by agreement with the local authority defray half the salary and establishment charges of engineers and surveyors to a local authority responsible for the maintenance of roads, subject to the condition that the appointment, retention and dismissal of the engineer or surveyor and the amount of the establishment charges are subject to the approval of the Minister. There again, the Minister only possesses that power if the local authority wants half the salary and charges paid. Similarly, in the case of the chief constable. But it does seem to me that these analogies are not really apposite to the present power which the Minister seeks to secure over the local education authority in the matter of the appointment of a chief education officer.
I am not very sanguine as to the result of this Amendment, but I do suggest to the noble Earl that here we have what may be a very undesirable and indeed dangerous precedent. The next step might be that the local education authority might be told to produce a short list setting out the offices of the clerk of the county council, the town clerk, the county treasurer, and so forth. It is a safeguard for local democracy that these appointments are in their own hands. I should be very sorry to see such a state of affairs that the Government could control—as I think this Bill tends to give them power to control—the appointment of officers of a local council. There are political dangers inherent in such a position. One could

529
think of a case in which a Government or a Minister with certain strong political views might be inclined to pick out of his short list of local officials one holding views of a similar character. At present, in the majority of cases, that cannot be done, and that is why I ask your Lordships to consider that it is not altogether desirable that the local education authority should be so gravely circumscribed—for that is what will happen if I read this clause aright—in making the appointment of a local education officer.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 3, leave out from the first ("authority") to end of the clause.—(Lord Soulbury).
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think the principle to which my noble friend attaches such weight is certainly a very important one. England has never been governed from London in the same way that other countries have been governed from their capitals. It has always been a feature of our government that the local authorities should in many important respects be completely free of ministerial powers in London. There are, however, other considerations in this case to which I must draw the noble Lord's attention, because it is not only in education that the same sort of provision has been found necessary. Where the taxpayer is contributing a very large sum towards the expenses of the local authority, surely the taxpayers' representative, who is the Minister, has a right to some voice in key appointments. That principle is already embodied in the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919.
My noble friend cited another case, but he said that the Ministry of Transport Act did not give any precedent for what is done in this Bill, because in that case the taxpayer was making a 50 per cent. grant. If, however, you take the total grants made by the Board of Education to the local authorities, you will find that they come to over 50 per cent.; in fact, the overall average is something like 55 per cent. All that we are asking in this Bill is that the Minister should have the power of saying to the local education authority that he does not approve a particular name on the list from which they propose to select their chief education officer. We give the Minister that veto. There is no suggestion that the
530
Minister should appoint the chief education officer; the appointment is to be by the local education authority; but if the contributions by the Ministry to the total bill for education amount to more than half, the Minister holds the view that he is entitled to be effectively consulted as to the appointment of these key officers.
LORD SOULBURY: I have expressed my caveat to my noble friend. It has not sufficiently terrified him as to the consequences, and I do not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 82 agreed to.
Clause 83:
Remuneration of teachers.
83. Regulations made by the Minister shall make such provision as appears to him to be desirable for the purpose of securing that the remuneration paid by local education authorities to teachers is in accordance with scales approved by him; and in approving any such scales the Minister shall have regard to any recommendations relating to the remuneration of teachers made by any body of persons constituted by the Minister which is representative of local education authorities and of teachers.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, at the beginning of the clause, to leave out "Regulations made by the Minister shall" and insert:
"(1) The Minister shall secure that for the purpose of considering the remuneration of teachers there shall be one or more committees approved by him consisting of persons appointed by bodies representing local education authorities and teachers respectively, and it shall be the duty of any such committee to submit to the Minister, whenever they think fit or whenever they may be required by him so to do, such scales of remuneration for teachers as they consider suitable; and whenever a scale of remuneration so submitted is approved by the Minister he may by order"
The noble Earl said: This Amendment deals with the famous clause which led to a certain incident in another place, where the President of the Board of Education had the experience which I had yesterday, of finding himself in a minority. What was carried in that atmosphere of some excitement was found, however, on reconsideration, not to be very satisfactory, and it was found that the clause was capable of improvement. I am therefore moving to leave out the word "Regulations made by the Minister shall" and to insert the words of the Amendment. The objection to the

531
clause as at present drafted is that under it the ultimate responsibility for drawing up scales of salaries for teachers rests with the Minister. I hope that I shall have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Soulbury, on this, because I am suggesting that the Minister's powers have been made too great. Such an arrangement would be at variance with the present position, whereby the Burnham Committee frame the scales and the Board of Education accept or reject them for the purposes of their grant. The proposed new wording continues the principle that it is for the Burnham Committee to frame the scales and for the Minister to approve or to reject them, but it provides that in so far as he approves them he may by order make them mandatory. I hope your Lordships will agree to this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 13, leave out ("Regulations made by the Minister shall") and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved to leave out all words after "accordance" and insert:
"therewith.
(2) The Minister shall nominate the person who is to be the chairman of any committee approved by him for the purposes of this section."
The noble Earl said: This maintains the practice whereby the Burnham Committee appoint as their Chairman a person nominated by the President of the Board.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 16, leave out from ("accordance") to the end of the clause and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 83, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 84 to 86 agreed to.
Clause 87:
Powers of Minister to direct local inquiries.
87. The Minister may cause a local inquiry to be held for the purpose of the exercise of any of his functions under this Act; and the provisions of subsections (2) (3) (4) and (5) of Section two hundred and ninety of the Local Government Act, 1933, shall have effect with respect to any such inquiry as if the Minister were a department for the purposes of that section.
LORD GORELL LORD GORELL moved to leave out "local" and insert "public." The
532
noble Lord said: It is not clear to me why we have a new clause dealing with inquiries, when we already have under the Act of 1921 a perfectly good section, Section 156, dealing with public inquiries, which would seem to be more suitable to an Education Bill than the reference to Section 290 of the Local Government Act, 1923. I have not, however, attempted to put back Section 156 of the Act of 1921, as the whole of that Act has been repealed; but I should like to change the word "local" to "public," because as at present printed the clause does not provide that the inquiry shall be in public, and it would enable the Minister, if he so desired, to make no public reference to the result, whereas it seems very desirable that the public should be informed.
Amendment moved—
Page 63, line 32, leave out ("local") and insert ("public").—(Lord Gorell.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Clause 290 of the Local Government Act, 1933, lays down the procedure under which local inquiries are to be held, and that is why the phrase "local inquiry" is used in this clause. These local inquiries always are held in public, and, if that is the object which my noble friend wishes to achieve, I can assure him that this is already the universal practice.
LORD GORELL: I ask leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 87 agreed to.
Clauses 88 and 89 agreed to.
Clause 90 [Provisions consequential on cessation of functions of former authorities]:
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: This Amendment is merely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, lines so and 11, leave out ("this Part") and insert ("Part II").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The next is also drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 39, leave out ("this Part") and insert ("Part II").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause go, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 91 [Modification of 2 & 3 Geo. 6. c. 94]:
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: This is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page line 7, leave out ("this Part") and insert ("Part II")—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 91, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 92:
Compensation of persons prejudicially affected by this Act.
92.—(1) if in consequence of the council of any county district ceasing to exercise functions under any enactment repealed by this Act any person who was an officer of that council suffers direct pecuniary loss by reason of the determination of his appointment …
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, at the beginning of the clause, to leave out "council of any county district ceasing to exercise functions under any enactment repealed by this Act any person who was an officer of that council," and insert "extinguishment or transfer by this Act of any functions exercisable by the council of any county district, or the transfer by this Act of any officers employed by any such council, any person who, immediately before the date of the commencement of Part II of this Act, was an officer employed by that council or by the council of the county in which the county district is situated."
The noble Earl said: The point of this Amendment is this. The existing provisions of Clause 92 enable compensation to be paid only to existing officers of county district councils, whose functions with respect to education will pass to county councils. It has been strongly represented to the Board that in fact the existing officers of county councils to whom the functions will be so transferred may also suffer loss by reason of the transfer of the functions. The local education authority may be taking into their organization a number of former officers of the district councils. Some of these officers may be abler men than the existing employees of the county council, and therefore the county council might wish to put the new employees from the district councils into positions previously occupied by their own employees, and this Amendment provides that officers so displaced would be entitled to compensation.
I want to take this opportunity to make an announcement on behalf of the Government. There is one class of officer, however, who may be affected who is not provided for by this Bill. It is not proposed in Clause 92 to provide for the compensation of persons who, although formerly officers of county district councils or county councils, are engaged on war service at the date of transference of powers, in so far as these officers are insufficiently covered by the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act, 1944. Any compensation due to the fact that they may be damnified by the Education Bill will be made in a special Bill, which the Government propose to introduce in the near future. The special Bill will apply not only to officers in the educational service of counties, but to those who are concerned with functions appropriate to the Food and Drugs (Milk and Dairies) Bill and the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. All these officers will be affected by roughly similar circumstances, that is to say, their functions will be affected by Statute while they are serving their country abroad, and therefore in so far as they are entitled to compensation—and it is admitted that some of them will be—the Government propose to deal with that matter in a special Bill. Subject to that, I think the Amendment I am now moving covers all the cases of compensation that might arise under this Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 23, leave out from ("the") to ("suffers") in line 26 and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The next Amendment is consequential on the extension of compensation benefits, and the following Amendment is also consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 37, leave out from the first ("the") to the first ("by") in line 38 and insert ("extinguishment or transfer had been effected").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 45, leave out from ("a") to the end of the subsection and insert "county or county district in connexion with any functions exercisable by that council under any enactment repealed or amended by this Act."—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 92, as amended, agreed to.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE) (Lord Cecil): Before the House resumes I would like to have one further consultation with noble Lords about the progress of this Bill. As your Lordships know, we have taken a good deal longer with the Committee stage than we had originally expected. To-day, however, we have made extremely good progress, but there are still certain Amendments of substance to be taken and it is really essential that we should get through tomorrow. I therefore propose to the House—as has, I think, been already suggested—that we should meet to-morrow two hours earlier than the usual meeting time. It would then sit for an hour, adjourn for an hour for lunch, and then resume. I hope that that proposal will be agreeable to noble Lords, otherwise there is always a danger that we might have to sit very late, which I think would cause much greater inconvenience to the House than the method I propose. May I take it then that that is agreeable to the House? As no noble Lord rises, I will assume that that is so. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume. —(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORS (WAR-TIME REGISTRATION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.
  SUPPLY OF NURSES IN SCOTLAND.
  SUPPLY OF NURSES IN SCOTLAND.
  COMPENSATION TO CROFTERS
  COMPENSATION TO CROFTERS
  SETTLEMENT SCHEMES SUB- COMMITTEE IN KENYA.
  SETTLEMENT SCHEMES SUB- COMMITTEE IN KENYA.