Sitting of 9 May 1944

PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in, the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
  Read a Second time, and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Street Accident, Glasgow (Notification)
    Mr. Buchananasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that John Mathieson, 135, Cumberland Street, Glasgow, was knocked down, on the night of 16th March, and removed to Glasgow Royal Infirmary in an ambulance called by the police; that subsequently his sister called at the police office and was told no accident could be traced; that next day she reported the matter to central police, again being informed that no trace could he found; that the brother came home after a week in Glasgow Royal Infirmary; and, as he had his identity card in his possession, what steps he proposes to take to see that similar incidents do not occur again.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): I am aware of the accident which led to the admission on 21st March of the injured party to Glasgow Royal Infirmary by St. Andrew's ambulance which had been called to the scene by a member of the public. Police headquarters did not have a report of the accident at the time of the sister's enquiry. When a report was received she was through an error not informed as they understood that Mr. Matheson was not being detained in the Infirmary. The police and hospital authorities have both expressed regret to Miss Matheson for the distress and annoyance caused her and have taken steps to prevent a similar occurrence in future.
    Mr. Buchanan: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that the police knew within a comparatively short time of the accident? Why was this man's sister first of all not informed of the accident that night or the next day and kept running about for a whole week before anyone notified the deputy chief constable?
    Mr. Johnston: There was a most unfortunate chapter of accidents but Mrs. Mathieson has been good enough to say that she accepts the apologies which have been tendered.
    Mr. Buchanan: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that in these matters, with these police, there is a feeling that if a case happens to be in Gorbals, or a working class district, the same attention is not given to it as if it was among the well-to-do? Will he take steps to see that one district is no less well treated than another?
    Mr. Johnston: I am very sorry to hear that. I have no means of knowing whether the statement is justified or not, but I will pass on my hon. Friend's representation to the proper authority.
    Mr. Neil Maclean: Would it not be advisable also for the authorities of the infirmary to examine an incomer's identity card so they could know the where abouts of the victim?
    Mr. Johnston: I will certainly consider that suggestion. I understand that steps have already been taken to ensure that a similar unfortunate occurrence shall not recur.

    Local Government and Public Health Consolidation
    Commander Galbraithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when it is proposed to introduce a Bill to implement the recommendations contained in the First Report of the Local Government and Public Health Consolidation (Scotland) Committee.
    Mr. Johnston: The Report and the draft Bill prepared by the Committee were both referred on publication to the three local authority associations for their consideration. The views of two of the Associations on many important points have recently been received and I hope to receive the views of the third Association very shortly. Some of these observations may require further and detailed discussion

    1685
    with the local authority representatives and I am therefore not at present in a position to make any statement as to legislation.
    Commander Galbraith: Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention when the Bill is ready to refer it to the Scottish Grand Committee?
    Mr. Johnston: I should not like to pledge myself off hand. The report is a most elaborate document as it stands, but I should think it would be highly desirable to have it discussed in the Scottish Grand Committee.

    Housing
    Mr. McNeilasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of the 1,000 houses authorised 12 months ago have now been completed; and if there are any upon which actual construction has not commenced.
    Mr. Johnston: Four of the houses have been completed, and 870 are under construction including 220 which have been roofed over. It has been found impossible to secure reasonable tender prices so far for almost all the remaining 126.
    Mr. McNeil: Can my right hon. Friend offer any explanation for the very slow rate of construction in those which have been started? What does he intend to do about the 250 for which he has been able to receive tenders?
    Mr. Johnston: Not 250. The figure I gave was 126. The difficulty of course is that some of the tenders were for extraordinarily high prices. One series came in for £1,815 per house. Obviously that is a ramp and I do not propose to lend my assistance to it. We have done everything we can to secure more reasonable tenders and more reasonable tenders are being secured in some cases.
    Mr. Buchanan: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that a rate of progress of four houses completed in 12 months can be looked upon as desirable?
    Mr. Johnston: Most certainly not, but the labour position is very difficult indeed.
    Mr. McNeil: Will my right hon. Friend not agree that since the houses were authorised it is up to the Ministry of
    1686
    Labour having given the authorisation to make available the labour required for the job?
    Mr. Johnston: The question of labour priority ought of course to be addressed elsewhere. The point of the Question is the number that have not yet been started and I have answered that.
    Mr. Gallacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman not seriously face the question of prosecuting those who are trying to make a ramp out of an urgent need?
    Mr. Johnston: It is very difficult by question and answer to explain what may have been the reasons for £1,815 tenders, but one of the reasons given is the difficulty of securing labour, and the contractors are obviously trying to cover themselves in that regard.
    Mr. McNeil: I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

  COAL INDUSTRY

    Domestic Stocks
    Major-General Sir Alfred Knoxasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether consumers with cellar accommodation will be encouraged later in the summer to build up a reasonable stock fox next winter and so avoid the strain on the railways when the general demand for coal increases.
    The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): Yes, Sir.

    Miners (Armed Forces)
    Mr. Tinkerasked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many mineworkers have applied for release from the Forces to take up work in the mines; and how many have been allowed to go.
    Major Lloyd George: As the reply is rather long and contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The information is as follows:—
    I regret that statistics are not available showing the total number of ex-miners who have applied for release from the Forces, including those who are found not to be within the categories and age limits eligible for release. The following is the available information about the

    1687
    men claiming previous underground experience, who have been considered under the current release scheme.

    Royal Navy and Royal Marines
    Up to 29th April the Admiralty had sent to my Ministry particulars of 2,085 men who appear to satisfy the conditions governing eligibility for release and they expect to be able to offer approximately 500 more. Before my Ministry ask for a man's release steps are taken in each case to check his claim to have had previous experience and arrangements have to be made to place him either with his previous employer or elsewhere. The following was the position at 29th April:

    Applications for release sent to Admiralty by my Ministry

    550

    Released

    173

    Release instructions issued by Admiralty but men not known to have left units

    377

    The remaining 1,535 men are under consideration by my Ministry and applications for release will be made as soon as previous experience has been confirmed and offers of underground employment obtained.

    Army
    Up to 29th April, 1944, 7,006 applications for release had been sent to the War Office by my Ministry with the following result:

    On release at 29th April

    3,806

    Released and subsequently recalled

    158

    Found to be ineligible for release by the War Office

    2,737

    Under consideration by the War Office at 29th April

    305

    There were two schemes for the release of ex-miners from the Army. The following information relates to the men appearing in War Office records as ex-under-ground workers who were offered to my Ministry for consideration and by my Ministry to the collieries:

    Total number of men offered

    1,848

    *Release applications made and men released

    1,470

    *Release applications made and rejected

    169

    Men not placed in employment by my Ministry

    136

    1,775

    Under consideration at War Office or my Ministry

    73

    * These figures are included in the general statement above. The remainder of the 7,006 release applications were made as a result of direct applications to my Ministry from collieries

    Royal Air Force
    Up to 29th April the Air Ministry had sent to my Ministry particulars of 622 men who appear to satisfy the conditions governing eligibility for release. The following was the position at 29th April:

    Applications for release sent to Air Ministry by my Ministry

    372

    Released

    129

    Release instruction issued by Air Ministry but men not known to have left units

    243

    The remaining 250 men are under consideration by my Ministry and applications for release will be made as soon as previous experience has been confirmed and offers of underground employment obtained.

    Man-Power
    Mr. Tinker asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if the number of youths directed to the mines is equal to the number of mineworkers required.
    Major Lloyd George: As announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour on 23rd September last, it is the Government's intention to raise the manpower of the coalmining industry to 720,000 at the earliest practicable date. To this end men are being directed to Government coalmining training centres at the highest rate which circumstances permit.
    Mr. Tinker: When does the Minister expect to catch up to the requirements?
    Major Lloyd George: It was hoped to get up to the figure of 720,000 by the end of October next.
    Mr. Foster: How many of these youths are trained?
    Major Lloyd George: I think roughly 10,400 have passed through the first stage and about 4,200 are still in the first stage.
    Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is the number equal to requirements?
    Major Lloyd George: Up to now the number is very much what we anticipated.

    National Resources (Survey)
    Mr. A. Edwardsasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether the country's coal resources have been, or are being, surveyed during this war.
    Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir. The country's coal resources are being surveyed by the Fuel Research Organisation and the Geological Survey of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research in co-operation with the Coal Commission and my Department. A survey of the quality of the coal in the various seams being worked was begun some years ago by the Fuel Research Organisation and had reached an advanced stage before the war. The information so obtained is now being used in a survey of the reserves to ascertain the quantities available of different qualities of coal.

    BRITISH COMMONWEALTH (U.K. WAR EFFORT)
    Mr. Vernon Bartlettasked the Under Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, (1) how many officials in the Dominions Office are charged specifically with the duty of sending material about the United Kingdom war effort to Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa and Eire, respectively;
    (2) how many officials have been appointed by the Dominions Office in each of the Dominions in order to explain the United Kingdom war effort.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Emrys-Evans): The Ministry of Information is the Department responsible for preparing publicity material about the United Kingdom war effort for British Commonwealth countries overseas. It has from the beginning been the agreed practice that the Ministry of Information should not maintain a staff in the Dominions. In the Dominions Office there are two officers dealing with this work. In addition there are seven officers, exclusive of clerical and typing staff, attached to the offices of the United Kingdom High Commissioners in the Dominions and the office of the United Kingdom Representative to Eire. The numbers are: in Canada 3; in Australia 1; in the Union of. South Africa 2; in Eire 1. In the oversea Dominions the United Kingdom authorities receive assistance from respective Dominion Departments of Information in presenting the common war effort just as the Ministry of Information co-operates with the Dominion authorities in this country.
    Mr. Bartlett: Would not my hon. Friend agree, in view of the great importance of keeping the Dominions as fully informed as possible, and in view of the great difficulty caused by the inevitable breakdown of ordinary correspondence, visits and so on, that these figures should he increased?
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to the last part of the answer. These matters are always under consideration, but I will certainly draw the attention of my noble Friend to his point.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Clothing Coupons
    Mr. A. Edwardsasked the President of the Board of Trade on what grounds proof of need is demanded from persons applying for replacement of lost clothing coupons.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): No proof of need is required when coupons are lost owing to circumstances entirely outside the loser's control, such as burglary, fire or bombing. But supplies are too short to permit replacement of coupons lost in other cases, unless the loser would otherwise suffer real hardship.
    Mr. Edwards: I appreciate that one has to be careful with coupons, but they belong to the owner by right; is the Minister within his rights, therefore, in depriving people of essential commodities?
    Mr. Dalton: Unfortunately, coupons which are lost are still in circulation in many cases, and to replace coupons lost or alleged to be lost would encourage claims for losses and create intolerable coupon inflation.
    Dr. Russell Thomasasked the President of the Board of Trade the date of expiration of the clothing coupons available before 1st February, 1944.
    Mr. Dalton: I have no intention at present of fixing any date of expiration for any clothing coupons issued after the first rationing period, 1941–42.
    Dr. Thomas: As the Minister says that he has no intention at present of fixing a date of expiration can we take it that the coupons will last indefinitely, because many people are saving them for a much

    1691
    needed new suit in future and it would be hard lines if they found their coupons were out of date?
    Mr. Dalton: It is my desire that the public should postpone, as far as is reasonably possible, the use of their coupons, and, therefore, I have no incentive to cancel them.
    Dr. Thomas: Will they be punished for postponing their use?
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir.

    Children's Footwear
    Mr. Kirbyasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider reducing, or abolishing altogether, coupon requirements in the case of wooden-sole clogs in children's sizes, thus helping to ensure that all persons of tender age are adequately shod to protect their feet in all weathers.
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. Most children's clogs are already pointed at two coupons as against three for children's leather shoes, and the production is a very small percentage of the total supply of children's footwear.
    Mr. Kirbyasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the poor quality of children's leather footwear now on sale; what representations he has received on this matter from local authorities, education committees, teachers' organisations or any other bodies; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that children's footwear of a reliable wearing quality is made available in retail shops throughout the country in the near future.
    Mr. Dalton: I am glad to say that in the last few months the quality of children's footwear has been much improved and the number of complaints has substantially declined. I am taking, and shall continue to take, all possible steps to secure further improvement; but my hon. Friend will realize that the shortage of material and labour sets severe limits to what can be done.
    Mr. Kirby: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him whether, in view of what he has said and also of his answer to Question No. 18, he will be good enough to look into this matter again?
    Mr. Dalton: I look at it very constantly. I am keeping it very closely under observation, and the action which I have reported to the House several times, including the requirement that all manufacturers should stamp their identification marks on footwear, is, I think, producing results. The number of complaints received at the Board of Trade has fallen from 218 in October last, to 76 in February, and to only 61 in March.
    Mr. Vernon Bartlett: May I add to the number of complaints by sending to the right hon. Gentleman details of a pair of shoes which came to pieces the very first time they were worn?
    Mr. Dalton: I would rather that my hon. Friend sent me, not the details, but the shoes.
    Mr. John Dugdale: Will my right hon. Friend consider reducing the number of coupons, as many more shoes have to be bought, owing to the lower quality?
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir, I cannot reduce the number of coupons until there are larger supplies to carry the lower coupon values.
    Mr. Kirby: Will my right hon. Friend pay special attention to the representation that has been made to him by educational authorities?
    Mr. Dalton: Certainly, Sir.

    Anti-Trust Suit, United States
    Sir Herbert Williamsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the suit entered by the Anti-Trust Division of the Department of Commerce in Washington against certain match manufacturers, including match manufacturers in the United Kingdom; and whether he will take steps to make available in the Library any documents relating to the case.
    Mr. Dalton: My attention has been drawn to this suit and I have just received a copy of the complaint from Washington. I shall be glad to place a copy in the Library as soon as it can be copied.
    Sir H. Williams: Are there any spare copies?
    Mr. Dalton: I have only had one.

    Jute Supplies (Carpet Manufacturers)
    Sir John Wardlaw-Milneasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to say when it will be possible to release enough jute to enable a small number of carpets to be made and thus keep the trade in being and ready for the turnover to peacetime employment.
    Mr. Dalton: Jute is required for many essential war and civilian purposes, and I regret that, so long as the present shortage and uncertainty about future supplies continue, it is not possible to make any allocation for carpets. I am anxious that the manufacture of carpets shall be resumed as soon as material is available, and my hon. Friend can rest assured that I shall do my best to obtain jute for the industry as soon as supplies permit.
    Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great anxiety that exists regarding employment in the carpet industry in the event of an early peace, in view of the fact that it is not being carried on at the present time; and has he in mind the possibility of substitutes being used, such as cotton or flax?
    Mr. Dalton: My hon. Friend and I had a talk about this the other day, and he knows that I am very sympathetic with the case he put, but all the carpet manufacturers are working on direct war work. There is also difficulty about substitutes. He and I have gone into that, and if there are any suggestions that can be made about substitutes I will carefully consider them.
    Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a certain amount of unemployment in the industry now?
    Mr. Dalton: I think that the Minister of Labour can deal with that.

    Rationing (Prosecution).
    Mr. Thorneasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give any information with regard to the 30,000 used coupons that were missed; if he has considered the statement made by Detective-Sergeant Taylor at the Old Street Police Court; and what action was taken in the matter.
    Mr. Dalton: I presume that my hon. Friend is referring to the charge against George Hurst at Old Street Police Court. This man was charged with making a statement which he knew to be false, in furnishing information under the Consumer Rationing Order. The case is still sub judice and I cannot, therefore, make any further statement at present.

    Utility Furniture.
    Mr. Stourtonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether arrangements have been made with the Ministry of Works with a view to securing an adequate supply of utility furniture for emergency factory-made houses to be erected under Government direction to meet early post-war housing demands.
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. I am keeping in close touch with my Noble Friend the Minister of Works in this matter.
    Mr. Stourton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that furniture has risen in price by 20o per cent. since the war, and that unless an adequate supply is forthcoming at prices people can afford to pay, the new houses will be of no avail?
    Mr. Dalton: That is another point. The cost of utility furniture is strictly controlled. My Noble Friend the Minister of Works is assisting me over the supply of utility furniture. The admirable house which he has erected contains a large quantity of built-in metal furniture, and this saves both wood and the need for movable wooden furniture.

    Works of Art (Export to United States).
    Viscount Hinchingbrookeasked the President of the Board of Trade how many licences were issued in 1943 for the export to the U.S.A. of works of art and articles more than 75 years old.
    Mr. Dalton: 3,093 such licences were issued in 1943.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the decrease which took place between 1941 and 1942 has not been maintained, and will he take urgent steps to see that the figures are reduced this year?
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir; I am satisfied that these arrangements are administered properly. I invited my Noble Friend a year ago to give me evidence to the contrary and he has not yet done so.
    Mr. Keeling: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the total value?
    Mr. Dalton: Not without notice.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Export Facilities (United States)
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade, if his attention has been directed to the action taken by the U.S.A. economic administration which liberates their export trade from certain restrictions and allows permits to be applied for to cover the export of electrical and other machinery, tools, cutlery, etc., and that metals, industrial processes, etc., are now being released in preparation for post-war development; and what action is he taking to safeguard British post-war exports.
    Mr. Dalton: I am aware that the United States Foreign Economic Administration has recently made some simplifications in its export control machinery, but this does not necessarily mean that more materials or finished goods are being released for export. Arrangements have been made through the Combined Boards in Washington for the exchange of information between the United Kingdom and United States Governments regarding changes in their war-time production controls. As I have previously stated, every effort will be made to increase British exports, as soon as circumstances permit.
    Mr. Smith: Does that mean that just as we have complete unanimity in the military field in regard to the conduct of the war among the United Nations, machinery has been built up so that we can have the same unanimity in regard to trade?
    Mr. Dalton: We are working in very close harmony with the United States Government through these Combined Boards.

    Unit Trusts
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade, who are the largest shareholders in the Investors Specialised Fixed Trust, Limited, Investors General Fixed Trust, Investors Gas and Electric Trust and the Investors Gold Share Trust; what companies in America and Germany are or were involved in the trusts; was
    1696
    Mr. Liechtenstein connected with the trusts; if so, what is his nationality; is he satisfied that these trusts act in the best interests of our country; and, if not, what action it is intended to take.
    Mr. Dalton: Investors Specialised Fixed Trust Limited changed its name in 1936 to Fifteen Moorgate Unit Trusts Limited and again in 1942 to Moorgate Unit Trust Managers Limited. I assume that this is the company my hon. Friend has in mind. According to the last annual return, 58 per cent. of the shares are held by Dawnay, Day, and Company Limited, 36 per cent. by National Group of Fixed Trusts Limited and 5 per cent. by Gresham Street Nominees Limited.
    The other trusts mentioned are Unit Trust Schemes managed by the Moorgate Unit Trust Managers Limited and, therefore, they have no shareholders. I have no information which suggests that any American or German companies are, or have been, involved in Moorgate Unit Trust Managers Limited, nor am I aware that any person or company in Liechtenstein, or any person of that name, is connected with the trusts. I would remind my hon. Friend that statutory requirements with regard to Unit Trusts imposed by the Prevention of Fraud (Investment) Act, 1939, will operate as from the middle of July next.
    Mr. Smith: Is it not a fact that these companies exert a powerful influence in large industrial concerns in this country and that they have a large amount of capital invested in those concerns? If so, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the best interests of the nation are being served by combinations and trusts of this kind?
    Mr. Dalton: I think the unit trust is a very indirect method of exercising industrial influence—exceedingly indirect and not very potent.

    Shop Sites (Small Traders)
    Mr. Graham Whiteasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that multiple and other large retail concerns are buying up or taking on lease many shop sites which might otherwise be available for independent traders returning from the Forces and desiring to start in business again; and what steps does he propose to take to prevent this and to ensure to those now in the Forces a fair chance of re-entry into retail trade.
    Mr. Dalton: Anyone can buy or lease a shop site, but, as I have already stated, the licensing of retail traders will be continued for some time after the cessation of hostilities in Europe, and will be operated so as to give priority to ex-Service men and others who wish to resume their former businesses.
    Mr. Petherick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that although multiple shops and big stores can carry on in spite of staffing difficulties, the small man who is called up loses his whole business?
    Mr. Dalton: The call-up is not a matter for my Department.

  ENEMY-OCCUPIED EUROPE

    Swedish Ball-Bearings (Export)
    Commander Sir Archibald Southbyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare when he will be in a position to make a statement regarding the export of ball-bearings from Sweden to Axis Europe.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dingle Foot): I cannot yet say when I shall be in a position to make a further statement on this matter.
    Sir A. Southby: In view of the urgent importance of this matter, will my hon. Friend take steps to press the Swedish Government in every way possible?

    German Financial Exactions
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare if he has made any estimate of the financial exactions made by Germany on occupied countries up to date; the occupation costs and other impositions; the value of goods that countries have been compelled to send to Germany; and the calculated value of food and loot carried off by the Germans.
    Mr. Foot: My Department estimates that, taking the Mark at 13½ to the £ the total amount of war indemnities and other financial exactions, including the accumulated clearing balances, has reached a figure of approximately £5,800,000,000 in France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Czechoslovakia and Serbia. I have no very recent information regarding occupation costs and clearing balances in Poland,
    1698
    and in Greece the frequent changes in the rate of exchange between the mark and the drachma, combined with the inflation of the latter currency, make it impossible to arrive at a satisfactory estimate. Both in Poland and in Occupied Russia direct financial exactions have been of much less importance than the drain on native resources represented by loot, direct seizure of industrial enterprises and agricultural property, and destruction of property. I am afraid it is not possible to estimate the total of all these exactions or to give the information asked for in the second and third parts of the Question.
    Sir William Davison: Is the Minister aware that, since I put a similar Question to him in November last, the exactions of Germany upon occupied countries have gone up from £3,000,000,000 to 5,000,000,000, and that they still go on?

    Vitamin Supplies
    Mr. Edmund Harveyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare whether the additional vitamins, for which permission has been given by the Allied authorities, are now reaching the civilian sufferers in the countries occupied by Germany; and whether any addition can now be made to the range of vitamins which are authorised to be sent through the agency of the International Red Cross.
    Mr. Foot: The first consignment of Vitamin D preparations, which is the gift of the British Red Cross Society and the Dominions Red Cross Societies, is now on its way to Geneva. As regards the second part of the Question I have nothing to add to my previous statements on this subject.
    Mr. Harvey: Have any representations been received from any of the Allied Governments requesting further supplies of this nature?
    Mr. Foot: I do not recall any such requests. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put the question down.

    Post-War Economic Control
    Mr. Wilfrid Robertsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare whether he has any statement to make regarding the continuation of the statutory black list after the armistice in Europe.
    Mr. Foot: It is not possible at the present time to predict precisely when it may prove to be possible and expedient to withdraw the published lists. His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States do not consider the Statutory and Proclaimed Lists as appropriate parts of the type of normal peace-time trade policies, which they hope eventually will be established. It is recognised, however, that there will inevitably be a transition period from war to peace-time conditions. In view of the total character of the present conflict and its vast impact upon commerce it will necessarily take time to effect adjustments of economic warfare controls following the cessation of hostilities. Such adjustments will be carried out with due regard to specific circumstances. The problem of eliminating economic warfare controls and in particular the Statutory and Proclaimed Lists is believed in general to be capable of prompt solution in regions far removed from the scene of conflict. The elimination of such controls may be expected to be slower with respect to areas adjacent to the scene of conflict and particularly with respect to nationals of, or residents in, neutral countries who have engaged actively in equipping or servicing the military machine of the enemy—which the Allied Governments are determined to destroy—or who have rendered other important aid to the enemy.

    SPAIN (WOLFRAM EXPORTS)
    Sir Patrick Hannonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare what check has been established at the Spanish ports or otherwise to secure that only the agreed tonnage of wolfram is exported from Spain to Germany.
    Mr. Foot: We are fully aware of the danger that the enemy may attempt to smuggle out of Spain quantities of wolfram in excess of the amounts permitted under our recent agreement with the Spanish Government, Although for obvious reasons it is not desirable to go into details I can assure my hon. Friend that we are doing everything possible to detect such attempts and to ensure that they do not succeed.
    Sir P. Hannon: Would my hon. Friend indicate what form of machinery he has
    1700
    created in Spain or in other quarters, in order to keep some check on the export of wolfram?
    Mr. Foot: That is precisely the type of detail that ought not to be given to the House.
    Sir A. Southby: Has my hon. Friend any reason whatever to suppose that the Spanish Government will not keep their word?
    Mr. R. J. Taylor: Past experience.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Discharged Personnel (Pay and Allowances)
    Mr. T. J. Brooksasked the Secretary of State for War if he will consider giving a longer period of pay and allowances to men and their families after discharge in order to obviate the extreme hardships caused before many men reestablish themselves in civilian life.
    The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): Soldiers discharged from the Army, other than those who are invalided, are normally given 14 days' furlough with full pay and allowances. Soldiers invalided out of the Army are given 28 days' furlough before discharge. All soldiers are credited on discharge with National Health and Unemployment Insurance contributions in respect of their Army service and become eligible for benefit subject to the usual statutory conditions.
    Mr. Brooks: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of men are without pension, are not entitled to National Health Insurance, and are in the humiliating position of having to ask the poor law authorities to help them?
    Sir J. Grigg: The most suitable time to consider this question—and I think it will probably be automatically solved—is when the question of gratuities generally on discharge is settled. I gave an answer on that point about a fortnight ago.
    Mr. Brooks: In the meantime, a large number of families are in very great need, including a number in my district.
    Sir J. Grigg: I shall be very glad if my hon. Friend will let me have those specific cases so that I can have a look at them.

    Canteens and Hostels (Assistance)
    Mr. Hewlettasked the Secretary of State for War which Service canteen and hostel organisations, other than N.A.A.F.I., are subsidised by his Department; and what is the amount of assistance in each case.
    Sir J. Grigg: In certain cases where canteens or hostels are provided by voluntary organisations at the specific request of the military authorities the War Department provides or pays for the necessary accommodation. In other cases certain running expenses are also borne by the Department in return for which the hostels may be used by the military authorities free of charge for billeting troops. About £150,000 was spent in this way from public funds during the past financial year, but I regret that further details are not readily available. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of the organisations concerned.
    Mr. A. Edwards: On what conditions are special requests of this kind made?
    Sir J. Grigg: I do not entirely understand the hon. Member's question. These are specific requests made by the military authorities, where canteens and hostels are specially needed in and near places such as railway stations. They have nothing to do with the ordinary N.A.A.F.I. canteens in units.
    Following are the names:

    Church Army.

    Church of Scotland.

    Salvation Army.

    S.O.S. Society.

    The Knights of St. Columba.

    Toc H.

    Women's Voluntary Services.

    Y.M.C.A.

    Y.W.C.A.

    Auxiliary Territorial Service
    Mr. Naylorasked the Secretary of State for War if he is prepared to grant transfer facilities to officers and noncommissioned officers in the A.T.S. who are offered positions, after application, in the women's section of the police force.
    Sir J. Grigg: I regret that no A.T.S. auxiliaries can be spared by the Army at the present time.
    Mr. Naylor: If I were to submit an individual case of a member of the A.T.S.
    1702
    who has already served for two years in the Metropolitan Police, would it receive favourable consideration?
    Sir J. Grigg: Not at the present time, for very obvious reasons. Later on I might be able to give a more accommodating answer.
    Sir H. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult with an hon. Member of this House, whose name I shall be glad to give him, who has 25 members of the A.T.S. billeted in his house, with nothing to do?
    Sir J. Grigg: I shall be very glad to investigate that case. I saw that report.

    Operations, Burma (Equipment)
    Mr. Hewlett asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is satisfied that the British troops operating in Burma and kindred countries are not hampered in their movements by unnecessary personal impedimenta.
    Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir. Moreover, Formation commanders may discard any equipment they consider unsuitable for the operations in hand.

    Home Guard (Nominated Women)
    Colonel Burtonasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is satisfied that in the event of nominated women in the Home Guard coming within enemy action or being captured by the enemy they are afforded sufficient evidence of their belligerency by the wearing of their plastic badge and the certificate that they are authorised to follow the Armed Forces of the Crown and thus be able to claim the protection afforded under Article 81 of the International Convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war.
    Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir.
    Colonel Burton: Having determined the degree of belligerency of these women, is it not possible to issue them with some kind of protection, such as tin hats and uniform?
    Sir J. Grigg: I thought the purport of my answer was that the protection they already have is sufficient.

    Personnel, Middle East (Exchange)
    Major Nieldasked the Secretary of State for War if, in regarding the policy of exchanging personnel from this country

    1703
    for personnel who have served for a substantial period in the Middle East, he is satisfied that as many such exchanges as possible in the circumstances are being effected.
    Sir J. Grigg: I can certainly assure the hon. and gallant Member that the pianist is doing his best.
    Major Nield: Will the right hon. Gentleman say approximately the numbers—of course only in percentages—of such exchanges so far effected?
    Sir J. Grigg: I certainly could not give them without notice, and I doubt very much whether it would be in the public interest to give them at all.

    Private Soldier (Recall to Service)
    Colonel Sir A. Lambert Wardasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that No. 7672041, Private Ronald Pegg, R.A.P.C., was recalled to the Army on 29th April; that this will entail the closing down of his business, as every effort to find a manager has failed; and, as the closing down of this business will cause serious inconvenience in the neighbourhood and as Private Pegg is a C category man, will be consider granting him release from the Army.
    Sir J. Grigg: This case has been very carefully considered. It undoubtedly has elements of hardship, but, having regard to the fact that there are many others like it, I regret that it is impossible to grant this man any further release.

    Road Accident
    Mr. Thorneasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give any information in connection with the head-on collision between an Army lorry and an omnibus on the main Ashford-Maidstone road; and how many soldiers were injured.
    Sir J. Grigg: I understand that the lorry was a Canadian Army lorry, and that two Canadian soldiers were slightly injured.

    Retired Officers (Re-employment)
    General Sir George Jeffreysasked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether he is aware that a retired civil servant, if re-employed as an officer in the Army, can continue to draw his civil pension in addition to his Army
    1704
    pay; and whether retired Army officers, when re-employed, will in future be similarly treated and permitted to draw the whole of their retired pay in addition to the pay of their rank or appointment;
    (2) whether he has considered the case of retired officers who have been reemployed since 1939, and who will not be eligible for any increase of retired pay or gratuity in respect of their service whilst so re-employed; and whether, in future, such officers will be allowed to count their called-up service for the purpose of calculating retired pay or gratuity.
    Sir J. Grigg: I regret that I cannot see my way to accepting either of my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestions. A civil servant normally retires on a pension only for reasons of health or on reaching the age of 6o. In neither case is he likely to be employed as an Army officer, and I do not think there have, in fact, been more than two such cases in the course of the war.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Is there any reason why these officers should not be allowed to draw retired pay which they have already earned, and which people in another Service are allowed to draw?
    Sir J. Grigg: If my hon, and gallant Friend is referring to civil servants who are re-employed as civil servants, he is under a misapprehension. There are limitations on the amount of pension which they can draw on re-employment. Re-employed Army officers are given a very definite increase in their current pay in consequence of their not drawing retired pay.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of these officers have been recalled after being away for a very few weeks, so that their service is practically continuous, and, having regard to the fact that they are put to considerable expense in being called back in that way, should not the remaining years of service be added when calculating pension?
    Sir J. Grigg: As I have explained, they are given a very considerable addition to their current emoluments in lieu.

    Discharged Personnel (Civilian Clothing)
    Sir G. Jeffreysasked the Secretary of State for War what type of clothing is

    1705
    being issued to soldiers declared unfit for further Army service; and if he is considering complaints that these men are receiving the early type of utility civilian suits and not the later.
    Sir J. Grigg: Standard austerity suits are at present being issued, but, as soon as supplies are available of the suits which will be issued to men discharged on the termination of hostilities, they will be issued instead. I am not aware of the complaints to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Will my right hon. Friend consider the complaint, if I send him a copy of the complaint which I have seen, of the treatment of a man discharged from hospital very gravely wounded, who was given an austerity suit, which he said he did not intend to wear, and a minimum of Army clothing?.
    Sir J. Grigg: I will certainly look into the question. I say that this is a question which time will cure, and, I hope, very soon.

    Scala Theatre, London (De-requisitioning)
    Mr. Colmanasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that, despite the requisitioning of the Scala Theatre for urgent national reasons, the theatre is now to be de-requisitioned for the largely amateur London Co-operative Society's pageant during one month, part of which time was held under option by Mr. Donald Wolfit, the actor manager, who is now producing Shakespearian plays but whose occupation is to be forcibly terminated on 15th May; and whether Mr. Wolfit was consulted as to this favoured treatment before it was sanctioned.
    Sir J. Grigg: It was intended, originally, to requisition the Scala Theatre on 1st March for the training and recreation of troops. On 22nd February, I promised to reconsider the question, and, as a result, a considerably less suitable place was taken temporarily for the troops and the Shakespeare season has been able to continue for some three months. Mr. Wolfit has naturally been brought into the discussions, and, by not taking the theatre until 16th May, the Army will enable Mr. Wolfit to complet his original contract.
    1706
    In the course of these discussions, I found that the Co-operative movement had made arrangements in February to use the theatre for a month in the summer for the pageant to celebrate the centenary of the movement. The efforts made by the Co-operative Societies to find an alternative theatre were no more successful than the War Department's earlier efforts made to avoid requisitioning the theatre, and it seemed that these celebrations, for which considerable preparations had been made, would have to be cancelled. This would have caused disappointment to very many people, and I decided that the Army should release the theatre for a very limited period in order to enable the celebrations to take place.
    Mr. Colman: Does the Minister realise that, by denying the use of the theatre to the whole of the theatrical profession and making it available to the co-operative society, 11e is showing favourable treatment to a great business organisation— [Interruption.]
    Sir J. Grigg: What I would like to say about this is that I thought, at one time, in my inexperience, that I could satisfy everybody. Now, it seems that I have satisfied nobody, and I am not sure that this is any encouragement to try again.
    Mr. Maxton: Did the right hon. Gentleman get the approval of his Cabinet colleague Lord Beaverbrook?

    Parliamentary Franchise (Service Register)
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that under the Parliament (Elections and Meeting) Act, 1943, a duty is imposed on registration officers to compile and publish a register of civilian electors; and what steps are being taken by the Army Council to ensure similar results for service voters.
    Mr. Coveasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now satisfied that all men in the Army entitled to vote under the Parliament (Elections and Meeting) Act, 1943, are being made aware of their rights; and that easy and full facilities for their registration as electors are being made available.
    Sir J. Grigg: Under the Act referred to, the register of electors consists

    1707
    of three parts, namely, the civilian residence register, the business premises register and the Service register. The preparation of all three parts of the Register is the duty of the registration officer. The measures which are being taken by the Army Council to enable all ranks of the Army, and of those Women's Forces administered by them to get their names placed on the New Register, were explained by me in answer to Questions by the hon. Members for Skipton (Mr. H. Lawson) and Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) on 2nd May. The effect of these measures is being watched, and I am considering whether any further measures are practicable.
    Mr. Bellenger: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, when the Service registed is compiled, the registration officer will be able to publish the names of electors on that register, as he is able to do, or as, indeed, he is under an obligation to do, with civilians?
    Sir J. Grigg: I do not think exactly similar arrangements are practicable. As I tried to explain last week, this House quite definitely decided on different arrangements for the Services from those applicable to the civilian population.
    Mr. John Wilmot: Are we to understand from the answer given that there is a definite obligation on the officer to register men?
    Sir J. Grigg: I explained last week that, in place of a definite obligation on the officer, our intention is to see that the men get every possible chance of registering, and the duty of the officers to assist is brought to their attention very prominently.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the Minister aware that the Minister who introduced this Bill said that the three Service Departments had given an assurance that they would co-operate with a view to securing, subject to any unintentional errors, the full registration of Service personnel concerned, and is he satisfied that the answer he has given is sufficient to justify the claim that he is going to secure full registration?
    Sir J. Grigg: I think so, completely. We cannot secure something which is definitely contrary to provisions of the Act.

    WAR DECORATIONS AND MEDALS.
    Sir A. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for War whether in the case of a man killed by enemy action before the award of a medal, the medal is awarded to his next-of-kin together with permission to wear the ribbon.
    Sir J. Grigg: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) on 4th April. When the medals have been issued, next-of-kin may properly wear them on Armistice Day or on the Sunday selected for Armistice celebrations.
    Sir A. Knox: Meanwhile, is a ribbon being issued to these people?
    Sir J. Grigg: I cannot say off-hand. I do not think so.

    GREEK CREW, UNITED KINGDOM PORT (WITHDRAWAL).
    Mr. Parkerasked the Prime Minister why British Forces were used to disarm Greek ships in a British port after 95 per cent. of their officers and men had signed a memorandum urging the creation of a comprehensive National Greek Government of Resistance.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): I presume the hon. Member is referring to the recent removal of a number of Greek seamen from one of H.M. destroyers in a United Kingdom port. This ship had seen active service in the Royal Navy, but after being refitted was to have been transferred to the Royal Hellenic Navy. In view, however, of recent disturbances in the Mediterranean, and of unrest among the officers and men detailed to take over the ship, the Admiralty were unable to allow her to be commissioned with a Greek crew. The Greek parties on board were accordingly withdrawn and it is quite incorrect to speak of a Greek ship having been disarmed in a British Port.
    It was with regret that the Admiralty decided to withhold this ship from the Greek Navy. It is out of the question, however, for so valuable a ship to be commissioned, particularly at this critical juncture, with a crew whose trustworthiness cannot be assured.
    Mr. Parker: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House why we continue to

    1709
    intervene in Greek affairs, and support people who have no backing in Greece itself?
    The Prime Minister: That raises, in very short compass, three highly disputable issues.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that these seamen can be fully trusted to defend Greece if they get the opportunity? What they object to is defending King George.
    The Prime Minister: I think that is a very improper and reckless question, when there is so much difficulty in different parts of the world, and we are all doing our best to concentrate our forces on the common enemy.
    Mr. Parker: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment at the first available opportunity.

    POST-WAR GOVERNMENT CONTROL
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider an objective inquiry into the working of Government controls and co-ordination of agriculture, food and transport, with a view to discovering whether, and how far, in the national interest it is desirable to maintain or extend such controls in the post-war period.
    The Prime Minister: These matters are kept under constant review in the formulation and development of Government policy, and I do not think there is any necessity for such an inquiry as my hon. Friend suggests.

    EQUAL PAY (APPOINTMENT OF ROYAL COMMISSION)
    Mrs. Cazalet Keirasked the Prime Minister whether he is yet in a position to make any statement on the question of equal pay for equal work.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Government have decided to set up a Royal Commission to consider this matter.
    Mrs. Keir: In thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware of the great satisfaction it
    1710
    will give the country? May I ask him whether this Royal Commission will report more quickly than any other Royal Commission?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot prophesy about the future actions of Royal Commissions, but in a very serious matter like this, involving an immediate addition of £42,000,000 to current expenditure, some inquiry is necessary.
    Mr. Higgs: Is the Prime Minister aware that if equal pay is granted, employers will cease to engage women?
    Mr. G. Strauss: Is it possible to indicate either the name of the Chairman, or any of the members?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir, certainly not.

    SOCIAL SERVICES
    Mr. Graham Whiteasked the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to state when His Majesty's Government propose to announce their conclusions in regard to social security.
    The Prime Minister: I regret that I am not yet able to name a particular date for this statement.

    SERVICE PAY AND ALLOWANCES
    Miss Wardasked the Prime Minister whether in view of their exclusion from the benefits of the White Paper, he will consider the improvement of allowances to dependants of Service personnel.
    The Prime Minister: Certain modifications of the dependants' allowance scheme are under consideration.
    Miss Wardasked the Prime Minister whether in view of the fact that there are childless wives in areas where women's work is not available and the homes of Service men have to be kept going, he will reconsider the position of allowances to childless wives for whom work cannot be found.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. As indicated in paragraph 18 of the White Paper, it is open to childless wives whose circumstances are exceptional to apply to the War Service Grants Committee.
    Mr. Kirby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that junior officers up to the rank of captain are still receiving less, in childless wife allowance, than men in the ranks?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think such cases are numerous or serious, but I believe there are some cases where an officer actually loses by receiving the King's Commission. I certainly think that the hon. Gentleman is right in drawing attention to such cases when they occur. The matter should be considered, because otherwise it is invidious.
    Miss Ward: Are these cases being considered by the Service Departments, with a view to rectifying the anomalies?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, certainly by the Service Departments.
    Miss Wardasked the Prime Minister whether in view of the inclusion of new pensions proposals in the White Paper on which the Informal Committee had no opportunity of offering advice and which was not part of its work, he will reappoint the Committee to discuss this question.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The new War Pensions provisions represent a considered decision by the Government, and I do not think any useful purpose would be served by re-opening the informal discussions with hon. Members as suggested.
    Miss Ward: In view of the fact that the original Debate took place on the Army Estimates, and therefore it would not have been in Order to discuss pensions, does my right hon. Friend not think it is rather unfortunate that the Informal Committee should not have been consulted before pensions were mixed up with the White Paper? Would it not have been more courteous to the House?
    The Prime Minister: I should very much regret to see any discourtesy shown, but I should think one would have to search rather far and elaborately to find any in this.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Fiduciary Note Issue
    Mr. Craven-Ellisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date and in what form did Parliament determine that the fiduciary note issue of
    1712
    £280,000,000 authorised by the Treasury on 6th September, 1939, following the representation of the Bank of England that such increase of the note issue was expedient, should still remain in force.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): I would refer my hon. Friend to Defence (Finance) Regulation No. 7AA, dated the 15th August, 1941 (Statutory Rules and Orders No. 1I99 of 1941), as amended by Order in Council, dated the 10th August, 1943 (Statutory Rules and Orders No. 1141 of 1943). A note added to the latter Order gave a full explanation of the position.

    Local Authorities (Interest-Free Loans to Government)
    Mr. Leslieasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether local authorities have been empowered to lend money to the Government free of interest; and, if not, will he introduce the necessary Order permitting local authorities to follow the example of individuals in lending money free of interest.
    Sir J. Anderson: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 25th April last to the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

    Employees (Income Tax)
    Mr. Oliverasked the Chancellor of the. Exchequer whether lump-sum payments made by employers to their work-people for long service are subject to Income Tax, and, if so, at what rate is the tax to be levied as these are long-service payments; and how would the tax be paid under the pay-as-you-earn scheme.
    Sir J. Anderson: In the ordinary course, such payments as those to which my hon. Friend refers are assessable as emoluments for the year in which they are payable, and tax will be deductible under pay-as-you-earn in accordance with the same rules as apply to other wage payments during the year. If my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind and will send me details, I shall be glad to look into it.
    Mr. Oliverasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether wages and/or bonuses earned before 5th April, 1944, and paid after that date, are assessable for Income Tax under the scheme of Pay-as-you-earn; and if so, will subsequent adjustments be made having regard to the

    1713
    fact that these items of remuneration would be in excess of the earnings of the year in which they are paid.
    Sir J. Anderson: Under Pay-as-you-earn, tax is required to be deducted from all wages, bonuses, and other remuneration, irrespective of the period in which the income was earned. The basis of assessment for 1944–45 and subsequent years is the earnings of the year of assessment, and, where necessary, an adjustment would be made in the assessment in respect of income paid during the year of assessment which related to an earlier year. It is to be remarked, however, that, if it is the employer's practice to pay remuneration in arrear, it would be necessary to bring back into assessment for the year sums paid in the following year, and it may often be found convenient to base each year's assessment on the earnings received in the year.
    Mr. Woodburn: Could not these back bonus and other payments be treated in the same way as the Chancellor has agreed to treat payments to artists and authors of literary contributions, and be spread over three years, if that would be to the benefit of the recipient?
    Sir J. Anderson: That is a separate question altogether; it has nothing to do with the mechanism of Pay-as-you-earn, to which the Question was related.

    Civil Servants (Service Pay, Supplementation)
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaiteasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what annual saving he anticipates in the payments made to civil servants in His Majesty's Forces in supplementation of their service pay and allowances as a result of the new rates announced in Cmd. 6521; and whether he can give any estimate of the comparable saving by local authorities.
    Sir J. Anderson: I regret that I have not the necessary information on which to base an estimate under either head.
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Are the various allowances taken into account, or are they ignored and only basic pay considered, in connection with such supplementation? If that is done, are not civil servants given preferential treatment over other people?
    Sir J. Anderson: I would like to see that question on the Paper before I attempted to answer it.

    Treasury (Public Relations Officer)
    Sir H. Williamsasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why an additional public relations officer has been appointed in his Department.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): My right hon. Friend is satisfied that a real need has been met by the appointment of a Treasury official as public relations officer, to be concerned solely with Treasury Departmental business. His functions will be additional to, and quite separate from, those of the Chief Press Liaison Officer.
    Sir H. Williams: As the present officer has not got any work and the job is created in order to give him the equivalent of a pension, is it not time that this farce was stopped and that we put an end to this system, by which Whitehall is crawling with people doing duties which should be done by the Ministers?
    Mr. Assheton: I cannot accept either of those statements.
    Mr. Woodburn: Does this mean that the doings of the Treasury will be less wrapt in mystery in future, and that the public will come to know what goes on in that Department?
    Mr. Assheton: It may help.

    INTERNATIONAL CURRENCY ARRANGEMENTS
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the subsequent discussions on international currency arrangements, it is proposed to introduce negotiations on the actual trading relations which the Currency Union is to facilitate.
    Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir. I expect that discussions on international currency arrangements will be confined to monetary questions. As stated, however, in the recent White Paper (Cmd. 6519) the Statement of Principles for an International Monetary Fund is conceived as part of a general plan for international co-operation, the objectives of which, as a whole, would include the development of international trade, active employment, and the reasonable stability of prices.
    Sir Irving Alberyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer which British Dominions and Allied countries took part in the discussions which resulted in the issue of the recent White Paper on International Currency Proposals.
    Sir J. Anderson: So far as the United Kingdom Experts are concerned, the Joint Statement published in Command Paper 6519 was the result of an agreement between the United Kingdom and United States technical experts. Discussion at the technical level of the problems of international monetary co-operation has taken place between experts of a large number of the United Nations, including those of the Dominions and India, Russia, China, and all the European Allies, as well as those of others of the United Nations. But, in accepting the Joint Statement, the United Kingdom experts did not, of course, commit the experts of any other country.

    SCOTTISH UNIVERSITIES (FEES)
    Mr. Maxtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Scottish Universities Joint Board has intimated that a substantial increase in university fees in all faculties except the medical faculty is to be imposed, to take effect from the beginning of the next session; whether he was consulted before this step was taken; and whether he will consider whether the deficiencies in university income can be made good in some other way.
    Sir J. Anderson: I am aware of the decision of the Scottish Universities to increase certain university fees. This is not a matter in which I have any jurisdiction or on which I should expect to be consulted in advance, but I may say that even at the higher levels the fees at the Scottish universities will, in general, be lower than those charged by universities in England. With regard to the last part of the Question, the University Grants Committee are now actively engaged in reviewing the future financial needs of the universities, and I am not in a position to anticipate their recommendations.
    Mr. Maxton: Does the right hon. Gentleman tell me that he was never consulted in this matter, either as Chancellor of the Exchequer or as one of the representatives of the universities in this House?
    Sir J. Anderson: Certainly.
    Mr. Maxton: But the right hon. Gentleman is providing a very large proportion 31 the grants to the Scottish universities. Am I to understand that, at a time when we want more doctors and more teachers, they have raised fees for the individual students without any attempt to increase their revenue from other sources?
    Sir J. Anderson: I am not responsible for the decision.
    Mr. Maxton: I tackled the Secretary of State for Scotland the other week, and he passed me on to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. To whom is the Chancellor of the Exchequer now passing me on?
    Sir J. Anderson: I am not passing the hon. Member on to anybody; but, as I was saying, I was not responsible for the increases in fees, nor had I any right to expect to be consulted.

    BRITISH SUBJECTS, FRENCH NORTH AFRICA (PROPERTY)
    Mr. Bartle Bullasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why British subjects who were resident in French North Africa after the fall of the French Republic, and whose money was then paid to the Custodian of Enemy Property for him to administer, now that French North Africa has been liberated, are in the position that their money remaining in the hands of the Custodian, is now to be paid over to the Free French Government, instead of to them direct.
    Sir J. Anderson: Arrangements have been made with the French Committee of National Liberation for the return of money and other property which, owing to the war, had come under the control of the French and British authorities, to those persons originally entitled to them. The application of these general arrangements to a few exceptional cases of British subjects formerly resident in French North Africa is now being considered, and if my 'hon. Friend will let me have particulars of any case, I will look into it.
    Mr. Bull: I will do so.

    GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR
    Mr. G. Straussasked the Secretary of State for War whether any information or expressions of policy are available to

    1717
    German prisoners of war in British camps other than those emanating from German sources.
    Sir J. Grigg: German prisoners of war are given every opportunity to read British newspapers and listen to B.B.C. programmes.
    Mr. Strauss: Does that mean that a number of British newspapers are, in point of fact, provided in all the prisoners of war camps?
    Sir J. Grigg: Yes, I think so.

    RED CROSS CIGARETTES, LISBON (SALE)
    Mr. A. Edwardsasked the Secretary of. State for War whether he can explain the circumstances under which Red Cross cigarettes, intended for British prisoners of war, are being offered for sale in Lisbon.
    Sir J. Grigg: I understand that a very small quantity of cigarettes despatched by the British Red Cross War Organisation found its way into the hands of a shop in Lisbon. As soon as they became aware of this, the Portugese authorities took immediate steps to withdraw all such cigarettes from the shop in question. I am expecting a full report on this from Lisbon.

    ITALIAN PRISONERS OF WAR (VOLUNTEER UNITS)
    Mr. Ivor Thomasasked the Secretary of State for War what changes have recently been made in the status of Italian prisoners of war; and what efforts have been made to secure their co-operation in the struggle against Nazism.
    Sir J. Grigg: In order to give effect to the Italian Government's declaration of co-belligerency and to enable those who are anxious to do so to join most effectively in the common war effort, Italian prisoners of war under the control of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom who volunteer are being formed into units organised on a military basis. These units will be under the ultimate command of British officers, but will be staffed, so far as practicable, by Italian officers and non-commissioned officers. Members of the units will wear Italian badges of rank and will enjoy certain improvements in
    1718
    treatment, particularly in respect of liberty and pay, in comparison with prisoners of war who do not volunteer and whose treatment will remain as at present.
    Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that the improvements are so negligible as to offer practically no inducement to these men to volunteer?
    Commander Locker-Lampson: Is Sir Oswald Mosley a co-belligerent?
    Mr. Driberg: Does this new arrangement mean that many of the men will be withdrawn from farm work, in which they have been quite useful in the last year or two?
    Sir J. Grigg: I think it is quite likely.

MEMBERS' SPEECHES, HANSARD (CORRECTIONS AND REPRINTS)
Sir Reginald Clarry: I beg to ask a question of which I have given private notice—whether you, Mr. Speaker, can indicate the limits within which it is permissible for hon. Members to correct the reports of their speeches for the daily issue and also for the bound volumes of HANSARD?
Mr. Speaker: I think it would be sufficient for me merely to read out the Ruling given by Mr. Speaker Lowther on 6th April, 1914. This is what Mr. Speaker Lowther said:
"I have consulted the Editor of the OFFICIAL REPORT on this matter, and he tells me that, although hon. Members make corrections, he revises those corrections, and it does not follow that because an hon. Member makes a correction in the proof that the correction is always accepted. I asked the Editor on what principles he went, and he said that the chief principle which guided him was to obtain an absolutely correct report of what was said… He is very careful not to allow any corrections which would in any way alter the general sense of the speech made, but that he does accept corrections, for instance, of faults of grammar, split infinitives, redundancies, or incorrect dates, and I have told the Editor that in my opinion he is in that way acting quite correctly." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th April, 1914; col. 1633, Vol. LX.]
Perhaps I might add that I think we are getting a little further away from split infinitives; they are not so much commented on nowadays. Perhaps it would be for the assistance of the House if I also said this. In order to call it to the attention of hon. Members who wish to correct their

1719
speeches, an extract from the Ruling which I have quoted will be inserted in the Notes printed inside the cover of the daily issue of HANSARD.
Mr. McGovern: May I ask you a question on that, Sir? If, after speeches are made and a Division takes place, the Whips intervene, may Members be allowed to change their vote also?
Mr. Buchanan: I would like an assurance—and this is no reflection either on the Official Reporters or anyone else—but, for some time, I myself, and I only speak for myself, have had an uneasy feeling that members of the Government on the Front Bench have had their speeches revised in a fuller way than may have been accorded to Members in other parts of the House I think this uneasiness is shared by a number of other hon. Members, and so I would like an assurance that, on this matter, members of the Government are in no way treated differently from hon. Members in other parts of the House.
Mr. Speaker: I have just laid down the limits, and, as far as I am concerned, I am certain that it would be wrong. If Ministers exercised any undue pressure on HANSARD it would not have my support in any way whatever.
Captain Plugge: May I ask you a question, Sir? Do you not think that, in view of the wide circulation of HANSARD all over the world, it would be rather infra dig. to print this Ruling;; which is for Members only, on the inside page of every HANSARD? You have given it very freely to Members, and it does not seem to me necessary, in my humble submission, to have it printed in every copy of HANSARD to go all over the world.
Mr. Speaker: I thought it would be for the convenience of hon. Members and a gentle reminder to those who are rather in the habit, I almost might say, of rewriting their speeches.
Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Is this difficulty not likely to disappear in the course of time, owing to the habit of Ministers and others reading their speeches verbatim?
Mr. Neil Maclean: Has it not already been the custom for. some time for Members, after they have made a speech in this House and waited until any reply
1720
has been made by a succeeding speaker, to go to the reporters' room, go over their speeches and correct not merely the grammatical errors that you, Mr. Speaker, have read out from the late Speaker Lowther's statement, but sometimes to alter the sense of their speeches? Would it not be just as well to include here that that is a practice that ought not to be continued, and that corrections must not be made that would alter the sense of a speech which an hon. Member had made?
Mr. Speaker: I hope I have made it clear that it is entirely wrong. I should perhaps add that some hon. Members do not know what may or may not go into HANSARD. One correction that was submitted to me of a sentence which an hon. Member put in his speech was that afterwards he wanted inserted, "Loud cheers by hon. Members."
Hon. Members: Name!
Mr. Bowles: On a point of Order. On the inner cover of each HANSARD there appears the following sentence:
"Members may obtain excerpts of their speeches from the OFFICIAL REPORT (within one month from the date of publication), on application to the Controller of H.M. Stationery Office, c/o the Editor."
I understand that there seems to be some difficulty in tracing how that privilege was granted to hon. Members, and that difficulty apparently has arisen owing to some action by Hitler's aircraft. But that no doubt is a privilege that hon. Members have enjoyed for some time. I do not propose to argue against the view that the expression "excerpts of their speeches" means only their own speeches, but I can say that I have on numerous occasions given orders for speeches of hon. Members other than my own. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because I think they are useful; sometimes they are Ministerial speeches. The position is this, that during a particular Debate the week before last I thought I should like to have a certain number of copies—10,000—of a speech made by an hon. Friend of mine, and I gave an order for that number, and I signed it. The first difficulty that I had to face was, that I was told that I could not sign the order form; it would have to be signed by the hon. Member himself. Why, I do not know. It seems to be completely illogical that, when you give an order in

1721
which you are pledging yourself to pay the cost, you should have to get someone else to sign it, and no objection had been raised before on that particular position.
The hon. Member in question did sign the order, and the next thing that happened was that I was told by the Editor of the OFFICIAL REPORT that, in view of the shortage of paper in the Stationery Office, it would be impossible to consider printing anything like that number at all. I made inquiries, and I found that the Paper Control Board did release an increase of 11½ per cent. of newsprint to the Press in this country only some two or three weeks ago. But I am not objecting to that. I am only putting to you the position here. Owing to the shortage of Parliamentary reporting by the Press because of the small amount of space, there were Debates last week which did not appear in any of the national Press at all, but they were of some importance to the people. The position is—and I think it is of importance that I should ask for your support, help and protection for hon. Members in this respect—that it is the action of the Executive in either keeping paper short in this particular Department or on account of their practice of directing labour that puts hon. Members at a disadvantage and makes them anxious to justify their position to their constituents; and hon. Members should not be prevented from putting a point of view that is not always splashed in the normal national Press. I understand—and I quite agree—that it might be suggested that a ceiling should be placed upon this. There are two rational elements, I agree. The first is the limit of the expense to which an hon. Member is prepared to go, and the second is the difficulty of distributing the number of copies in point.
I understand that I should put down a Question to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, but I put this to you, Sir. I ask you to say that hon. Members who are not necessarily members of the Government should have your protection from Government action in limiting their ability to communicate to their constituents what takes place in this House.
Mr. Speaker: A somewhat long question has been put to me. Perhaps the House will forgive me if I make a somewhat long reply. About three or four weeks ago the Editor of HANSARD came to me and said that he had received an
1722
order for 10,000 copies, reprints of a speech, which was rather unusual. I said, "I do not want to interfere with what Members are doing. It is unusual, but please let me know if further orders of this character come in later on, and then I will see what can be done."
Last week orders came for reprints amounting to 55,000. That at once showed that a new issue had arisen. The whole amount in the year before the war was 63,000 reprints. That is for one year. I understand that it was considerably less in the first three years of the war and that the average number of copies asked for was between 200 and 300 at a time. Since we met in January and up to 1st May, the number of reprints asked for were 117,000, therefore doubling the last prewar year. And added to this 55,00o one might say that in four months, or rather less than four months, we are now asking for over three times what was asked for in the year before the war. That makes a very serious situation from the labour point of view.
There is another consideration I had in my own mind when I made these inquiries. I asked about the cost. These reprints do not bear relation to cost at all. They are done below the cost of production, and lion. Members who are asking for copies on this scale, which cannot merely be for private circulation among a limited number of constituents, but for propaganda, are asking to be subsidised by the taxpayer. Therefore I had to cancel these large orders for the time being until I could inquire whether it was a right or privilege. I have been carefully into that, and I find that when the private firm that printed the Debates was taken over by the Government in 1909 hon. Members were allowed to have reprints of their speeches. Therefore there was no Privilege of any kind; it was merely a convenience given to hon. Members by a private firm which was continued when the work was taken over by a Government Department. If there are any complaints about that, it is not a matter for me, because there is no Privilege involved; it is a matter for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
Mr. Bowles: The result of my efforts last week was that I was allowed to order none, Sir. I think I ought to explain to the House about this 1il per cent. increase in newsprint given to Press.

1723
When it is given to the "News of the World," which has a 5,000,000 circulation every week, there can be no question of a shortage of newsprint. The more Parliamentary Debates get around the country, to my mind, the better. No one would ask the taxpayers to subsidise the circulation of their speeches to their constituents. The solution of that is to raise the rates. I do beg of you, Sir, to reconsider this. It is a question of Privilege. I do not think the Financial Secretary to the Treasury should have to answer for this. It has been in force for some years and is invaluable for some hon. Members, and I ask you, Sir, to consider whether it is not a question of Privilege, one for you to stand up for and safeguard the rights of hon. Members.
Captain Plugge: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to bear in mind that this reprinting is definitely an economy? Two thousand reprints of speeches which are very often printed on one small double sheet do not take up as much bulk of paper as 100 HANSARDS. This it would not be considered unusual for an hon. Member to order, yet 100 HANSARDS would involve a large amount of wasted sheets and much more work. Although 117,000 reprints sounds a lot, they are very flimsy, small pieces of paper, about one-quarter the size of one newspaper sheet, so the amount of paper involved is exceedingly small and the work negligible. I would like to support that point, that reprints should be available to Members as before.
Commander King-Hall: Arising out of your reply, Mr. Speaker, could you give the House guidance? Does it now mean that a ceiling will be established by the Treasury in this matter? May I ask this further question? If it is a question of paper, are you not aware that the increase of 11½ per cent. allotted to some of the national dailies has not been taken up by at least two papers? As the papers find it very difficult to report Parliament fully, is it not desirable that Members should be able, at a raised price if necessary, to disseminate the proceedings of Parliament?
Mr. Speaker: It is not so much a question of paper, as something which does not come within my jurisdiction.
Mr. McGovern: May I ask this further question, Sir? Is it not a fact that the increased demands are, to a large extent, forced on hon. Members who are critical of the Government, because the Press in this country is boycotting those who are criticising the Government? Is that democracy?
Mr. Naylor: Is it not a fact, Mr. Speaker, that it is not absolutely necessary for hon. Members to order reprints of their speeches from the Stationery Office? Any hon. Member who requires his speech, or the speech of any other hon. Member, to be reprinted, can go to his local printer, in all probability even at the present time, and have his order executed without any trouble.
Mr. Buchanan: That does not arise, because the ordinary printer now has enough difficulty over his commercial work without undertaking any more. I cannot complain about the newspapers not giving me a fair amount of notice, but, in the days before the war, the newspapers of this country did the work of HANSARD to a large extent by their very full daily reports of Parliamentary procedings. So there was not much necessity to purchase HANSARD. Since the beginning of the war, however, the national newspapers are not in the same position. Is it not a good thing, whether a man be a critic or supporter of the Government, whether his speech be good, bad or indifferent, that the population of this country should be encouraged to read the speeches made in the House of Commons? I thought the strongest part of your case, Sir, was when you said it was not a breach of Privilege. Could I put this point? We have in Scotland what we call the law of habit and custom, namely, that if a thing has been established from, say, 1909 to 1944, it has, by custom and practice, become a privilege. I put that seriously, Sir. It has been a thing accepted and welcomed by the House. I think it is a serious matter, and I trust that on calm reflection you will defend hon. Members against what may be the overriding power of the Executive against Private Members.
Mr. Speaker: Even though it has been the custom for 30 odd years, it is very dangerous to establish or claim new Privileges for ourselves merely because it has been the custom for some time.

1725
Really, a convenience to hon. Members which was in the neighbourhood of 200 to 300 reprints per demand, and is now 20,000 or 30,000, is a very different proposition. All that happens is that the Editor of HANSARD passes on the order to His Majesty's Stationery Office. I would suggest that representations be made to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to see what rules he may make, if he makes any, about the provision of these reprints.
Mr. Bowles: What is the position now, Mr. Speaker? Am I allowed to have 1,000 copies of another hon. Member's speech, or not?
Mr. Speaker: I would refer that question to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
Captain Plugge: But an hon. Member is required to pay for these reprints, so I do not quite see how it becomes a subsidiary for propaganda. If we cannot have reprints made at the Stationery Office, shall we be entitled to have them made by an ordinary printer and pay for them? This would involve much work, because all the type would have to be set up independently.
Mr. Speaker: Representations can be made to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
Mr. Stokes: Do I understand your Ruling now to be, Mr. Speaker, that any hon. Member of this House who wants reprints of his own speech, or of the speech of another hon. Member, is in the hands of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury? That does not seem to me to be satisfactory, because the Financial Secretary may arbitrarily refuse the reprint. As the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said, this has become a custom over 35 years, and it is one which the House should be very wary of giving up.
Mr. Speaker: I did not say that hon. Members were in the hands of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The Financial Secretary, no doubt, will lay down some rules, but the House can ask questions about them or reject them. The matter really remains in the hands of the House in the end.
Mr. David Grenfell: I well remember that in 1925 I was served with 25,000 copies of my own speech. Has anything happened in the meantime which requires a cessation of that practice?
Mr. Speaker: It was not a usual practice then.
Sir William Davison: I thought the notice in HANSARD was to the effect that Members may obtain copies of their speeches on application, but I was not aware that they could obtain reprints of the Report as a whole, or in part.
Mr. Bowles: That shows that hon. Members are very ignorant about these things. A large number of hon. Members to whom I have spoken in the last week have never seen these reprints, and did not know they could be obtained. The fact that more and more are being ordered may be accounted for because I have pointed out this facility to some hon. Members.
Mr. Hore-Belisha: In order that we may know exactly where we stand, and in view of the importance of this issue, is the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in a position to say anything about this subject now? Or would he prefer to have notice in order to make a full statement?
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): I would prefer to hate notice before making a full statement, but the position is, as Mr. Speaker has told us, that the Stationery Office has provided this convenience to hon. Members in past years. There is no intention of withdrawing that convenience, but obviously there must be some need to consider the number of copies which can be made available under present circumstances, for a number of reasons. I shall be happy to go into these when opportunity offers. There are all sorts of things which I cannot state in the compass of a few moments. There must be a limit set to this, and I shall be happy to answer a Question if my hon. Friend will put it down.
Mr. Bowles: As time is the essence of this matter, may I give notice, Sir, that I will ask the right hon. Gentleman a Private Notice Question to-morrow, on the ground of urgency? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly it is a matter of urgency.

VOTE OF CREDIT (SUPPLEMENTARY) 1944 (EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR)
Estimate presented, of the further Sum required to be voted towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on 31st March, 1945, for general Navy, Army and Air services and supplies in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament; for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of the war; for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community; for relief and rehabilitation in areas brought under the control of any of the United Nations; and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 78.]
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to incorporate and confer powers upon the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals of the Poor, and for other purposes"—[People's Dispensary for Sick Animals of the Poor Bill [Lords].
PEOPLE'S DISPENSARY FOR SICK ANIMALS OF THE POOR BILL [Lords]
Read the First time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  EDUCATION BILL
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): I beg to move,
  "That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 39, page 32, lines 1 and 4, Clause 53, page 44, line 18, Clause 76, page 58, line 32, Clause 98, page 72, lines 18 and 23, Clause 105, page 79, line 22, in respect of the proposed new Clauses, the Amendment to Schedule 1, page 84, line 34, and the proposed new Schedule, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Butler."
  A glance at the Order Paper will suffice to explain to hon. Members the reasons why the Government desire to recommit certain new Clauses, certain Amendments to Schedule 1, and a new Schedule, this being done in order to meet the points raised by hon. Members on the Committee stage. As these points involve a variation, according to the Rules of Procedure, it is necessary to recommit. It is in respect of these particular matters only that the Government consider recommital to be necessary.
  Mr. Stokes: I beg to move, in line 6, at the end, to add:
  "and in respect of the Amendment to Clause 14, page 12, line 12, standing in the name of Mr. Stokes, and the proposed New Clause standing in the name of Commander Bower."
  I understand that we are not allowed to discuss the merits of the Clause at this stage, but perhaps I might be allowed to refer to what happened at the Committee stage in order to explain the reason for putting down the Amendment in my name and the new Clause in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Cleveland (Commander Bower). In the Committee stage my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Colonel Evans) gave notice he was not moving his Amendment in view of the fact that arrangements had been made to put down a new Clause dealing with the brand new schools.

  1745
  I understood it would be more convenient to discuss the matter as a new Clause rather than at that stage of the Bill. The new Clause is down again later on the Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Cleveland. I understand the Minister is going to tell the House that he cannot accept the new Clause and I suppose when he does tell us he cannot accept it, he will also be precluded from telling us why he cannot accept it because it cannot be discussed. I am in this difficulty. This matter is of supreme importance to us. No provision is made in the Bill for brand new schools. Those whom we represent are an ever-increasing population and we propose to go on increasing. What I want to emphasise is that no provision is made in the Bill for an increase of the Roman Catholic population as such. If history proves right, we shall increase at the rate of about 25 per cent. every 20 years or thereabouts, and we think it right and proper that we should be given opportunities to discuss this matter before the Bill reaches its concluding stage. The only way to do it is on a new Clause which we hoped to move in the Committee stage, but which we were precluded from moving then. I hope the House will agree to the Amendment.
  Mr. Tinker: I beg to second the Amendment.
  We are anxious about further delays on this matter so that the House may understand what we mean. If this Amendment is not accepted, it will prevent that. There will be a general discussion, apart from the specific point we have in mind. We are asking that we should have the same right and privilege as the Front Bench, on which we feel strongly, on a point like this.
  Mr. Butler: The Government have never been 10th to answer any particular arguments raised by hon. Members and one would, of course, be ready to answer any argument put forward in the Report Stage as we have in the Committee Stage. But I am faced with the situation that this is a proposal to recommit a particular Clause, and if I were to encourage the House to recommit that Clause, I might be giving the impression that the Government would give favourable consideration to the Clause, whereas the reverse is the case. The Government are unable to accept this New Clause. In the circumstances I think
  1746
  it would be wiser if, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I intimated shortly, and with due regard to the Rules of Order, that the Government are unable to accept the Clause, and therefore cannot advise the House to do other than reject this Amendment that this New Clause and the Amendment to Clause 14 be recommitted. The Government are definitely against recommittal of these matters. The position is, as I see it—
  Mr. Stokes: On a point of Order. I do not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but if he is going to give the reasons why the Government cannot accept the proposals in the new Clause, will the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) of myself or any other hon. Member be entitled to speak again to say why the proposals should be accepted?
  Mr. Speaker: It is a very delicate question. It is out of Order to refer to the merits of the Clause, and the President of the Board of Education must be very careful.
  Mr. Butler: I am in the fortunate position of not having said anything about the merits of the Clause when the hon. Member rose to his feet. I had been fully warned of the danger of saying anything of that kind at all and, having said nothing, I had now better say very little more. The position, as I see it—I think the hon. Gentleman made some observations about the birth-rate and other general matters, but I do not want to be as general as that—is that this Clause refers to what are described as special agreement schools. But these are not special agreement schools within the terms of the Bill as we know them, for the following succinct reasons. First, that they are applicable to children of all ages and not only to seniors; second, there is no limitation of time on the proposals which should be made; third, there is a new provision for compulsion to be applied to the local authorities to make an agreement and, lastly, there is no procedure for public notices such as there is under Section 12 of the Bill. For these succinct reasons we do not think this a suitable Clause to be recommitted to the House by the Committee. Therefore, I oppose the Amendment.
  Sir John Mellor: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, with great respect, whether the Rule against any discussion on the Motion to recommit, applies in the

  1747
  case of a limited recommittal which I think is this case? I think that the note in the Manual on Procedure is a little ambiguous on this point, and I should be grateful if you would make it quite clear what the position is.
  Mr. Speaker: I think it is clear that on a limited recommittal one cannot go into the question of the Clause. It is perfectly true that many hon. Members may, talk on a limited recommittal, but on a total recommittal, of course, only the mover and opposer may speak.
  Sir. J. Mellor: May I ask if it would not be most appropriate in this case that the Government should give facilities for discussion? The President of the Board of Education made it perfectly clear that the Government are not prepared to accept the new Clause, but I think that if the recommital, in respect of the new Clause which stands in the name of a number of Roman Catholic Members and others is not carried, it will create a very unfortunate impression. It will create the impression that the Government do not want the matter discussed. It is an issue of first-class importance on which I am sure all hon. Members in this House would feel embarrassed, even if they most strongly disagreed with the purpose of the Clause, if discussion were not allowed. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend, having made it clear that the Government do not accept the new Clause, will, at least, give facilities for discussion, and will not oppose the recommittal of this Clause.
  Mr. Lipson: I should like to support the appeal made, I think it would be a dangerous principle if anything were done to prevent discussion on a matter, simply because the Government are not prepared to agree with it. I hope that the Committee, at least, will have an opportunity of hearing arguments for and against. The Minister has made it perfectly clear that the Government cannot accept the Clause and perhaps he was justified in formally opposing the Motion, but I hope, having made the Government position clear, that he will not deprive us of the right to discuss the matter.
  Mr. Cove: Quite frankly I feel that the criticism that the Government have not given enough time to discuss the matter is quite unfounded. I
  1748
  should have thought, if anything, that the Government have given sufficient time to the discussion of matters relating, particularly, to the denominational schools.
  Mr. Stokes: May I ask my hon. Friend a question? At any time was the question of the provision of brand new schools discussed as such?
  Mr. Cove: My hon. Friend may say that a little precipitately, but the truth is that, generally speaking, the whole problem relating to denominational schools and, in particular, to Roman Catholic schools and the Church schools had a real discussion. Therefore, I say quite frankly, that a charge of that sort, in my opinion, does not stand. The other point I want to make is this. It seems to me, now that the Government have definitely stated that they cannot meet the purposes of the Amendment, to be a complete waste of time to continue the discussion. My hon. Friend will remember that we had a discussion on the 75 per cent., and it seems to me, therefore, that, having regard to the fact that there was no Division at that time—I am not criticising anybody because there was no Division—and to the fact that the Minister has stated unequivocally that the Government will not accept the Amendment, it is a complete waste of time to pursue the matter, especially when we remember that we are under the shadow of the Vote of Censure. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment to a Division at the moment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Captain Prescott: I beg to move, in line 6, at the end, to add:
  "and in respect of the Amendment to Clause 90, page 65, line 22, standing in the name of Captain Prescott."
  The Amendment as originally drafted included a reference to an Amendment in page 65, line 16, but this part of the Amendment I do not now propose to press. With regard to the second, however, upon which the Parliamentary Secretary and myself have had discussions, I am proposing that it should be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House. I should not be in Order now in going into the merits of the case, but I think it will be agreed that there is substance in the Amendment as put down in my name.
  Mr. Colegate: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I understand that the circumstances were such at the time that the matter could not be adequately discussed, and as it is a point of a rather technical nature I do not think it will take a long time to put right if this Clause was allowed to be included.
  Mr. Speaker: I was not quite clear what the hon. and gallant Member for Darwen (Captain Prescott) wished to do. Was he moving only the second part of his Amendment?
  Captain Prescott: Yes, Sir.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Ede): This Amendment for recommittal involves doing in a particular way something which, under the Bill, can be done in more than one way. Under Clause 90, Sub-sections (3) and (4) my right hon. Friend has the option of dealing with these matters, with the liabilities of local education authorities on 1st April next and with certain other consequential matters in such a way as he thinks fit. We think it is desirable that that wide discretion should be left, and that we should not be tied to dealing with these matters in a particular way under a somewhat elaborate machinery which the hon. and gallant Gentleman proposes. We, therefore, advise the House not to recommit the Bill in respect of this matter, because it would certainly entail restricting the Minister's discretion when he is administering the Measure.
  Amendment negatived.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]

  EDUCATION BILL

    CLAUSE 39.—(General duties of local education authorities with respect to further education.)
    Mr. Butler: I beg to move, in page 32, line 1, to leave out paragraph (a).
    It would be convenient for the Committee, Major Milner, for me to describe here the second Amendment to this Clause standing in my name, as it is consequential. The effect of the Amend-
    1750
    ments is very simple. It is slightly to enlarge the categories included under paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) in the Clause as originally drafted. It would be convenient to read how the Clause will now run in respect of paragraphs (a) and (b), leaving out paragraph (c), which remains as before. Paragraphs (a) and (b) will be run together, and will read:
    "Full-time and part-time education for persons over compulsory school age."
    The Amendments have been introduced to meet certain points which were brought up on Committee stage and should be read in conjunction with new Clause 78, which we put in during the Committee stage to empower local education authorities to make grants to universities and university colleges. This Clause links up with that new Clause and by ceasing to restrict subjects, as they are restricted in paragraph (b) of the Clause as originally drafted, it makes it easier to provide higher forms of education of a wider category than are included in the terms, "technical, commercial and art subjects." It links up with the opportunity that may be provided at universities and university colleges for people who desire higher ranges of education. The Clause is a great improvement on the Clause as originally drafted. It also deals with a point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes), on the question of an opportunity being afforded for further education through certain professional courses which may be undertaken, and by removing the restricting words in paragraph (b) of Clause 39 it enables such courses to be given if they are desired. Of course, it does not go so far as to say that article fees for solicitors or anything of that sort may be paid, but it provides the opportunity for pursuing the higher ranges of training in professional studies. Under the circumstances, the wider Clause is a better Clause than the original Clause. It was necessary to recommit the Clause, and I hope the Committee will feel that we have done our best to meet the criticisms which were put forward on the Committee stage.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 32, line 4, leave out from "education," to "for," in line 5.—[Mr. Butler.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill

    CLAUSE 53.—(Provision of transport and other facilities.)
    Mr. Butler: I beg to move, in page 44, line 18, to leave out from "and," to the end of the Clause, and to insert:
    "any transport provided in pursuance of such arrangements shall be provided free of charge.
    (2) A local education authority may pay the reasonable travelling expenses of any pupil in attendance at any school or young people's college or at any such course or class as aforesaid for whose transport no arrangements are made under this section."
    This reconsideration of Clause 53 is also inserted to meet points put forward during the Committee stage. At that time it was thought that a rather simpler Amendment to the Clause would meet some of the anxieties expressed by not only those who are interested in the matter from the local education authority angle, but from those who are interested in it from the angle of certain denominations, in particular, in respect of children, attached to those denominations, who may be scattered over sparsely populated districts. We have by this fairly complete redrafting of part of the Clause tried to meet the desires of Members who spoke on the previous occasion. The redrafting of what amounts now to the first part of the Sub-section of the Clause makes it clear that any transport provided in pursuance of arrangements described in the first part of the Clause, and over which the Minister may be said to have general supervision, should be provided free. That, I think, will go a very long way to meet the anxieties which have been expressed. The second Subsection of the Clause is included for the purpose of making it possible for the local education authority to pay reasonable travelling expenses to any pupil in attendance at the places described in the Subsection. The reason for that is that it was not clear, in the original Clause, that it would be possible for the local education authority to pay for bus, fares or to provide aid towards transport that might be described as coming under the general transport system, or aid in any other way towards getting children to school. We have, therefore, thought it wise to insert that other aspect in the Clause, which is a slightly different aspect from that in the other Sub-section.
    There have been suggestions that we should further amend the Clause in certain respects, for example, that we
    1752
    should make it obligatory for children to be brought to school by the aid of the local education authority if they live half a mile away from school. We cannot undertake such a drastic change in present circumstances as that, nor could I make it any clearer that it is our desire that children belonging to a particular denomination should go to a school of that denomination. That is the whole object of that Clause. It is our desire that the wishes of the parents shall be carried out so far as is possible and with the provision in this Clause of Sub-section (1), bringing in, as it does, the Minister, if necessary, and by the addition of the refinement of the opportunity of the local education authority to pay expenses on any public conveyance and in other ways, together with my assurance that children should go to the school of their own denomination, we think that we have met the requests which have been put forward during the Committee stage. I am much obliged to the Committee for enabling us to strengthen the Clause in this manner.
    Colonel Arthur Evans: As I moved the original Amendment during the Committee stage I would like to observe that the word "may," instead of "shall," still remains. The local education authority may say that they are under no obligation to carry out the wishes of the Minister, and I would like to be certain that the Minister is entirely satisfied that the Clause, as it is at present drafted, will make it obligatory on local education authorities to give effect to the wishes which my right hon. friend has enunciated to-day.
    Sir Joseph Lamb: Will the Minister make it clear whether the words, "of any pupil," in Sub-section (2) include local authorities who are in charge of pupils, because it is a very important point? A certain amount of liability rests on the authority and where it is necessary to maintain discipline during transit will those in charge have the opportunity of having free transport at the same time?
    Mr. Stokes: On behalf of my hon. friends and myself I would like to say how grateful we are to the Minister for the alteration that he has made. If I may say so, with respect, my hon. and gallant friend the Member for South Cardiff (Colonel Evans) seems to have

    1753
    misread the second part of the Amendment. The word, "shall," does stand in the first part of the Clause, and it is obligatory on local education authorities that they shall pay. We are also very grateful to the Minister for his intention that children shall be conveyed to the right schools. But the Clause does not necessarily say so and unless we are to take it that all through the Bill all schools are to be governed by the earlier Clause which says that due regard shall be paid to the wishes of the parents then it would seem to some of us that something more specific ought to be put into the Clause.
    I want to know if there will be some indication in this Sub-section of the Clause, dealing with the local education authorities and the payment of travelling expenses, whether there is to be some distance limitation. The first part of the Clause deals with people in country districts where distances are greater, but what is to be the position of the teeming populations of the towns? I take it that it is the intention of the Minister that where children travel two or three miles to school, travelling expenses ought to be paid by the local authority.
    Mr. Butler: I do not think I can improve on the Ministerial utterances of my hon. Friend and I am very much obliged to him for his assistance. I cannot give a general undertaking on the question of crowded cities and children being carried to particular schools, but I would refer my hon. Friend to the Amendment made to a previous Clause by which Authorities must have regard to the wishes of the parents. It is the intention of the Government that children should be carried, either under what may amount to a form of public transport services—and this is dealt with in the first part of the Clause—or that generally the matter shall be decided in an intelligent manner where other transport services are used, and this is dealt with in the second Sub-section of the Clause. It is all for the purposes of enabling children to attend schools which are suited to the beliefs and desires of their parents. I can give a definite undertaking about that. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), whether those attending and accompanying children to school can be paid for under this Clause, I am advised that that is the case. The position is that where children come a long way by bus and their parents have often thought
    1754
    it better to come with the children and travel with them, then district sub-committees have been permitted to pay for this and that matter is in the Bill.
    Mr. Cove: I hope the Minister will have due regard for the purposes for which teachers carry on their duties, and that these extraneous duties will not be thrust on thousands of teachers up and down the country.
    Mr. Butler: I quite agree.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 76.—(Power of local education authorities to give assistance by means of scholarships and otherwise.)
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 58, line 32, to leave out "local education," and to insert "former."
    The words which it is proposed to amend were inserted in the Committee stage, for the purpose of continuing the arrangements made by the local education authorities, which would finish on March 31st next. This Amendment means that the proper way to allude to the authority is as "the former authority."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 98.—(Power of Minister to make loans to aided schools and special agreement schools in respect of initial expenditure.)
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 72, line 18, at the end, to insert:
    "(d) expenses certified by the Minister under the last foregoing Section as being attributable to the provision of education for displaced pupils."
    These words are linked up with a new Clause which my right hon. Friend the Minister will move later. They are necessary in view of that Clause.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 72, fine 23, leave out from the beginning to "as," and insert "either of the last two foregoing sections."—[Mr. Ede.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 105 —(Interpretation.)
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 79, line 22, at the end, to insert:
    "(7) Where at any time before the date of the commencement of Part II of this Act the premises of any school which was for the time being a public elementary school within the meaning of the enactments repealed by this Act have ceased by reason of war damage, or by reason of any action taken in contemplation or in consequence of war, to be used or the purposes of a school, then for the purposes of this Act the school, unless it has been closed in accordance with those enactments, shall be deemed to have been a public elementary school within the meaning of those enactments immediately before that date and, if it was maintained by a former authority immediately before the premises ceased to be used for the purposes of a school, to have been maintained by such an authority immediately before that date."
    Owing to war conditions a number of schools have been evacuated. There are no children attending inside the buildings at the present time. There are other schools, which have been bombed and rendered unusable. Those schools, without either children or teachers, continue to exist and one hopes that after the war evacuated schools will return and that other schools will be rebuilt. Meanwhile, it is essential we should make it clear that those schools have not ceased to exist, merely owing to those conditions. This Sub-section enables that to be done.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Remuneration of Teachers.)
    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.—[Mr. Butler.]
    Brought up and read the First time.
    Mr. Butler: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    According to the Government's decision, already announced by the Prime Minister, this Clause will take the place of the original Clause 82 and it is in identical terms with the original Clause! In the circumstances very few words are
    1756
    necessary. The Clause in fact is self-explanatory. It refers to any recommendation referring to the remuneration of teachers made by any body of persons constituted by the Minister, and representative of local education authorities and teachers. The object of the Clause is to enable the Minister to make regulations approving scales, having regard to the recommendations made by such a body and, in particular, by the existing negotiating machinery known as the Burnham Committee. I explained before, some of our difficulties with some—very few—authorities, who have not always implemented the findings of the Burnham Committee. At present the Board has no direct power to get them to implement these findings. This Clause strengthens the Board's position.
    There has been some doubt whether, under the terms of the Clause as drafted, the Minister is not assuming some new positive rule vis a vis the Burnham Committee. But it is not the object of the Government to alter the present functions of the Burnham Committee. It is our object that this Committee should come to an agreement and understanding about the scales of remuneration which should be paid. The Minister is then to determine whether he can accept these proposals or which of them he can accept, and if they are accepted, make such provisions as will be agreed upon. The object is to invest the Burnham machinery with as great authority as it now possesses. The Government is very ready to listen to any point of view; it is our intention that a Clause on these lines shall form part of the Bill.
    Mr. Cove: I can quite understand that the Minister had to put this Clause back having regard to the circumstances attached to it previously. One expects that from the point of view of prestige, the Government had to restore the Clause. But some of us still doubt whether it does not give the Minister, as I stated in the previous Debate, too dictatorial powers. We want the Burnham Committee, representative as it is of teachers on the one side and authorities on the other side, to act as a free negotiating body. When it has arrived at agreements these agreements may subsequently be approved by the Board, and it is quite clear that teachers and authorities in general will welcome the promise the Board will en-

    1757
    force those agreements on every authority throughout the country. The teachers and authorities in their national capacities will be perfectly prepared to see these scales arrived at by agreement and with the approval of the Board, which will then put them into force.
    I hope the Minister will take these powers. In fact we want to see these powers in his hands. At the same time I wonder whether the Clause, as it stands does really restrict his powers and the purpose of that function. There is still some doubt about that. Will the Minister undertake, at some future time, perhaps after this Bill has been in another place, to say that if these doubts have some substance in them the Clause can be altered accordingly? I would also like to correct my hon. Friend the Member for the London University (Sir Ernest Graham-Little). He apparently is conducting a campaign by circular and letters in the Press and as far as I have seen the circular and certainly those letters in "The Times Educational Supplement"—in which he is honoured to get the central page—he has completely misrepresented my attitude on this particular matter as expressed in the Committee stage. I do not want to worry the Committee with a long discussion on this, but the hon. Gentleman writes:
    "It was unfortunate that in connection with Clause 82 of the Education Bill a Labour member speaking as a representative of the National Union of Teachers, supported the Government in its contention that it is undesirable to accept the principle of equal pay."
    I supported and voted for equal pay; the hon. Member did not; he was absent from the Division Lobby and apparently now comes out in circulars and letters charging me with being against this principle, when he himself never even voted. I am used to electioneering methods, but I want fair electioneering and fair representation of the position I took. I raise the matter also to say, quite categorically, as I did in the Debate, that we teachers are 95 per cent. in favour of the principle of equal pay. We wanted the Clause in for equal pay, because we felt some doubt whether the Clause did not give to the Minister dictatorial powers, which we felt might injure the negotiating powers of the Burnham Committee. That is the position. What the hon. Gentleman said completely misrepresents the attitude that I took up. I am glad the Minister does not intend this to mean dictatorial powers, but I
    1758
    hope, if there are reasonable grounds for some doubt, that he will indicate that he is prepared to look at it again to see whether those doubts can be removed by words incorporated in the Bill.
    Mrs. Cnzalet Keir: May I say how glad I am to see the reinstatement of the late Clause 82 for two reasons? My hon. Friends and I were never against this Clause. We always thought it was a good one. It was the principle of the Amendment on which we voted and not against the substance of the Clause itself. I am glad, in the second place, because I think it is fair to say that it was instrumental in stimulating the Government to make the very satisfactory statement that the Prime Minister made earlier to-day on the question of equal pay.
    Sir Ernest Graham-Little: I should like to make a short explanation. I am afraid it must be inadequate because the first notice that I had that the hon. Member was raising the matter was five minutes ago.
    Mr. Cove: The hon. Gentleman ought to have known that it was coming up, because the Clause was going to be discussed. He ought to have read the Order Paper.
    Sir E. Graham-Little: When a Member proposes to name another Member it is usual for the information to be conveyed to the Member in advance of the mention in the House. I intended to support the Amendment for equal pay and I made a speech to that effect. Many Members were unaware that a Division was to take place and they were absent. The whole of my information was derived from the report in HANSARD of 30th March, 1944. This interpretation of the hon. Member's speech was conveyed in a newspaper, "The Tribune," which is very largely read by the Labour Party.
    Mr. Cove: Has the hon. Gentleman read my speech of 28th March? I said:
    "I only want to say that the profession, as a whole, endorses the principle of equal pay. There is on difference about that in the profession. I realize the difficulty of my right hon. Friend but at least 90 to 95 per cent. of the profession are in favour of equal pay for equal work. Therefore I have on alternative but to support that principle.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March, 1944; col. 1386, Vol. 398.]
    The Chairman: I hope the Committee will appreciate that this is not strictly relevant. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to make a personal explanation, having allowed the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) to raise the matter. Perhaps he will confine himself to that.
    Sir E. Graham-Little: I repeat that I went on the report in HANSARD of 30th March, when the Amendment on equal pay was discussed.
    Sir J. Mellor: When the Government said they would make the restoration of this Clause a question of confidence, I assumed that they had in mind the issue of equal pay, and not other issues which might arise on the Clause, and that, although they have made their position quite clear on the equal pay issue, and that cannot be reconsidered, they have not closed their mind to a possible Amendment of that Clause in other ways. Many teachers are very anxious lest minorities are not properly represented in the discussions that may take place with the Minister. I was rather surprised to hear my right hon. Friend say there will be no change in the Burnham machinery. I think there is a very definite change in the proposal he has now made for the future of the Burnham Committees because in the past there have been an Elementary, a Secondary and a Technical Burnham Committee, but in future the primary and secondary teachers are all to be lumped together in the panel of one Burnham Committee. That makes a very definite difference in the Burnham constitution. Take the case of the secondary teachers. On the existing secondary panels the members of the four secondary associations have a very large majority and the National Union of Teachers is in a definite minority. Indeed, I think something like 90 per cent. of the secondary teachers are members of one or other of the four secondary associations. But, taking teachers as a whole, the National Union of Teachers represents something like 75 per cent. of them. Therefore, if teachers concerned in primary and secondary education are all to be lumped together on one panel, those four secondary associations of teachers will find themselves overwhelmed by the representatives of the National Union of Teachers.
    Mr. Cove: It seems to me that there is to be quite a change in the structure of
    1760
    the organisations which will be represented on the Burnham Committee, but it will not arise completely out of the change the right hon. Gentleman is making.
    Sir J. Mellor: That may be the case, but my right hon. Friend said there would be no change in the structure of the Burnham organisation.
    Mr. Butler: I should not like to be misunderstood. I did not know that we were going to range over quite another subject, the reconstitution of the Burnham panel. I was moving the Clause and what I intended to convey was that the position that the Burnham machinery has taken in suggesting the remuneration of teachers should go on as before. I was not giving a detailed description of a reconstituted Burnham Committee, which would be quite unsuitable in a Debate of this sort.
    Mr. Cove: On a point of Order. If the Debate goes along these lines, will there be a consequential Debate on the Amendments that have been put down?
    The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): We shall have to see what Amendments are called, but this is a new Clause and we should endeavour to keep to the subject of the Clause, and not range over the whole of the Burnham position.
    Sir J. Mellor: Certainly. I do not think I am ranging very far, but surely what the Clause contemplates is the making statutory and obligatory on local authorities of the agreements come to by the Burnham Committee. Therefore, I do not think I am ranging very far, and I suggest that I am clearly within Order in pointing out what my right hon. Friend has proposed as the future organisation of the Burnham Committees.
    The Deputy-Chairman: Certainly not well within Order, but possibly just within Order.
    Sir J. Mellor: I think it very material to consider whether minorities will be duly protected. There is no provision for the representation of the National Association of Schoolmasters at all. I know that they have not had it in the past, but I should have thought that, when the right hon. Gentleman is rearranging the Burnham organisation, at

    1761
    least he should have found some place for them. Take the National Union of Teachers, and assume that they have 150,000 members; they are given a representation of 16.
    Mr. Messer: On a point of Order, Would not these arguments be properly addressed to the Amendments on the Paper? I cannot quite see how we could debate these on the Clause if it is your intention not to call the Amendments.
    Mr. Cove: I do not wish to burke any discussion, but, if we are to have a wide ranging Debate of this kind, it ought to be known in order that some of us may have a chance of replying now if we are not to have an opportunity on the Amendments.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I told the hon. Member a minute or two ago that he was going fairly far. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I say that, as far as the Amendments are concerned, it is not proposed to call the first three. I propose to call the one standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), which is a limiting Amendment to a certain extent, but I really think it would not be advisable on the Clause to discuss it quite so widely as the hon. Member apparently wishes because, if we do, it is bound to open up a large scale controversy which really does not come within the Clause.
    Sir J. Lamb: As I understand it, my hon. Friend was raising the question of what the Minister meant when he said there would be no change. If he meant that there would be no change in the duties and functions of the Burnham Committee, that would satisfy him, but does he also include that there shall be no change in the constitution of the Committee? I think that is the point.
    Mr. Butler: I was asked the same thing before; I intervened to say it again, and I will now say it for the third time. The question is the general position that the Burnham machinery should occupy in helping us to decide on the salaries and remuneration of teachers. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) has done a service in enabling me to make that quite clear. I should not have thought that this was an occasion when
    1762
    we could with profit go into the exact constitution of the future Burnham Committee though it is, of course, in Order to raise the question of minorities on any Amendment which you, Sir, may select which will come after the general discussion.
    Sir J. Mellor: I was resting my point on the word "representative." The new Clause provides that the Minister shall discuss the matter with a body which is representative of local authorities and teachers, and only in the last month or so he has announced the new arrangement of the Burnham panel. I was therefore just indicating what the new arrangement was and drawing a contrast between the National Union of Teachers getting 16 members on the panel and the National Association of Schoolmasters none at all. I think I am entitled on the word "representative" to complain that such an arrangement is not representative and to say that the Clause does not provide proper protection for minorities.
    The Deputy-Chairman: That is exactly where I think the hon. Baronet must stop. It is a new Clause, and I do not think it is possible, in discussing a new Clause, to say all the things one might have liked to put in. I think we had better leave that alone.
    Sir J. Mellor: As the Clause stands, I do not regard it as providing proper protection for minorities and I hope the Amendment will be very seriously considered.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time.
    Mr. Storey: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 7, at the end, to add:
    "() Such body shall not be deemed to be representative of teachers, unless it includes a due proportion of representatives of teachers' organisations, the members of which are not otherwise represented."
    I wish to see representatives of minority bodies included on the Burnham Committee. I particularly have in mind the National Association of Schoolmasters, which has no fewer than 10,000 members, of whom 4,000 are serving overseas. They represent a somewhat different view on certain matters from those of the dominant union, and it is only right that they

    1763
    should have an opportunity of putting that view forward when matters vital to their interest are being considered. This is an old question and it is one on which former Presidents of the Board of Education have shown extreme weakness. Their attitude has been that if the alternative is to be the continuance of the Burnham Committee as now constituted or the withdrawal of the largest body of teachers, they would chose the former alternative. I hope that the President will now take a stronger line. He has shown great power in persuading opposing interests to sacrifice much in order to secure a sound working compromise, and I hope that he will see that fairness requires that the National Association of Schoolmasters shall be represented on the Burnham Committee.
    I suggest that it would be hot only fairness but sound policy. The Bill will require a great increase in the number of teachers, and it is desirable that we should attract many more men to the profession. It is unlikely that we shall get the right type if we deny them expression of their views in any discussion of matters which are of great concern to them, particularly when the association which I have mentioned holds principles considerably divergent from those of the National Union of Teachers, which is so dominantly represented on the Burnham Committee. It is said that the grant of this request would open the door to other organisations and make the teachers' panel unwieldy and disunited, but so far as I know there is no other body of teachers which is comparable. Anyhow, the number which the National Association of Schoolmasters ca n expect to have on the Burnham Committee is so small that it would leave the National Union of Teachers as the dominant voice on the Committee. I hope that the Minister will, therefore, accept the Amendment and so make possible minority representation on the Burnham Committee.
    Sir E. Graham-Little: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Anybody who has seen the reports of the various teachers' conferences which have been held during the last few days will know that the position of teachers is difficult. Something has gone very wrong with that position. We have just had the very valuable report of the McNair Committee, which stressed the bad con-
    1764
    ditions and the inadequate remuneration of teachers. I do not think that adequate remuneration will be secured unless teachers' representation is much more effective than it has been in the past. One cannot understand how the scales which the Burnham Committee have adjudicated can have become possible except that the teachers were not properly represented. The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. G. A. Morrison) made a remarkable speech on this subject. He said that no self-respecting young man or young woman would wish to come under the control of local authorities, but that is what the Bill enacts to a large extent, and this may explain some of their present restiveness. We have had prominent opposition to the principle of equal pay, but something will have to be done in that matter in order to make teachers confident that their claims are not going to be set aside in every possible way as they have been in the past. I suppose that my constituency has more teachers in it than any other, and I can say confidently that that is the feeling of teachers. I could quote one instance of the wholly inadequate pay allowed by the Burnham scale, in the case of uncertificated women teachers—
    The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot discuss teachers' salaries or any of the details of them. We can only discuss the representation of teachers by the Burnham Committee. The hon. Member is completely out of Order.
    Sir E. Graham-Little: The present position is that the McNair Committee has described teachers' conditions as unsatisfactory and their pay inadequate, and has said that these matters ought to be attended to at once. The first step towards that amelioration would be to give the teachers a much more adequate representation upon these committees. Representation ought not to be through one body, as it is at present.
    Mr. Cove: The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) must be a very successful electioneer. He voted the other night for equal pay—
    The Deputy-Chairman: But to-day the question of equal pay is quite out of Order.
    Mr. Cove: —while to-day he moves an Amendment which is pleasing to the National Association of Schoolmasters.
    Mr. Storey: Why should I not?
    Mr. Cove: I presume that by to-night the hon. Member will have the men teachers and the women teachers on his side—unless they quarrel. As a matter of fact, the attitude of the hon. Member illustrates the impossibility of accepting his Amendment. The women have on their side a small body compared with the National Association of Schoolmasters. It is impossible for them to sit on this Committee and conciliate, and to arrive at an agreement. If these bodies are together on the same Committee, they will destroy the Committee which the right hon. Gentleman is setting up and prevent it functioning. On one side there is complete adherence to the principle of equal pay, while on the men's side there has always been fundamental opposition. That is the reason why Presidents of the Board of Education have not seen fit to give these bodies representation on the Burnham Committee.
    It would be wrong of me to say that I know the exact position of the authorities, because I have not been in touch with them in recent weeks, but I know that up to now the authorities have not been favourable to separate representation on the Burnham Committee. They want to be able to negotiate with a body which is, in common parlance, able to deliver the goods. It is impossible to accept the Amendment therefore, not because the right hon. Gentleman is intent on crushing out numerical minorities but because of the fact that representation of bodies which have fundamental differences would make a negotiating body completely inoperative. If there is to be conciliation between local authorities, the teachers, and the right hon. Gentleman, it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman must see that there is a reasonable chance that the people on the Burnham Committee represent the profession and will not be at each other's throats like Kilkenny cats, but will agree to scales which the other side are able to accept.
    I could deliver a long speech on this subject, but I will limit myself to one point with which, I imagine, the right hon. Gentleman will agree. It is essential to the successful working of this Measure that we should have a united teaching profession, but that will not be achieved by the representation of quarrelling
    1766
    minorities on the Burnham Committee. Let the teachers get together outside. Let them merge themselves together and work out their own differences. Let them find conciliation and accommodation among themselves. I believe that will add to their strength, influence and prestige. Then let them meet the Minister as a united profession. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is going along the right lines to get a united profession behind this Measure and is taking a step to make the Measure more successful than it otherwise would be.
    Sir J. Lamb: I support the principle which underlies the Amendment and the intention of the hon. Members who put it down. That principle is the representation of minorities. I agree that we have to decide what is a minority. A tremendous number of very small minorities would make representation impossible. As it stands, the Amendment does not give the Minister the right to decide in favour of a minority which is too small to justify representation. If we left it to the Minister I think it would be satisfactory. I could not support the Amendment as worded, as it might be applied to a multiplicity of minorities who would want representation because they happened to be minorities, and the Burnham Committee would become unwieldy. Nor do I agree with the suggestion that all teachers should be in one organisation. That is what is usually termed the closed shop. A minority must be reasonable in number and sufficiently large to be deserving of representation.
    Mr. R. Morgan: I oppose the Amendment. I have to do so very carefully because of the Rules of Order, but I think the Committee ought to be informed of what is at the back of this Amendment. It is obvious from the speakers who initiated the discussion that it is an attempt by a body of schoolmasters, called the National Association of Schoolmasters, to force their way on to the Burnham Committee. I venture to say that a certain subject which you, Mr. Williams, have ruled out of Order, is the very reason for the existence of this body or association. The very inception of their being was that they were opposed to the policy of equal pay. If that is recognised by bringing them on to the Burnham Committee, it will, as the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) said,

    1767
    continually bring there a question which is not an educational question but one which ought to be dealt with outside the purview of any Education Bill, on a much larger scale, and treated in its broadest aspect after investigation by a Royal Commission. This Amendment is a plea for minorities. I can only think of two minorities concerned, one which, irrespective of educational aims, opposes the principle of equal pay, and the other, an organisation of women teachers which upholds the principle of equal pay. These two secessionist bodies cancel each other out. I think we would be very unwise to do anything to bolster up these two bodies, which are really very small after all, and whose inclusion would only impart a disturbing influence on a body which is functioning satisfactorily to the vast majority of the teaching profession.
    Mr. Pickthorn: I am a little doubtful about what is in Order and what is not in Order on this Amendment. I was also baffled by the last three speakers. I did not understand the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), who was full of human kindness and all that, and who said, "Let the teachers all come together into one organisation." What is stopping them? What is proposed by those who resist this Amendment is that teachers should be forbidden to come together in any but one particular fold. It does seem to me we are going a little far, if we are to pass an Education Bill which puts the management of most education, and the ultimate control of all education, into the hands of one single Government Department, and at the same time we are to put the management of, and the ultimate control of, all teaching and professional matters into the hands of one, and only one, union, and that a union in which, I gather from the hon. Member below the Gangway, there is a great majority of persons distinguishable from the minority, because the great majority belong to one sex and the minority to another. That is a distinction fairly easily observed, and it is a little hard on one set of people—whether the line drawn is a racial line, or one of the colour of hair or sex or whatever it is—to tell them that they have to go into a union, where there is a large majority of the other side, and that they are not
    1768
    to be allowed to form any union of their own.
    It does seem to me we are getting a long way towards what, in any other matter, would be regarded as excessive centralisation. I do not quite understand the hon. Gentleman who spoke earlier—I am very sorry to be so uncomprehending to-day—and who was afraid of the Burnham Committee being swamped with excessive numbers. The Amendment talks of "a due proportion," and if that were the only difficulty the Committee saw, it would not be very difficult to say that no organisation should count unless it had a minimum number of members. I think the words "a due proportion" should probably do for my hon. Friend. I understand the immense administrative convenience of having to deal with one organisation and only one organisation, but to pretend that that kind of administrative convenience is necessary in the interests of liberty, or education, or any of the other boss words which continually obfuscate a discussion of this sort, seems to me to be wholly uncandid.
    Mr. Lipson: Like the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) I was rather surprised at the sources from which support for this Amendment has come. I always thought it was a sound Conservative doctrine not to make any change unless there were convincing reasons for doing so. Anyone conversant with the working of the Burnham Committee knows that under its existing constitution—
    Mr. Pickthorn: I was not aware of this conspiracy to which my hon. and educational Friend drew the attention of the Committee. May I ask my hon. Friend whether he thinks that the organisation to which the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway referred, is not familiar with the organisation of the Burnham Committee?
    Mr. Lipson: I am not sure to which organisation the hon. Member is referring.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I do not quite see where it has any relevance as to whether some outside organisation knows how the Burnham Committee works. It seems to me that we are getting rather far from the Amendment.
    Mr. Lipson: I think it is generally agreed that under its present constitution the Burnham Committee has functioned satisfactorily, and I would remind the Committee that the Burnham Committee does not represent teachers on all matters associated with their work but only in salary negotiations. I feel that for that particular purpose it is desirable to have one body which speaks for the overwhelming majority of the teachers. It works well, and has worked well. I believe it will continue to work better if it is allowed to go on on these lines, than if the teachers proposed by the Amendment are brought in.
    Sir J. Mellor: The hon. Member has stressed that it has worked well. To some extent that may be so, but I do not think that the National Association of Schoolmasters would agree. There is this point. In the past the secondary teachers have had their own panel. In future, as I pointed out on the Second Reading of the Clause, they are to be lumped together with the primary teachers, on one panel. That makes a tremendous difference.
    Mr. Lipson: It is quite obvious that the Bill must make some changes in the teachers' associations. No doubt my right hon. Friend will take this into consideration, but it has been perfectly clear from the speeches made that the sole purpose of this Amendment is not really to implement the high sounding principle, of minority representation, which the Committee accepts, but really to serve the interests of a particular body and to secure its representation [Interruption]. My hon. Friend who seconded the Amendment said that the McNair Report showed how poorly teachers were paid, but it is not the fault of the Burnham Committee that teachers are not better paid. As a result of the work of the Burnham Committee many teachers are better paid than before the Burnham Committee was constituted. What the McNair Report does stress as the great need of the teaching profession is that there should be unity. I hope that nothing will be done by my right hon. Friend which is likely to interfere with that great principle, or that he will hold out to separatist bodies any hope that if they form themselves together in this way they will be able to obtain representation on a purely salary negotiating Committee. It seems to me that
    1770
    would do a great deal of harm to the unity of the profession. I hope that for these reasons the Committee will reject the Amendment.
    Mr. Butler: We have now read for the second time the Clause on the Order Paper and are considering an Amendment raising a question, which has been before my predecessors for many years and is familiar to us and to many Members of the Committee. Before I come to deal in detail with points which have been raised, let me say that if there are any points in the Clause as moved on the Second Reading that we consider we could meet such as, for example, the point put forward by the hon. Member for. Aberavon (Mr. Cove), we shall certainly look at them in another place, and I will examine carefully what has been said.
    Coming to the Debate on this Amendment, I should like first to put before the Committee the whole attitude to education which this Bill should engender in our minds. We must be quite clear, as has been recognised from the benches opposite, that we are envisaging a new set-up in education, a primary phase and then a secondary phase of many facets. Therefore, the whole nomenclature and structure of education is radically altered from what it was before. We have also just received the McNair Report on the training of teachers, and if the hon. Gentleman the Member for London University (Sir E. Graham-Little) is in any way depressed I hope he will take heart from that Report to which the Government intend to give their most earnest consideration, with a view to carrying out any of its findings which we are able to implement. We see envisaged, therefore, not only a new set-up of education but a new attitude towards the teachers who form such a vital part of that new educational system. Let me say at once that nothing in my remarks is intended to derogate from the dignity or independence of any association of teachers. We shall need their help, and the more united teachers are to face the problems of the future, the better it will be for us all.
    The statement of the position put by the Senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) is not, I think quite accurate. We are not trying to centralise the administration under one single

    1771
    Government Department. Education is a partnership of the Board, or the future Ministry, and the local authorities, and there is probably no case of a Government Department working more closely with the local authorities. That must be the case and there is no question of centralisation. Perhaps this will comfort my hon. Friend's mind. It is also the desire of the Board to work with the teachers, our other partners in the administration of the education service. Therefore, if I have given any false impression earlier which I hope I have not that we wish education to be centralised for the purpose of administrative convenience, let me make it clear to the Committee that no questions of administrative convenience alone have guided us or will guide us in doing anything in so human and living a matter as education.
    Coming to the question before us in the Amendment, the position as I see it is this: We are dealing with the range of teachers described before the passage of this Bill as elementary but which will, in future, include primary school teachers and teachers in certain sections of the secondary system. The present position in regard to these teachers is that they are represented on the Burnham Committee by one main union to which reference has been made to-day. When the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) suggests that my predecessors have been weak in dealing with this matter, I would say that they have shown considerable strength in answering questions on many occasions in the last 20 years. How does it come that the matter has always been decided in the same sense by my predecessors as I propose to decide it, with the help of the Committee, to-day? It is for the following reasons. If I dilate for a moment upon them it will be because I wish to do justice to this question, to do justice to the hon. Members who have raised it, and to do justice to the teachers' associations, who are so important to us at the present time. It arises partly from the history of the case, and partly from the method of operating the Burnham machinery.
    Taking the past history of the case, which I can summarise quite shortly, I can say that in the early days after the last war my predecessors took the view that the committees which originally got
    1772
    together to form the present Burnham machinery were responsible for their own constitution. Such bodies as the National Association of Schoolmasters, when they approached the Board, were in those days referred to the Committee, which at no time from its constitution was prepared to grant them admission to its ranks. Later, my predecessor Mr. Lees-Smith, as President of the Board, agreed to accept the responsibility for determining what bodies should be entitled to appoint representatives. The number of representatives to be appointed by each body rested, in his view, with the President. He indicated that he would not be disposed to consider any variation in the existing constitution of these self-constituted bodies unless after hearing the views of the Committee, he thought a variation desirable.
    Mr. Pickthorn: Is not the National Union of Teachers self-constituted?
    Mr. Butler: I do not think that my hon. Friend quite understands the position. I said that the original Burnham machinery was constituted by a body, which I can now describe in more detail—the Association of Education Committees and the National Union of Teachers. I then described how Mr. Lees-Smith assumed for the President the responsibility of nominating representatives to this body. He intimated that he would not be prepared to consider variations in the existing constitution unless, after considering the views of the Committee, he thought variations desirable, or unless the Committee formally represented that a change should be made. The position is the same now. No request has been made by the Committee that a change should be made, and it is not, in our view, judging by the excellent record of the Burnham machinery, desirable that a change should be made. This bears out what the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) has said. There is no doubt that there has been less trouble in the teaching profession over this question of wage negotiations than there has been in perhaps any other branch of our national life. I attribute that largely to the Burnham machinery. It would be a mistake to make any change in the machinery, in view of that excellent record. Past history would make me feel that it was unwise to cause any alteration to be made in the present constitution of the Burnham machinery, not only because

    1773
    of its original constitution but because of the attitude taken up by my predecessors without exception.
    We come to the question of method. If I may discuss the present method, I think that the House of Commons would be with me in feeling that it would be wiser to let it go on as it is at present. The first point made by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) was that when you have two sides, the authorities and the teachers, the teachers should speak with one voice. If there is discussion between the teachers, let that precede the final negotiation. Otherwise, it would be impossible to reach agreement. I agree that it would be more desirable if every form of minority teachers' association were, according to our British view, on the committee, but, in my view, the National Union of Teachers represents the preponderating mass of the teachers involved in this category—the preponderating number of the women, and the great majority of the men. I agree that the minority have a case: I do not wish to offend them in any way; but if I depart from the principle of working with the largest of the organisations—which has done an extremely good job in this regulation of wages—it will be very difficult to know where to stop. The number of different teachers' organisations is very considerable, and if I concede one I shall have to concede another.
    We have a particular difficulty in the question of the National Association of Schoolmasters and the National Union of Women Teachers, to which no reference has been made hitherto. The National Association of Schoolmasters stands aloof from the N.U.T. on the ground that the N.U.T. has too many women members, and the National Union of Women Teachers stands aloof from the N.U.T. on the ground that the N.U.T. is not sufficiently feminine, so we find that the claims of these two organisations cancel each other out. To add extra piquancy to the situation, I find that we are all in so forgiving a mood that one of those Members who took particular interest in the question of equal pay has himself moved this Amendment, proposing that the body which is against equal pay should become a member of the Burnham machinery. The situation is becoming rather Gilbertian. That shows what is likely to arise if, in an effort to defer to all minorities, we include other organisa-
    1774
    tions on the Burnham machinery. It would be better to adhere to the existing working of the machinery for this purpose. I hope that the Committee will take that view, which is a commonsense one. It is not entirely logical; it has elements which can be described as unjust; but, unless you get the teachers speaking with one voice, you will not get a satisfactory machinery.
    Sir E. Graham-Little: Does that mean that the N.U.T. will be the only body consulted by the Minister?
    Mr. Butler: Not at all. It is not a case of being consulted by the Minister, but of working on the Burnham machinery. There are other bodies, representing headmasters and so forth, of which I can send my hon. Friend a list. The question arises of how members of different organisations can represent their case and be heard. It is right for me to indicate what method I think the National Association of Schoolmasters or the National Union of Women Teachers, for example, should adopt. My predecessors have at all times been ready to receive deputations or representations from these bodies. I have myself received them, and not only on matters affecting their welfare. I have received useful representations from them on the subject, for example, of the education reforms when they were in the embryo stage. The duty of these organisations would be, first, to associate with other teachers' organisations, and to work with them, because it is most important that the teaching body should be as united as possible. If they found that more difficult than is desirable, they should reserve to themselves the right of making direct representations to the Board, and in any case where they desire to represent their case to the Board, their case will be considered. If it is a question which affects their wages, as apart from other questions of welfare, it will be the duty of the President to forward it to the Burnham machinery as at present constituted. It is the case that there is no desire by His Majesty's Government to override these teachers' organisations. We recognise the good work they are doing. We recognise the bona fides of Members who have put their case to-day. But, for commonsense reasons, it is desirable to adhere to the present system, which has worked so well. I, therefore, recommend the Committee to reject the Amendment.
    Sir J. Mellor: I regard the reply of my right hon. Friend as extremely thin. There is, clearly, room for one representative of the National Association of Schoolmasters, on the primary and the secondary Burnham panel, on the same numerical basis as that given to the N.U.T. The N.U.T. has 16 representatives for 150,000 members, and the National Association of Schoolmasters, with 10,000 members, is clearly entitled to at least one member on the panel. I cannot see anything in what my right hon. Friend has said as a reason for depriving the Association of that clear right. He has said that it is most important that, in the new set-up of education, justice should be done to teachers, in order that the new scheme should start with general good feeling and understanding. He has not started with justice to the National Association of Schoolmasters. He is perpetuating the power of these self-constituted bodies. He said that, in the first instance, they were self-constituted; but he is going to accept the existing situation, for the sake of convenience. He denied that it was for the sake of administrative convenience, but I do not think that he brought forward any argument of substance to substantiate that denial. He said that it was most important that the panel should speak with one voice. If all the teachers who were represented on that panel were unanimous, they would speak with one voice, but I really think that what will happen if my right hon. Friend persists in his attitude is either that we shall have a greater cleavage than ever existed before in the teaching profession, or else that they will all be driven into one big union, and I do not think that anybody on my side of the House wants to see that, however welcome it may be to some Members of the Labour Party.
    Mr. Cove: I happen to know something about the working of the Burnham machinery. Although I have not been on it for some years, I was on it for a considerable period. When we come to agreement, each side has got to go back to recommend that agreement to a conference, which, on the teachers' side, represents all the teachers up and down the country. The teachers' representatives, having agreed with the local authorities about the scales, say, "We are going back to a conference representative of the whole
    1776
    body of teachers, and we will recommend this agreement." If you have on that body representatives of the N.A.S. and N.U.T., what will the women's representative do? If there is a question of equal pay, what will the N.A.S. representative do? He is bound to go back to a conference of the organisation and say, "Do not accept the agreement; have nothing to do with it, because there is equal pay in it."
    Sir J. Mellor: On a point of Order. I gave way for what I thought was an interruption. The hon. Member will no doubt have a chance of speaking when his turn comes. So far as I understood his point, it appears to be a point against the Burnham machinery altogether. I am not going as far as that. What I am saying is that it does not appear that the Burnham machinery is going to afford sufficient protection for minorities. It is all very well to say that it has worked well in the past, and I hope my right hon. Friend will still deal rather more fully with the point that, in the past, it has worked fairly well, because the secondary teachers have had their own separate panel. They are now very anxious about the future, because they will no longer have a separate panel, but will be lumped together in one panel, with the primary teachers. That, of course, does not touch the point about the representation of the National Association of Schoolmasters, and I have not yet heard one word said in all these discussions that can possibly justify their total exclusion, which appears to me to be due to pure prejudice. I think this Committee ought to insist upon some words being included in this Clause which will amount to a direction to the Minister that that association of schoolmasters, with 10,000 members, should have at least one representative, to which it is fully entitled, on a numerical basis.
    Mr. Cove: I am afraid my hon. Friend has not grasped the point. If this Burnham Committee is ever to arrive at an agreed scale—agreed on the side of the teachers and of the authorities—how can that agreement ever come out of that Committee if there are representatives of bodies whose views are directly opposed and are incapable of accommodation? That is the whole issue—that they are completely incapable of accommodation. You cannot accommodate the N.A.S. to what the N.U.T. stands for. One body

    1777
    stands, quite clearly, against equal pay, and the other stands, quite clearly and definitely, for it. In a body which has to arrive at an agreed scale, which it has to recommend the President of the Board to accept, I suggest that the majorities will smash the minorities, create great confusion throughout the profession and give the President of the Board an awful problem to solve. On whose side will he come down? Supposing the agreement embodied equal pay. Would the N.A.S. decline to accept that scale? We do not want—
    Sir J.. Mellor: Will the hon. Member say what is the proportion of men to women in the N.U.T.?
    Mr. Cove: The profession has an over- whelming number of women in it, and I should say, speaking offhand, that there may be two women for every man. The National Union includes within its ranks the vast majority of men teachers. The National Association of Schoolmasters does not represent a majority of men teachers; it represents a relatively small minority of men.
    Captain Cobb: But will the hon. Member remember that it is a growing minority, which may, in due course, become a majority of men teachers?
    Mr. Cove: I cannot peer into the future. What I can say is that it is a minority, but we shall have to get the exact figures. The point I am making is that the success of the Burnham Committee is that it has been able to negotiate agreements—
    The Deputy-Chairman: I think it would be better if we had one speaker at a time. A lot of these interruptions tend to bring the discussion out of Order.
    Mr. Cove: These scales have had to be approved by the President of the Board, and, I suppose, accepted by the Treasury. The difficulty must be to get agreement, and that agreement can only be arrived at if you have, within the body, some common basis for reaching common agreement.
    Sir E. Graham-Little: Will the hon. Member say why he considers that the Burnham scales have been so highly successful, in view of the McNair Report, which, after long consideration, points out how absolutely ridiculous the situation
    1778
    with regard to teachers' remuneration has been?
    Mr. Cove: I agree with the McNair Report that the remuneration should be considerably increased. I will say this, in answer to the hon. Member, that I once held a position in which my pay was 30s. a week.
    The Deputy-Chairman: As I have said, the matter is getting out of Order, and this has nothing to do with the question.
    Mr. Gallacher: I listened to the Minister saying that he admitted that there was something illogical in supporting the present Burnham Committee and that a measure of injustice was being done. I cannot, for the life of me, see how there is injustice being done to anybody. This Committee is not a representative assembly for carrying on general discussions. It is a Committee for getting a job done. [Interruption.] What would be the attitude of the hon. Member for London University (Sir E. Graham-Little), who made an appeal on behalf of a minority, if it was suggested that a minority should try to get into the British Medical Association? What would happen if any minority suggested that they should get into the field of the legal profession? There are many committees functioning and doing good work on which all kinds of minorities might claim to be represented, but are not represented. I say to the Minister that he presented a very logical argument for retaining the Burnham Committees and encouraging them to carry on the useful work they are doing in regard to wages.
    Major-General Sir Alfred Knox (Wycombe): I am not at all surprised that the representative of Communism in this House should agree with the Minister's explanation, for a very prominent Russian politician once said—
    The Deputy-Chairman: I am sure that what a prominent Russian politician said could not possibly be in Order.
    Sir A Knox: Under some political parties, we should be in prison, and that seems to be the idea here. I have never heard a more totalitarian statement than that given by the Minister to-day. Why should not these 10,000 people have a representative on this Committee? Surely, there is no fear that one man would be

    1779
    able to override the 16 members of the N.U.T.? Why not give them what they ask? The Minister seems to advocate that we should turn all parties out except one.
    Mr. Woods: I cannot understand the attitude of the Minister, which I think is not consistent with his generally sympathetic approach to these problems. It may be that we all desire that everybody should be agreed, but the world has not been made like that, and, with the best will in the world, those who want an all-inclusive union to cover the teachers, have not succeeded, though the N.U.T. is the most authoritative, because it represents the overwhelming majority. But a section of the women teachers felt that an organisation specially catering for women was the proper vehicle for them. Subsequently, some of the men felt that they had a grievance and that there was a function for a union exclusively for men. So you have the N.U.T. and these two other bodies. I think the Minister himself has an uneasy conscience about it, because he has said that this proposal has the appearance of being unjust and is not logical. Surely, these organisations, whether they have representation or not, will continue to exist, and probably the fact that they are refused representation will be an added incentive to them to go on increasing their membership so as to redress their grievances. The Burnham Committee, whatever else it may deal with, deals primarily with the things that matter most to employed persons—salaries and conditions—and if they are excluded from the Burnham Committee, it seems to me that you have altered the right of the profession to deal with salaries and conditions and so forth.
    Mr. Butler: There has been betrayed a great ignorance of the Burnham Committee. It does not deal with conditions at all, but with the fixing of salaries. What I have said frequently in these Debates, in the interests of the teachers, is that, if they speak with more than one voice, they will not get such good terms as if they speak with a single voice, and, as I have explained, I think it is better in the interests of the teachers for the Minister to take the line which I have taken rather than follow an alternative line of inviting every different association to join in this
    1780
    machinery until, when they come in front of the authorities, the teachers spend their time arguing with one another and not getting the better rates which they seek.
    Mr. Woods: I do not think it would do so at all. Whether the machine, as it is at present, functions satisfactorily, the results are very meagre indeed.
    Mr. Gallacher: No, they are not.
    Mr. Woods: We can differ on that.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think we had better go into that. It would not be in Order to argue the results of the Burnham Committee in the past.
    Mr. Gallacher: In view of the statement made by the hon. Member, about the wages of teachers in the past, and the developments being relatively—
    The Deputy-Chairman: That is not the point.
    Mr. Woods: I agree that there has been an improvement, but there is still widespread dissatisfaction, and I do not see what is achieved by merely excluding these people from the negotiations. If the Minister is so tremendously concerned about having this one group of teachers represented, I think he ought to make a further concession, with an assurance that consideration of salaries will not be excluded from these organisations. If the Burnham Committee could only function, if there was unanimity and they had to come to agreement, it would be making the position very restricted. There are all the other interests which are efficiently organised.
    Mr. Gallacher: And represented.
    Mr. Woods: I do not know why my hon. Friend is so concerned about it, as it is a position in which the principle of the recognition of minorities is concerned I should have thought he would have had some sympathy with the minority organisations. I appeal to the Minister, if he is convinced that this would in any way jeopardise the machinery to make some gesture to these organisations.
    Mr. Butler: I said so.
    Mr. Woods: I agree that the right hon. Gentleman made some statement but it

    1781
    does not seem to be satisfactory. If I were in their position, I should feel that the statement made by the Minister was not entirely satisfactory. I should like to feel that the Minister was adding to the negotiating machinery, by giving some assurance that representation on matters appertaining to the profession, would be accepted and would receive adequate consideration in addition to the machinery he is so anxious to preserve.
    Mr. Pickthorn: I am persuaded by the Minister and by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) to agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) that this is not a representative Committee, but the body for getting the job done. It is clear that that is the line. The Minister talked a great deal about partnership and unity, but to say that the only way to get a set of people to speak with one voice is by excluding all those who do not agree with the majority throws a rather lurid light on the earlier half of the argument. There is another point in the remarks of the Minister to which I would draw the particular attention of the Committee. That was the Ministerial argument—" The thin end of the wedge. I cannot add 2 or 3, because if I add 1, 2 or 3, what about 4, 5 and 6? If I invite another association, am I to invite every other association?" I ask the Minister and the Committee to consider whether that argument should not now be forgotten for good by the Front Bench. A little later on in our consideration of this Bill we are to come to points about delegated legislation and Ministerial discrimination. When we come to that subject we are always told that Ministers are honest and intelligent persons, with admirable advisers, and that they must be left to draw the line, and that the House of Commons cannot, beforehand, see where to draw the line between 2 and 3, or between 51 and 52. If they cannot trust themselves to draw the line between associations that are substantial and considerable and those that should be included merely for the purpose of being included, I cannot see why we should exclude representation of substantial associations of schoolmasters or school mistresses.
    Amendment to the proposed new Clause, negatived.
    Clause added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Power of the Minister to make grants in respect of aided schools and special agreement schools established partly for the accommodation of displaced pupils.)
    (1) Where the Minister has approved proposals submitted to him under Subsection (2) of Section twelve of this Act that any school proposed to be established should be maintained by a local education authority as an auxiliary school and has directed that the proposed school shall be an aided school or a special agreement school, then, if the Minister is satisfied that although the proposed school will not be in substitution for one or mare discontinued schools, yet the establishment thereof is wholly or partially due to the need of providing education for a substantial number of displaced pupils, he may by order certify as expenses attributable to the provision of education for displaced pupils so much of the amount expended in the construction of the school as is in his opinion so attributable, and may pay to the managers or governors of the school a grant not exceeding one half of the expenses so certified:
    Provided that no grant shall be payable under this Section to the managers or governors of a special agreement school in respect of any sums expended by them in the execution of proposals to which the special agreement for the school relates.
    (2) For the purposes of this section—

    (a) the expression "displaced pupils" means, in relation to any such proposed school as aforesaid, pupils for whom education would, in the opinion of the Minister, have been provided in some other aided school or special agreement school if that school had not ceased to be available for them in consequence of their parents having ceased to reside in the area served by it, or in consequence of its having ceased to be used for providing both primary and secondary education; and

    (b) any sum expended for the purpose of providing a site for a school shall be deemed to be expended in the construction of the school.—[Mr. Ede.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    There is an Amendment on the Report stage of the Bill to omit the second Subsection of Clause 97. This new Clause is the substitute for that, and deals with the comparatively difficult problem of enabling the auxiliary schools to get help, when they are dealing with children who have moved from one part of the country lo another. Where a whole school is

    1783
    transferred, we have been able to deal with the subject satisfactorily. There is the difficulty that confronts us of blocks of children being moved from different schools to some other part of the country, the old school remaining in use for the reduced number of pupils. The denomination cannot dispose of the school, and the denomination is then faced with the problem of providing for the children who have been moved, in the place to which they have gone. My right hon. Friend in this Clause enables such. substantial blocks of children to be recognised for help in the building of the school in which they will, in future, be educated. It is a subject which has given us some difficulty in drafting, but I believe we have met the desires of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic communities with regard to this matter, as far as it is possible, and we have also taken care to ensure that the grants shall apply to children who were, before being moved, taught in denominational schools.
    Mr. Logan: This is a most interesting and valuable concession and I would like those concerned with Church schools especially to be able to understand what is happening. It is with that view in mind that I would like to obtain an explicit statement from the Minister. I take it that, where people have gone out from a blitzed or congested area of a city, where a school had been situated, and have been away perhaps two years or more, you cannot build a new school for them in those places?
    The Chairman (Major Milner): The hon. Member is making a speech in the midst of the speech of the Minister.
    Mr. Logan: I was being carried away and was dealing with the whole subject I had forgotten about asking a question. I want to ask the Minister, Does this mean that you can have a school built in areas where you find a sufficient number of pupils?
    Mr. Ede: This is dealing with small blocks of displaced pupils. I think that what my hon. Friend has really in mind is the transferred school or the substituted school, which has been dealt with in the Bill as it stands.
    Mr. Logan: No.
    Mr. Ede: It would be more helpful to my hon. Friend and to me, if I were allowed to finish my statement and then, if I have not satisfied my hon. Friend he will be at liberty to raise his point. Some of these people will have come, I imagine, from devastated areas; some will be brought out under slum clearance schemes, and others may even be brought out under a private enterprise building scheme. But where you find a group of children—we have used the words "substantial number" because they must have some relationship to the use of the original school and the future school—who come from a denominational school, and have moved out to a place where the denomination desires to provide accommodation, we shall be able to make that accommodation. When the new school is being considered, let us suppose there are children from three schools who number 150. That would certainly be a substantial number, and I am sure that hon. Members would not expect me to-day to go into the question of what is the minimum of a substantial number. They desire to build a school for 250 or 300 children. It is clear that in respect of these 150 children, they are only to get the same rate of grant as if they were dealing with a school on the original site. What may happen with regard to the other Too or 150 children will have to be determined by what relationship they previously had to denominational schools.
    This is a genuine effort to deal with a point which was raised very strongly by the Catholic Hierarchy, who had in mind the kind of place of which my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) was thinking, and we believe this will be a very considerable help to them in dealing with children who were formerly in their care and who have gone out to places where no Catholic school is available to them. [Interruption.] I am aware that my hon. Friend was a very helpful participant in a good many of the negotiations, and I hope that the Committee will feel that this is a genuine effort to deal with a grievance that was not quite covered by the Bill as originally drafted, but which, I think, is now met.
    Mr. Logan: I am very thankful that the Minister has introduced this Clause. It was through no desire to be provocative that I intervened but because I wished the position to be explained, so that people outside could understand the pledge now

    1785
    being given. We have been told that our point is being met and I am fully aware that we are being met. One of the difficulties in blitzed areas all over the country is that of being able to make provision for these needs. People in blitzed areas will not be able to obtain houses for four, five or six years, and if temporary dwellings are to last 10 years, I cannot see town planning being able to give us our residential populations again, in those areas where the schools were situated. Therefore, the difficulty of the child population in getting education and school life, seems to me to be a great problem. The Minister quite rightly—because this problem was brought to his attention—said he would give it consideration. We believe he has done that, but I should like a little more elucidation. We are told that, in the definition of 150—
    Mr. Ede: No, I was very careful to say that was not a definition. The words are "substantial number." I chose 150, because I did not think anybody would challenge that.
    Mr. Logan: I am accepting then that the basis of 150 would be considered a substantial number. Suppose 50 per cent, of the population in a given area in the city is outside the city entirely. That calls for a new school for a body of people who because of their transfer from another site are justly entitled to it since they will not be able for five or six years to get any housing facilities in the blitzed areas from which they have come. Therefore, I want it to be made quite patent to the Committee that, in making this concession for the Church schools of a denomination, the Minister will not place a liability upon these people who, no matter how much they would like it, cannot return to the blitzed areas from which they were transferred. I do not want to make a speech about it. I would prefer to say a lot more about this Bill but I want to keep within the ambit of the discussion. If it means what I think it does, I shall be pleased to hear from the Minister. If it does not mean what I say, I would like the Minister to let me know, at this stage. This is of great value to us, but it would be a great injustice to us, if it were not included in the Bill. It would be most useful to every area in this country which has been bombed. I raise this point only so that the Minister will state explicitly
    1786
    what he really does mean without any ambiguity.
    Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I also require to have removed some ambiguity about this provision. Apparently, it contemplates that the Minister will approve proposals in respect of the Church school when, in fact, the number of pupils to go to the Church school will only be a proportion of the total school population. In other words, it contemplates that the Minister will allow a Church school for. a school population of, let me say, 300—to use the Parliamentary Secretary's own figure—when there are only 150 of that particular denomination. The provision we are considering provides, in clear terms, that the denominational section of the school population may be only partial, and that the establishment is wholly or partly due to the need of providing education for a sub-stantial number of displaced pupils. It then goes on to provide that the amount which the denomination has to find for the capital cost of the school shall be proportionate to the number of what are called in the Clause "displaced pupils." In other words, it enables a denomination, not for half the capital cost but for a quarter of the capital cost, to obtain for themselves an aided school, that is, a completely denominational school for 300 pupils with only 150 of that denomination.
    As I have said throughout our discussions, I have no objection at all if 150 displaced Catholics require a school where they may be educated in their own faith. Let them have it. I make no objection to the provisions which have been included to enable such transfers to take place, but, as far as I can read this Clause, and understand the statement of the Minister, it goes far beyond that. To take the example given by my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan), he is anxious that Catholic children who have been displaced by bombing should be provided for in the places where they have gone. As I say, I am making no objection to that But under the terms of this Clause it is possible to provide a Catholic school for 300, with only 150 Catholic children in it. Do not let us forget that, in this Bill, power is taken to compel children to attend given schools. If, in that area, all that is wanted is a school for 300, and you can establish 150 Catholics—or

    1787
    Church of England, I do not mind which —there is nothing in this new Clause, or the provisions of the Bill as they are now, to prevent the Minister from saying that there shall be an aided school of the Catholic faith, or the Church of England faith, and the other 150 will be compelled to go to that Church school. I think the Minister should consider once more the exact scope of this Clause, and not allow it to go beyond the provision for displaced pupils of the denomination. I see grave danger in this expression, "partially due," and the proportionate cost according to the number of denominational children.
    Mr. Stokes: I want to say other things in addition to answering the speech to which we have just listened. To deal with that first, as I understand the proposal, it is that where there has been what I will call a substantial "hiving off"—for want of a better expression—then the denomination shall be entitled to build a new school and receive a so per cent. Government grant. If, at the same time, they find in the area into which they hive, more drones who want to come to that school, they shall be entitled to ask for a school of a size to accommodate that number of pupils. I understand it is the intention of the Bill to provide facilities for new schools in new areas to which children have either migrated or been transported, and at the same time, to provide for additional children of that denomination. On that account, I welcome the new Clause, and I hope the Committee will see fit to give it a thoroughly whole-hearted acceptance.
    My complaint of the Clause is that it does not deal with one aspect of the situation. My hon. and learned Friend complains that it deals with an aspect which he does not like. I want to warn the Committee, on this question of brand new schools, for my denomination at any rate, that unless it is dealt with somehow, it will be a running sore and will come up at every election and by-election wherever there are bodies of Catholics in the constituencies. I welcome the Clause as it stands, because it goes a long way to overcome some of the difficulties, and will help us to take advantage of the new conditions which we all hope will prevail after the war when new cities are built and proper housing accommodation is
    1788
    made for us, as for other people, in the different areas. I would remind the Committee, however, that the main burden of our complaint is that we are still precluded from being part of the national scheme.
    Earlier to-day I referred to this problem of increasing population. It is a fact which must be faced that the population does increase and, if you examine the family life of this country as, indeed, of any other, you will find that the Catholics on the whole have the largest families. So far as I can judge, and I am no prophet, it is likely that that incidence will prevail. It is no use this Committee shutting its eyes to the actual facts in the future. My complaint about the Clause is that whilst it deals with the "hiving off" situation, it fails to deal with the brand new school situation. I know the Minister says he cannot deal with it at present. But will the Committee consider this one point? Is it not perfectly ridiculous, in this island of ours, to be able to live in Carlisle and not have reasonable provision, and yet to be able to go across the border into Scotland and find brand new schools provided by the authority for a denomination where there are sufficient pupils? It seems fantastic nonsense for this Committee to say there is no reason to provide it. My argument is that if this single-school area were out of the way, we would get what we want; as it is we cannot.
    Mr. Ede: I understood from his observations that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) was thanking me for the new Clause, but his thanks appeared rather to peter out towards the end of his remarks, and as he progressed North of the Tweed. But there are many things that happen North of the Tweed which would have to be taken into account if I were to attempt to answer him, and I do not intend to be drawn into that question. My right hon. Friend dealt with the problem of the brand new school earlier to-day. May I thank my hon. Friend, therefore, for such thanks as he offered to us? It was very much grace before meat rather than after meat. As the meal progressed, he rather forgot to say it.
    May I deal with the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr.

    1789
    Logan) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Moelwyn Hughes)? I think the major part of the anxieties of my hon. Friend are met by Sub-section (1) of Clause 97 now in the Bill which definitely deals with transferred schools and substituted schools. That has always been in the Bill and I think there was never any doubt about that. We are dealing here with a very small remnant of the problem, and I think my hon. and learned Friend has not quite appreciated the exact machinery which will have to be operated before any of these schools can be built. Notices will have to be issued and the notices will, of course, state the number of children in respect of whom the school is required. It will be open to the proper people—the local education authority or any ten local government electors—to object to the new school on the ground that a denominational school is not required, or is not required for so large a number.
    Let us assume that at the inquiry it is established that this school is required for a number of pupils larger than the number of substituted or displaced pupils. The denomination will then get the grant in respect of that proportion of the cost which is due to the displaced pupils. They will have to find—and this is the grievance of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich—the whole cost for erecting this school, in respect of the children who are not displaced. They get no grant in respect of them, and they will have to find the whole of that part of the cost so that, in the case my hon. Friend put forward, where you had a school for 300, 150 being displaced, the Minister can make, by a grant up to half the cost, provision for the 150. He can, under another provision of the Bill, grant a loan for the remaining half of the cost, but the cost of the second 150 has to be defrayed entirely by the denomination. That is where my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich joins issue with us and thinks he would be a happier man if he lived in Scotland. I very much doubt it. After all, he made one effort to become a Scotsman by becoming a Scotch Member of this House, and I am quite sure he is happier as an English Member than he would have been as a Scotch Member. I suggest to the Committee that this is a very reasonable effort, within the limits we have prescribed in this Bill with regard to brand new schools, to deal with a difficult situa-
    1790
    tion, and I hope the Committee will now agree to the Clause being read a Second time.
    Mr. Stokes: May I ask one question? Do I understand that Clause 97 (1), as printed in the Bill, stands and that, what is called the new Clause, really becomes (2) and (3)?
    Mr. Ede: We shall move at a later stage to take Clause 97 (2) out of the Bill. I said that, but no doubt my hon. Friend did not hear it. This new Clause is in substitution of Clause 97 (2), but will be a separate Clause, in the Bill when we reach the end of this stage.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Power of Minister to adjust variations of rates consequent upon commencement of Part II.)
    It it appears to the Minister that the transfer by this Act to the local education authority for any county of functions formerly exercisable by the council of any county district is likely to bring about in the county excessive variations in the incidence of rates during the period immediately following the commencement of Part II of this Act, he shall, if application is made to him in that behalf either by the local education authority or by any such council, cause an investigation to be made in accordance with the provisions of Part I of the Eighth Schedule to this Act, and, subject to the provisions of Part II of that Schedule, may make an Order for the county under the powers thereby conferred. —[Mr. Ede.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This Clause is so bound up with the new Schedule on the Order Paper that I doubt whether it is possible to say anything in explanation of it unless I use the Schedule as an example of the way in which it will work. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss the two together.
    The Chairman: I understand the hon. Gentleman will refer to the Schedule, which is quite in Order.
    Mr. Ede: On 1st April next, the Part III education authorities will disappear, and inside the county areas the county council will become the local education

    1791
    authority. The Part III education authorities have levied their own rates in respect of elementary education and the county council has, in the past, levied a rate in respect of elementary education for that part of the county which was not covered by a Part III education authority. For instance, if I may take two examples, I see in front of me my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths)—the borough that gives its name to his constituency is a Part III authority—and my hon. and learned Friend for Carmarthen (Mr. Moelwyn Hughes) represents a borough, with a large part of a surrounding county, which is also a Part III education authority. Those two boroughs levied their own elementary education rate [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Newcastle?"] Newcastle, although a city and county, has not a county council for this purpose. The county council has levied an education rate in Carmarthenshire for the whole of the county except Llanelly and Carmarthen. When the new arrangement comes about, there will be one rate levied for the whole of the county of Carmarthenshire and the county council will precept on the boroughs of Llanelly and Carmarthen in the same way as they have hitherto precepted on the other rating authorities in the county and, in some areas, this will mean that rates go up and, in others, that they will go down. Some of the increases and decreases will be fairly substantial, and it might cause a very substantial grievance if, in fact, the increases were levied straight away.
    My right hon. Friend has given a great deal of attention to this matter, and has endeavoured to arrive at a scheme, whereby the increases in the rates shall be made more gradually, and the machinery for securing this is set out in the new Schedule to the Bill which is to be found on the Order Paper. It is impossible to take the rates for the current year as representing, over the whole country, the real burden that normally falls on an area. Evacuation, bombing, devastation, and the influx of population have so altered the whole situation that the year 1944–45 would be a very unsafe year to take. My right hon. Friend has, therefore, taken the year ended 31st March, 1939, for the standard year and he is making, in respect of every elementary education authority area
    1792
    in the country, a calculation as to what was the rate-borne expenditure in that area during that particular year. That is called the "standard rate-borne expenditure." He then assumes that in that year the proposals for making the county council the local education authority for elementary education had been in existence, and he calculates what would have been the rate for the whole county if that had been the case. That is to say, in the example I took, he assumes that Llanelly and Carmarthen were inside the county. He then makes a calculation, as to what the uniform rate would have been for the whole county, and this is called the "notional rate expenditure." Where an authority's rate would have been increased had the notional rate been in operation, the amount of that increase of pence in the £ is called the "rate disadvantage" and where the rate would have fallen had the county rate been in operation it is called the "rate advantage." In some areas the difference is not very great, in others it is substantial. My right hon. Friend proposes to ignore all increases under 6d. in making any arrangement for bringing in a new scheme, but where any one of the various authorities will have a rate disadvantage of more than 6d. the scheme in the Schedule may be applied to the area.
    The action that will be taken after that will be this. The authority with the highest rate disadvantage will be considered, that is to say, the authority whose rate would have been raised most had a county rate been in operation in 1939. The number of pence in £ the by which its rate would have gone up will be divided by six. Assuming, therefore, that an authority's rate would have gone up by 16 pence, that number will be divided by six, and the answer will be two and a fraction. All fractions are ignored and two is taken as the figure to apply to the whole of that county. A scheme is then made in which that rate disadvantage, in the case I have taken, would disappear in two years. It will be applied to every separate rating authority in the county; that is to say, those rating authorities who would suffer a rate disadvantage have that disadvantage brought upon them gradually and those who would gain a rate advantage also get the benefit of the advantage gradually, and the terms of

    1793
    years over which this will work may not exceed five. That is to say, it would have to be a rate disadvantage of 30 pence or more in the £ before you would get the maximum number of years. The calculations will be made by adding one to the number you get by dividing the largest rate disadvantage by six, and then that will be the fraction by which the rate disadvantage will be reduced each year.
    Mr. Logan: Is this to be a new system of arithmetic to be taught in the schools?
    Mr. Ede: The children will benefit, but this is the kind of exercise that we worked out in the offices of the county councils—
    Mr. James Griffiths: With varying results.
    Mr. Ede: —I have no doubt with varying satisfaction to the rating authorities. I know it sounds rather complicated, and I apologise to the Committee for having to deal with it. It is, however, a very genuine effort to deal with what might have been a very serious grievance. May I say, it is so complicated that I shall be much helped if hon. Members will reserve their comments till the end. If we take the example that I originally took, of a rate disadvantage of 16 pence, that will disappear in two years in this way. By applying the fraction provided for in Part II of the Schedule we reduce the rate disadvantage each year by 5⅓ pence. For the first year, therefore, where the authority had a rate disadvantage of 16 pence, its rate will be 10⅔ pence lower than the general rate for the county. In the second year, it will be 5⅓ pence lower than the general rate for the county, and in the third year, the year after the Order has ceased to operate, the two will merge. Of course, similarly, but in the reverse direction, the result would work out the same, if it was an authority which had a rate advantage. Its rate advantage would disappear in the same proportion. In each county, each separate Part III authority will have a separate figure that will have to be increased or diminished, but it will be increased or diminished lay the same fraction each year.
    Mr. R. C. Morrison: Has the hon. Gentleman any information as to how many authorities will be affected by this?
    Mr. Ede: I understand that there may be about 30 counties in which there might be some scheme of this kind, but it will not operate in any county unless an authority suffers a rate disadvantage of more than 6d. in the £. I thank the Committee for the courteous way in which they have listened to this somewhat involved explanation and I commend the Clause and the Schedule to the Committee in the belief that they will ease the bringing into operation of this Bill very considerably.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: My hon. Friend was good enough to take my county as an example. I know already that in Llanelly the rate disadvantage will be well over 16d., and will probably be over 2s. 6d. Could my hon. Friend apply this formula to concrete cases and circulate them to Members, because it would help us very much?
    Mr. Ede: The difficulty about doing that is that we have to get a certificate from the auditor as to what was the product of a id. rate in the £ in each of these areas in 1939. We know within a little what it was, but we have not got a certificate and, therefore, anything which was circulated might be misleading. I think it would be best if I circulated, not perhaps specific cases, but examples of the way it would work, using letters to indicate various local authorities.
    Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: My hon. Friend has taken the example of how this works out with regard to a rate disadvantage of 16d. in the £. Would he work out a similar example now for a rate disadvantage of 36d. in the £?
    Mr. Ede: Six into 36 goes six. [Laughter.] Apparently that is the same both in English and Welsh. But no scheme is to run for more than five years and this scheme may not run for more that that time. Therefore, the denominator of the fraction will be six—that is five, Plus one. In the first year the rate, if it is a rate disadvantage, will be 30d. less than the rate for the county. In the second year it will be 24d.; in the third year it will be 18d.; in the fourth year it will be 12d. and in the fifth year it will be 6d. less, then in the year following the period of the order it will merge into the county rate.
    Sir J. Mellor: Is it not possible, under the Schedule, that a Part III authority

    1795
    whose educational functions have been transferred to the county might have to pay more than their share to the county education rate?
    Mr. Ede: No. That is a point I should hardly have thought it was necessary to have argued at this time of the day. In the past, Parliament decided that the unit for educational administration should be, in the case of the Part III authority, the borough or urban district. Then, inside that borough or district one ward would pay more for education than it received. Parliament has decided in this Bill that the unit, in the future, shall be the county and the county borough. It is true that some districts in counties are wealthier than others, some have less children than others, and it may well be that one county district will pay more into the county fund than it receives, just as under a Part III authority one ward paid more into the educational fund than it received. I hope we shall recognise that this is a question of what is the appropriate unit. Parliament has decided, I think rightly, that the county is the appropriate unit and, therefore, there will be some areas which will pay more into the county education rate than they get out, just as some pay more into the county lunatic asylum rate than they get out.
    Sir J. Mellor: The Parliamentary Secretary seems not to have grasped my point. I was referring to the poundage basis. It will be possible for ex-Part III authorities, under the county precept, to have to pay a higher amount on a poundage basis for a short period of years than other parts of the county. That is unfair. First you deprive them of their education functions, and then you say that, by virtue of the fact that they used to exercise those functions, they may have to pay a greater share, on a poundage basis, than other parts of the county.
    Mr. Ede: This Clause and Schedule are efforts to reduce that disadvantage by bringing it upon them gradually. This is a genuine effort to deal with some areas which otherwise might be faced with a very steep increase of rates at once. Abstract justice would mean that from 1st April next the county should levy the rate and that people should have put upon them at once these steep increases in rates.
    1796
    Following the general rule that has been applied in local government for a good many years, what we propose is as good a way as possible of alleviating grievances, although it will result in some people paying for up to five years a little more than they otherwise might have paid.
    Sir J. Mellor: If you take away the educational functions from Part III authorities, you ought not to penalise them by virtue of the fact that they used to exercise those functions. I submit that no Part III authority, on transfer of its educational functions to a county council, ought to pay any more than anyone else in the county on a poundage basis, under the county precept.
    Mr. Ede: The only way to achieve that would be to indicate that from 1st April next the education rate throughout the county should be uniform. But that would have the effect, as has been indicated, of increasing some education rates by 2s. 6d., or more, at once, and that is not in acordance with the practice of this House when dealing with the transfer of functions.
    Mr. Messer: Is it not a fact that you cannot get equalisation without somebody having to pay more?
    Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: Is it not the case that looked at from the poundage basis, that is to say, the rate in the —,these Part III authorities will not pay any more than the county? They may be paying less for a time.
    Mr. Ede: No, in some cases they will, in fact, be paying more during these five years than they otherwise would pay.
    Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I am not suggesting more than they are paying now. Suppose the education rate for the county is 9s. in the £. None of these Part III authorities will be paying a bigger education rate than 9s.
    Mr. Ede: Not in Carmarthenshire, but there are counties in which some of these authorities are, at the moment, paying a higher education rate than the county rate, and they will get a substantial benefit at the end of the five years, or whatever period it is, and between now and the end of this period of calculation they will be paying, each year, something more than the current county rate.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Local administration.)
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 84, line 34, to leave out "and," and to insert
    "(c) may provide for securing that where in consequence of the establishment of the board as the local education authority for the area of any council any person who was an officer of that council suffers direct pecuniary loss by reason of the determination of his appointment or the diminution of his emoluments, he shall, unless provision for his compensation for that loss is made by or under any other enactment for the time being in force, be entitled to receive compensation therefor from the hoard, and for securing that the provisions of Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section one hundred and fifty of the Local Government Act, 5933, and of the Fourth Schedule to that Act shall have effect for the purposes of any claim for such compensation and fur the purposes of the determination and payment of the compensation, subject to such modifications and adaptations as appear to the Minister to be necessary; and"
    This Amendment deals with the case of an officer of a county council whose county is brought into the Bill and is necessary in order that such officers should be protected in the event of their offices being abolished or their emoluments being reduced.
    Mr. Burden: This Amendment mentions Section 150 of the Local Government Act, 1933, which reads:
    "A scheme, or order, shall contain provisions for:
    (a) The protection of the interests of any such existing officers and the payment, by such local authority as may be determined by and under a scheme or order, of compensation to any existing officer …"
    I want to know whether the reference to this Local Government Act covers men and women who are at present on war service. Are they deemed to be "existing officers"? This is an extremely important point, because I am sure the Committee, in passing a Schedule of this kind, would want to see that those who are away from office at the moment are protected. It would be extremely unfortunate if that were not to be the case, as this is the first large Measure of reconstruction which we have had before us.
    Mr. Ede: The answers to the first of the two questions put to me by my hon. Friend are in the affirmative. So far as the second question is concerned, I admit that the matter is open to some doubt. We had some discussion on this on the Committee stage of the Bill and it is a subject of some, perplexity and difficulty which does not concern this matter solely. I understand that it is being considered in conjunction with other similar Measures, and that protection will be made to cover the case of these existing officers; but it is not proposed to do it in this Bill.
    Mr. Burden: Would it not be as well to protect them, as well as those who are already in employment—give some protection to them inside this Bill? Marty of those men who are away, will feel when they return that their security has practically gone from them, and the question of their future will be very peculiar, if the matter is not dealt with in this Bill.
    Mr. Ede: The situation is complicated by the existence of the Reinstatement in Employment Bill, and it is a very difficult matter. I hope the hon. Member will feel that both on the Committee stage, and since, I have given this matter a great deal of personal attention. I would like. to feel no doubt on the matter at all, but I cannot do that. I have given an answer winch shows that the Government are seriously concerned about the situation and will see that these people are covered sc that there will be no doubt left.
    Mr. Burden: I wish to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his reply. I feel sure that every Member of the Committee will appreciate its importance, but surely we should realise the implications of it. The Bill provides for compensation for those who may be at home, and the Parliamentary Secretary tells us that it does not provide for those who are away—
    Mr. Ede: I did not say that. I said it was a matter of doubt, and what I have said must not be taken beyond that.
    Mr. Burden: If it is a matter of doubt, let us remove the doubt, as it is a fundamental duty—I will go as high as that—for us to see that the men and women who are risking their lives at this moment should know that if and when they come back their jobs will be secure or compensation will be made to them. Surely,

    1799
    this is a matter that cannot be argued; nor need it be argued, and I urge the Minister to give further consideration to the point between now and when the Bill is dealt with in another place.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

    NEW SCHEDULE.—(Adjustment of Variations of Rates consequent upon Commencement of Part II of tins Act.)

      PART I
      1. For the purposes of this Schedule the following expressions have the meanings hereby assigned to them, that is to say:
      "Standard year" means the financial year which ended on the 31st day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine.
      "Elementary education authority" means a council which in the standard year was a local education authority for the purposes of elementary education.
      "Standard rateborne expenditure" means, in relation to any elementary education authority the amount by which the expenditure of the authority in connection with elementary education incurred in the standard year recognised for purposes of grant under regulations made by the Board of Education exceeded the amount of the grant payable under those regulations in respect of that expenditure.
      2. The Minister shall ascertain the amount of the standard rateborne expenditure of each elementary education authority in the county, and the amount in the pound of the rate which would have been necessary to raise that amount.
      3. The aggregate of the amounts of the standard rateborne expenditure of elementary education authorities in the county ascertained under the last foregoing paragraph shall be deemed to be the total rate charge of the county for elementary education for the standard year, and the Minister shall ascertain the amount in the pound of the rate which would have been required by precept of the county council to be levied by rating authorities for the purpose of meeting that charge if it had fallen to he borne by that council as part of their expenses for general county purposes.
      4. The amount in the pound ascertained in respect of any elementary education authority under paragraph 2 of this Schedule is hereinafter referred to as the actual rate poundage of the authority, and the amount in the pound ascertained under paragraph 3 of this Schedule is hereinafter referred to as the notional rate poundage.
      5. The Minister shall ascertain in the case of every elementary education authority in the county the amount of the difference between the actual rate poundage of the authority and the notional rate poundage, and where the notional rate poundage exceeds the actual rate poundage of an authority the
      1800
      difference is hereinafter referred to as the rate disadvantage of that authority and where the notional rate poundage is less than the actual rate poundage of an authority the difference is hereinafter referred to as the rate advantage of that authority.

      PART II
      1. If the rate disadvantage of any elementary education authority in the county is more than sixpence, but not otherwise, the Minister may, after consultation with the county council, make an order for the county under this Part of this Schedule.
      2. Any order made under this Schedule shall come into operation on the date of the commencement of Part II of this Act and no such order shall remain in force after the expiration of the period of five years from that date.
      3 The number of years during which (subject to the provisions of the last foregoing paragraph) an order made under this Schedule shall continue in force shall be the quotient which results from dividing by six the amount of the rate disadvantage of the elementary Education authority having the greatest rate disadvantage in the county.
      In making any calculation for the purposes of this paragraph fractions shall be disregarded.
      4. An order made under this Schedule for any county shall provide that in each year during which the order is in force the precepts issued by the county council in accordance with section nine of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, for general county purposes shall, in stead of being of the same amount in the case of each authority as required by that section, be increased or decreased by such amount in the pound as may be determined by the order, being an amount calculated, in the case of a precept issued to a rating authority which is an elementary education authority by reference to the rate advantage or disadvantage of that authority, and in the case of a precept issued to any other rating authority by reference to the rate advantage or disadvantage of the county council.
      5. The amount by which the precept issued to a rating authority is to be required by the order to be increased or decreased in any financial year shall be a fraction of the rate advantage or disadvantage by reference to which the amount is to be calculated; and the denominator of the said fraction shall be the total number of years, increased by one, comprised in the period for which the order has effect, and the numerator thereof shall be:

      (a) in the case of the first year for which the order has effect, one less than the denominator, and

      (b) in the case of each subsequent year, one less than the numerator in the case of the previous year.—[Mr. Ede.]

      Brought up, and read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
      Bill reported, with Amendments; amended (in Committee and on recommittal), considered.

      CLAUSE 1.—(Appointment of Minister in charge of education and reconstitution of Board of Education.)
      Mr. Butler: I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, to leave out "President of the Board," and to insert "Minister."
      There are consequential Amendments which deal with the same point. These are moved to meet the views of the Committee as expressed in the Committee Stage. This is an historic moment when the President bows to the wishes of the Committee. Apart from my natural feeling for liking the old traditional title, I feel I must accept the sentiments of the Committee. In future, with the new set-up of educations, there will be this change of name, but I trust a rose by another name will smell as sweet.
      Mr. Messer: As the Member who moved the Amendment on the Committee stage, may I say that I have never attended obsequies with such pleasure as I do to-day?
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendments made:
      In page 1, line 18, leave out "Board," and insert "Ministry."
      In line 20, leave out "Board," and insert "Ministry."
      In page 2, line 3, leave out "President of the Board," and insert "Minister."—[Mr. Butler.]

      CLAUSE 2.—(Transfer of property and functions to Minister and construction of Acts and documents.)
      Amendments made:
      In page 2, line 7, leave out from "a," to the first "of," in line 8, and insert "Minister."
      In line 19, leave out "accordingly," and insert:
      "as references to the Minister, or, where the case so requires, as references to the Ministry of Education."—[Mr. Butler.]

      CLAUSE 3.—(Seal and acts of Minister.)
      Amendments made:

      In page 2, line 35, leave out "Board," and insert "Ministry."

      In line 41, leave out "Board," and insert "Ministry."

      In line 42, leave out "Board," and insert "Ministry."

      1802

      In page 3, line 3, leave out "President of the Board," and insert "Minister."

      In line 5, leave out "President of the Board," and insert "Minister."

      In line 6, leave out "Board," and insert "Ministry."

      In line 7, leave out "President of the Board," and insert "Minister."

      —[Mr. Butler.]

      CLAUSE 4.—(Central Advisory Councils.)
      Amendment made: In page 3, line 21, leave out "Board," and insert Ministry.
      —[Butler.]

      CLAUSE 9.—(County schools, auxiliary schools, nursery schools, and special schools.)
      Mr. Butler: I beg to move, in page 6, line 19, after "shall," to insert:
      "if it was then maintained by a former authority."
      As Clause 9, Sub-section (3), of the present Bill is at present drafted, the maintenance of certain non-local orphanage or charitable schools called public elementary schools would have been put on local education authorities as from 1st April, 1945. The object of this amendment is to exclude these schools from the operation of that Sub-section. It is open to the local education authority either to put any schools into or leave any schools out of a development plan, even local schools. I have a list here of such schools in the nature of orphanages or charities. I hope Members will agree to this Amendment as being reasonable.
      Amendment agreed to.

      CLAUSE 10.—(Development plans as to primary and secondary schools.)
      Mr. Butler: I beg to move, in page 6, line 45, after "may," to insert "in any particular case."
      This limits the discretion which the Minister may allow to a local education authority, and has been moved at the wish of the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd).
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Butler: I beg to move, in page 7, line 36, to leave out paragraph (f).
      Both this and the next Amendment are cases of existing paragraphs, (f) and

      1803
      (g), being transposed and they have been properly transposed in the appropriate way with all the ingenuity of the draftsmen.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 44, leave out "and,' and insert:
      (h) include information as to any other measures which the authority propose to take in fulfilment of their duty to secure the provision of schools for providing primary and secondary education, such as the making of general arrangements for the transport of pupils to and from school; and.—[Mr. Butler.]

      CLAUSE 11.—(Local education orders with respect to primary and secondary education.)
      Sir Richard Wells: I beg to move, in page 9, line 33, after "authority," to insert "or proprietors of any school."
      This is a small point and I have used the word "proprietors" from the Interpretation Clause 105. There are obviously a b large number of schools whose governors have a good deal of independence like the local education authorities, and it is only right that the governors should be able to approach the Minister direct when they desire to do so.
      Sir John Mellor: I beg to second the Amendment.
      Mr. Ede: I am afraid that the effect of my hon. Friend's Amendment would be to go far beyond the argument he has used in support of it. This Sub-section compels the Minister, if he has been informed by the local education authority that they are aggrieved by his education order, to submit it to Parliament and it has to lie on the Table for 40 days. The effect of his Amendment would be to give that same power to the managers of the smallest primary school in the country if they are proprietors of that school. If he merely desires that the governors of schools should have the right of access to the Minister, I would point out that in the framing and construction of a development plan, or in the negotiations with regard to an education Order, they have ample opportunities, and it is going far beyond the necessities of the case to give proprietors of any one school the right of insisting that the full education order
      1804
      should be held up until the sanction of this House has been obtained after they have had ample opportunities of making their wishes known.
      Amendment negatived.

      CLAUSE 14.—(Classification of auxiliary schools as controlled schools, aided schools, or special agreement schools.)
      Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 12, line 35, at the end, to insert:
      "the expenses of discharging any liability incurred 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."
      This Amendment should be read in connection with the Amendment to omit Sub-section (3) from Clause 105. The effect of it, with the addition of the later Amendment, is to throw on managers of any aided or special agreement school all liabilities incurred by them or their predecessors or trustees for the purpose of establishing or carrying on the school. The managers or governors of controlled schools will be free of any such liability, so that, if an aided or special agreement school subsequently becomes controlled, its liability will pass to the local education authority. I am sure that, in view of the altered status that the school would hold in the eyes of the denomination, it would be only right that this liability should pass on the status being altered.
      Amendment agreed to.

      CLAUSE 17.—(Managers of primary schools.)
      Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 15, line i8, to leave out from the first "of," to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert:
      "such number of persons, not being less than six, as the local education authority may determine:
      Provided that two-thirds of the managers shall be appointed by the local education authority and one-third shall be appointed by the minor authority."
      The hon. Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Brooke) will realise that this and the next Amendment, which covers a slightly different point, have been put down as the result of a discussion that took place in Committee in which he took part. It enables us, in cases where it is desirable, to increase the number of mana-

      1805
      gers from six to some larger number. This particular one deals with the problem of the county school. There are cases where it is desirable that not more than six persons should be appointed. Here they will have to be appointed in multiples of three.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 15, line 28, to leave out from the second "of," to "and" in line 39, and to insert:
      "such number of persons not being less than six as the Minister may, after consultation with the local education authority, determine:
      Provided that—

      (a) if the school is an aided school or a special agreement school two-thirds of the managers shall be foundation managers, and if the school is a controlled school, one-third of the managers shall be foundation managers;

      (b) where the school serves an area in which there is a minor authority, then of the managers who are not foundation managers not less than one-third nor more than one-half shall be appointed by the minor authority and the remainder shall be appointed by the local education authority."

      This deals with the extension of the number of managers of an auxiliary primary school. This is a little more complicated than the last because, if we had stuck to what was the original wording of the Bill, it would have been necessary to have multiples of six, and the next largest number of managers above six would be 12. I could think of cases where you might have more managers than children if that were brought about, so we have taken steps whereby this number also can be dealt with by multiples of three, and, where we get three managers to be appointed by the local authorities, two will be appointed by the county council and one by the minor local authority. This Amendment is the one with which the hon. Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Brooke) was rather more concerned, because it enables us to deal, it is hoped, with one of the difficulties in a single-school area in the way in which the foundation managers will be appointed when the number is more than six. As there will be then at least six foundation managers, it may be possible to arrange in suitable places, in a scheme for appointing managers, for one of the managers to be a person not of the same faith as that prescribed in the trust deed. There was some conversation on the point in Com-
      1806
      mittee and this will enable us to implement the suggestions that were then made.
      Mr. Henry Brooke: I am very much obliged to the Government for accepting this suggestion, and I should like to put on record my hope that advantage will be taken of this alteration in any denominational schools to which a substantial number of children go whose parents are not members of that denomination. It seems to me altogether desirable, now that the denomination may be able to appoint an increased number of foundation managers, that advantage of it should be so taken that at least one of the additional managers to be appointed shall be a person who can truly speak for those parents who send their children to the school but do not belong to the denomination concerned. It looks a small matter, but I can imagine cases where it would be a definite easement of some of our past difficulties.
      Mr. Jewson: I should like to express my welcome of the Amendment. I hope it will be the means of smoothing over some of the difficulties which have arisen in the past.
      Amendment agreed to.

      CLAUSE 23.—(Appointment and dismissal of teachers in county schools and in auxiliary schools.)
      Mr. Butler: I beg to move, in page 19, line 27, at the end, to insert:
      "(3) No woman shall be disqualified for employment as a teacher in any county school or auxiliary school or be dismissed from such employment by reason only of marriage."
      This carries out the undertaking we gave in Committee to remove the marriage bar.
      Amendment agreed to.

      CLAUSE 27.—(Special provisions as to religious education in aided schools and in special agreement schools.)
      Mr. Butler: I beg to move, in page 22, line 45, to leave out Sub-section (2), and to insert:
      "(2) If a teacher appointed to give in an aided school religious instruction other than instruction in accordance with an agreed syllabus fails to give such instruction efficiently and suitably, he may be dismissed on that ground by the managers or governors of the school without the consent of the local education authority."

      1807
      This Amendment is designed to give effect to the understanding reached in Committee that the Government would attempt to introduce a provision which made it quite clear that a teacher appointed to an aided school to give religious instruction, whom the managers were entitled to dismiss, should not be dismissed without the consent of the local education authority and, as stated here, should be dismissed on grounds connected with the giving of the religious instruction. The fear was expressed that there might be other grounds imported into the question. That view was expressed by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) and the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Moelwyn Hughes). I hope this draft will meet what they felt was necessary.
      Mr. Cove: I should like to say a word of thanks to the Minister. The Amendment meets the two main points that we had in view and has incorporated the desires of the following Amendments that I had down. On behalf of the National Union of Teachers I think I can express their satisfaction.
      Amendment agreed to.

      CLAUSE 31.—(Education of pupils requiring special educational treatment.)
      Mr. Messer: I beg to move, in page 25, line 20, to leave out "so far as is," and to insert:
      "unless it is proved to the satisfaction of that Minister not to be."
      When we were discussing this question in Committee there was a considerable body of feeling in support of making the obligation on the part of local authorities more definite, and it was generally conceded that the Minister was very sympathetic. The Parliamentary Secretary undertook to examine the Clause and see if it was possible to find a form of words which would meet the criticisms that had been offered. He has not been able to do so. I feel a sense of deep disappointment, amounting almost to pain. I am speaking quite seriously when I say that. I can conceive the possibility of those local education authorities who are not desirous of doing this important work finding a way of escape provided for them in the Bill. I am not unmindful of the fact that the Bill goes a long way towards improv-
      1808
      ing what was the position. Whereas up and down the country there was such a wide variety of standards of this sort of work, at least the Bill goes a long way towards making it obligatory, but, in the words of the Minister, only "so far as is practicable." Those words could be left out and yet the Minister will be protected by the words which follow, which are definite and which say "but where that is impracticable." I should like to offer a challenge to any lawyer in the House. Would he not feel that he was on very safe ground indeed if he were responsible for an agreement which contained words that certain things should only be carried out so far as practicable? There are so many different reasons which can be found for not doing things when you do not want to do them. But I understand quite clearly that the Minister would be placing us in an impossible position if he laid down something in an Act of Parliament which simply cannot be done because it is impracticable.
      My Amendment suggests that it has to be proved to the satisfaction of the Minister that it is impracticable. I do not see any reason why that cannot be accepted. If you view this problem in a national light it seems to me that there is no difficulty on any ground why handicapped children should not get the special education that is required. If the Minister himself can have proved to his own satisfaction that there are insuperable difficulties which prevent it being done, he can release the local education authority from tthe obligation of doing it. Note what the words are. He does not say it shall only be done where practicable but "so far as is practicable," a lack of definition which leaves those who attempt to understand the English language with a feeling almost of dismay that such a thing is possible. I beg the Minister sincerely to understand that this is a matter that is felt most deeply. The Union of Special Schools, the National Institute of the Blind, the Association of the Deaf and those who are charged with the clearing of prisons have all been examining this thing. They have all had in their care children for educational purposes but have not been able to get an opportunity under their local authorities; and I appeal to the Minister to consider this point which gives him, as far as I can see, all that he could want. Admitting that in some circumstances it is not practicable, let the Minister decide

      1809
      what the term means. If there is going to be a local authority which does not want to do it, who is to decide what is and what is not practicable? They have to be judges in their own case. They are to be the arbiters. I contend that to be wrong. The local authorities that do not want to do it will decide that it is impracticable for it to be done. I am not a lawyer, but I feel that I would be on safe ground in any court in pointing out the weakness of the inclusion of those words in any Act of Parliament. I hope that the Minister will reconsider in a favourable way the attitude adopted in Committee and will concede what we are asking.
      Sir Percy Harris: I hope that the Minister will be able to accept what appears to me to be a sensible and practical Amendment and a real improvement upon the words of the Bill. We have accepted a good many changes in the machinery of our local government in order to give equal opportunity to children, irrespective of where they live. That is why we have seen the Part III authorities liquidated largely. I can visualise that it is difficult in some areas, owing to the scattered nature of the population, to provide these special facilities for children who deserve our sympathy and require our assistance. There are some local authorities who are not so progressive, sympathetic and understanding as others, but if they are to evade their responsibilities it should not be at their own volition but on the responsibility of the Minister, who should have to decide. This is not a very revolutionary Amendment, but one of a very practical and reasonable kind.
      Mr. Ede: My right hon. Friend and I recognise the great zeal and sincerity Which the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) has shown in dealing with this part of the Bill, and we have genuinely endeavoured, during the interval between the Committee and this stage of the Bill, to find words that would have met the point which the hon. Member raised in Committee and have raised again now. Unfortunately, we have not been able to do that. We feel that the words which he has put down go a little too far in the other direction and would involve us in the very difficult position of having to call on someone to prove a
      1810
      negative—which is always regarded as a matter of great difficulty.
      We feel that, under the Bill, we are armed with sufficient powers to be able to influence a local authority which is failing in its duty in this respect. In fact, we did include on the Committee Stage a new Sub-section (2) to Clause 93 which considerably strengthens our position in the matter. The effect of that Sub-section is that, if a local education authority, or other body responsible for any duty under the Bill, says that, in its opinion, the duty cannot be done or ought not to be done, the Ministry is to be in a position of being able to review that statement. If there is a difference between the opinion of the Minister and theirs, we will be able to impose his opinion over theirs. We feel that this Amendment considerably helps us in regard to this matter.
      We recognise the strength of the feeling that has been so appropriately voiced in the House by the hon. Member and reinforced by the right hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), and we will again examine this matter to see whether it is possible in another place to find some form of words that will leave no doubt that we expect these children to be dealt with appropriately by every education authority in the country. I hope, after that assurance, that my hon. Friend will allow us to proceed with the Bill.
      Captain Cobb: In a good many cases arrangements for specially handicapped children would not fall on one education authority alone because there would not be enough children in the area of one authority to make building a school for them an economic proposition. A great deal of this provision, if it is to be effectively done, will have to be as a result of co-operation among a number of neighbouring authorities. I should like to ask my hon. Friend whether he feels that the Board will be in a position to insist upon a number of authorities coming together in order to provide adequately for these children.
      Mr. Ede: With the permission of the House, I would like to answer that question and to say that in Paragraph 3 of Part II of the First Schedule we take powers whereby the Minister may set up joint education committees, even where

      1811
      some of the contributory authorities are not anxious to come in, in order to ensure that just this kind of point can be appropriately dealt with.
      Mr. Messer: The Parliamentary Secretary has gone a very long way, and I am grateful to him for his sympathetic approach to the problem. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Messer: I beg to move, in page 25, line 44, at the end, to insert:
      "(5) The Minister shall appoint an advisory committee which shall include persons of experience in the training, care and welfare of handicapped children."
      I realise the force of what the Parliamentary Secretary said on the Committee stage, but it is clear that there was then an expression of opinion that committees of this especial character should have statutory authority. This was supported by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay), who asked that it should be a standing committee, by the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. E. Harvey), and by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), who said:
      "May I suggest that, if that Committee is appointed, it should be a statutory Committee and that the words should be inserted in the Bill, for two reasons?—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1944; col. 703, Vol. 398.]
      He went on to give his reasons. It will be much more satisfactory to members of the Advisory Committee to know that they have the force of law behind them. I should like to see the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary continue indefinitely in their office, but the time will come when they will go and others will take their places. Unless there is in the Bill a provision of this kind, there is no assurance that the Advisory Committee will continue. It will not be sufficient for an advisory committee to be just called together to decide a policy to be carried out by others. We want to have people able to handle this problem continually, as it is changing from day to day.
      Changes take place, say, in the medical world. In addition to being a medical matter this is an educational matter. Everybody will remember that 20 years ago mutes spoke by means of finger alpha-
      1812
      bets. I remember bringing a party of children through this House, not one of whom could speak on their fingers, yet everyone could understand everything that I said. Similar changes take place in the education of the blind and of the sub-normal. In this matter there is a combination, education-cum-recognition, of certain deficiencies, mental, emotional and physical. I desire to ask, by my Amendment, that the Minister will consider that this matter is so important that he will agree to the setting up of a statutory committee to advise him.
      Mr. R. C. Morrison: I be, to second the Amendment.
      I reinforce the plea that has been made by my hon. Friend. A great many changes take place in the methods of educating handicapped children. People at the Board of Education are concerned with much bigger questions and have not time to specialise in this kind of work. There is another class of case which, it seems to me, would be most useful for this Advisory Committee, and that is that, dotted all over this country, are charitable institutions for defective and handicapped children, schools for the difficult or the blind, and homes of all kinds. Many of them will have to be dealt with very soon now. The conditions under which many of these schools have been established make it difficult for them to be used for any other purpose. There are a number of limitations upon these schools in the bequests upon which they have been founded. A whole lot of complications will arise, and great assistance would be obtained from the existence of an advisory committee in the handling of questions of that sort.
      I speak from memory, but I think there are something like 8o schools for blind children throughout the country, and many of such schools for handicapped children are proceding entirely "on their own," without any connection with each other. There is no communicating link in their methods. Some of them are very up to date and others are very old-fashioned and hopelessly out of date. I would like the President to put words into the Bill that would make it necessary that, when the day comes when he and the Parliamentary Secretary unfortunately leave the Board of Education, their successors will carry on the Advisory Com-

      1813
      mittee to consult about the special questions which arise in connection with handicapped children.
      Mr. Ede: Once again I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) for the way in which he has brought this matter before the House. I was very glad to hear the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison). I know he has had many years' special practical experience of this problem. My right hon. Friend intends to honour specifically the pledge which I gave on the Committee stage of the Bill. We are considering at the moment the setting up of an advisory committee which will include not merely doctors but other persons who have practical knowledge of the day-to-day work in connection with these children. That Committee will have, as I then said, the power of initiation as well as of merely dealing with the problems that may be referred to it by the Board. I would point out, however, when we are asked to include this advisory committee in the Bill, that no other advisory committee is included in it. I have no reason to think that in those days, when my right hon. Friend and I part company for one reason or another, and he goes to the left and I go to the right, our successors will be less alive that we are to the problems that these children present. In fact, I hope that the work of the Advisory Committee would then have established it in the position where by right of that work they would be, rather than by having it appear in the Statute. I am quite sure that my hon. Friends would also agree with me in this: they would not ask that this particular problem should be regarded as something so apart from the general education problem of the country as to require special statutory mention. Of course, while special statutory mention sometimes gives a safeguard, on the other hand, it sometimes has the effect of making a particular part of a subject appear to be something peculiar and apart from the general run of the subject. I hope that my hon. Friends will feel that the advisory committee which we intend to set up will do what they want done, and it will then have to justify its position in the machinery of Government by the advice it can tender us upon problems it can present to us and the solutions it can offer.
      Mr. Messer: I think that the words that have been used by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary cannot fail to carry authority with anybody who follows, and it seems to me that what he has said is almost as good as putting it in the Bill. It will always be on record. May I thank him for what he has said, and ask the House for leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

      CLAUSE 37.—(Duty of parents to secure regular attendance of registered pupils.)
      Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 30, line 30, at the end, to insert:
      "(4) In any proceedings for an offence against this Section a medical certificate signed by the medical practitioner who has attended the child, and showing at what times (if any) he was prevented from attending by reason of sickness shall be produced to the court by the prosecution and received as evidence."
      May I first make it clear as rekards the drafting of this Amendment that I am sure that the debating skill of the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to find many loopholes in it. But I want to impress on the House and on the Minister the need to do something in this respect. In my experience of sitting upon a bench of magistrates I have on more than one occasion noticed the disadvantage which people who are charged with offences against school attendance legislation suffer from under the existing procedure. The poorer the parents, the less able they are to present their case when they are summoned for not sending their child to school. The reason is that the parents must prove to the court that the child was prevented from attending by sickness or by any unavoidable cause. To do that, they must either bring to court the doctor who attends the child, which means that they have to pay the doctor for attendance at the court, or they have to send medical certificates either to the court or to the education authority. In a number of cases recently it has been brought to the attention of the bench on which I sit that doctors vary in the charges they make for these medical certificates. Many doctors charge 3s. 6d. for each certificate for each day on which the child is absent. When it is a case of reviewing a period of half a year, it is quite beyond the

      1815
      pocket of a poor patient to pay that sum for the medical certificates necessary.
      The bench, when these cases are brought before them, have a chart, produced by the local education authority, showing what number of attendances in the period under review the child has missed. It would be convenient if the bench could have the same kind of medical testimony for the child for the same period. I can instance a case before the bench on which I sit, in which we had a very bad attendance record. When one learned that the child suffered from three major contagious diseases in the same period, the matter took on a different light. In that case, although there was a considerable amount of doubt, the bench had in justice to dismiss the summons, because there was no evidence as to which absences were unavoidable through sickness or which were through some cause which would be culpable under the Act. I ask the Minister, if he is unable to accept my drafting which is very amateurish, to look into this matter, either now or preferably in another place, and secure that in these cases parents have justice, whether they are rich or poor.
      Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: I beg to second the Amendment.
      I do this though, like my hon. Friend, I agree with it more in the spirit than in the letter. I do feel that there is a substantial measure of hardship in these cases in which it is up to the parents to prove why the child has had to be away from school. They have to arrange for that proof to be submitted to the court by a medical authority. That costs them money as the matter stands at the present time. Therefore, whichever way the case may go it does amount, in fact, unwittingly, to an automatic imposition of a financial penalty upon the parents, if their child is subject to a prosecution for nonattendance at school. I am well aware that that is the last thing my right hon. Friend would wish to carry into practice. While I appreciate that the wording of the Amendment may possibly cause him a little inconvenience, and while I realise still more that it may cause practical difficulties in its execution, I hope, like my hon. Friend, that it may be the means of raising the issue so that my right hon.
      1816
      Friend, with his greater experience, can find a way over this difficulty.
      Mr. Ede: Far be it from me to criticise the wording of an Amendment moved, I understand, by two Members of the legal profession. I occasionally hear criticism as beween lawyer and lawyer on drafting, but I always keep outside. I find that the phrase that is most acceptable to the lawyer is, as a rule, the one which is least understandable by me. The mover and the Seconder have explained clearly what is the point with which they wish to deal. I will endeavour to deal with that in general terms.
      It may be that there are some doctors who charge, or attempt to charge, a working class parent 3s. 6d. for a medical certificate. In the course of my administrative experience, my difficulty has been with the doctor who charges 3d. for a medical certificate, and appears to be willing to give them in considerable numbers and frequency at that price. He is a not inconsiderable interferer with the course of educational administration on occasions. Quite clearly, if illness is the excuse alleged, there must be some proof that a child was absent from school because of illness. I know of no case which a medical certificate has been submitted to a local education authority, where, after that submission, a prosecution has ensued. I should be very surprised if there are any such cases. I have known local education authorities say, "If you desire to allege illness and say that the child is not physically fit to attend school, and you cannot afford to have a doctor's certificate we will arrange for one of the school doctors to see the child, and give you the benefit of his service. He will advise us whether the child ought to be kept away from school or not."
      This Amendment would put the prosecution in a somewhat anomalous position. They are asked to produce the evidence for the defence. If the defence is illness they are supposed, I understand from the Amendment, to produce a medical certificate and pay for it. If it is wrong for the parent to be charged 3s. 6d. for a doctor's certificate in this case, especially in the kind of continuing case to which my hon. Friend referred, I should have thought it was equally wrong for the local education authority to be expected to pay 3s. 6d.
      Mr. Turton: The point is, whereas a parent has probably to get 100 certificates to cover each occasion the child was absent, this Amendment would mean the production of only one certificate showing the child's history for the whole period.
      Mr. Ede: It seems to me to be one of those matters which really ought to be taken up with the medical profession with a view to getting them to exercise some reasonable influence upon the members of their organisation. They appear to be quite capable of dealing with their members and getting corporate action from them when they require it. I should have thought that that was the proper way in which to do it. Quite clearly, the hon. Member does not expect us to put these words in the Bill in the form in which they stand. I recognise that there may on occasion be difficulties through a parent, whose child is genuinely ill, not being able to produce a medical certificate, or even coming to court not knowing that he ought to bring a medical certificate with him. I will undertake to have this examined, to see if there is any possible way of making the course of the parent who ought to be protected made more easy than it is at present. I will also consider whether something can be done with the medical profession with a view to dealing with the situation which my hon. Friend has brought to our attention. Again, I cannot see that the local education authority should be entitled to one certificate for 100 absences, but that the parent should not be entitled to one certificate for the same number of absences if it is to be given by the same doctor. If it is possible to deal with the case of the parent who has a genuine grievance we will endeavour to find words which will be inserted in another place.
      Mr. Turton: On that undertaking I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

      CLAUSE 39.—(General duties of local education authorities in respect to further education.)
      Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I beg to move, in page 32, line t, at the end, to insert:
      "(d) part time education for all male persons in the duties and obligations of citizenship and in the elementary functions of the Armed Forces of the Crown.
      1818
      (e) part time education for all female persons in home-craft, motherhood, and the responsibilities of citizenship."
      I must apologise to you, Sir, and particularly my right hon. Friend, for introducing at this late stage a manuscript Amendment, of which I have not had the opportunity of giving a copy to my right hon. Friend. May I point out that he dealt with this Amendment on the Committee stage when it was raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish). I did not hand my right hon. Friend a copy of the Amendment because I was in some doubt whether it would be called, and I did not wish to disturb the trend of his thoughts with an Amendment which would not be called. The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that local authorities shall provide part-time education to male persons in the duties of citizenship and in the elementary functions of the Armed Forces, and to female persons in the duties of homecraft, motherhood and citizenship. This Clause provides that part-time education shall be given in technical, commercial, and art subjects; certain duties have been laid down in regard to worship and denominational teaching; but, so far, we have left out any specific reference to the teaching of citizenship and the ordinary elementary duties of defending our country, in the earlier and plastic ages, of youth.
      My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes was to have been here to support me, but I do not at the moment see him, and I thought that this was a matter which my right hon. Friend might have included in the Bill originally. The future of the country depends upon whether our youth accepts its full responsibility towards its neighbour, its family, and the State. The Armed Forces—or the Defence Forces, as, looking further, I would call them—are a means, as I think my right hon. Friend will agree, of teaching adolescents self-discipline, reliability, and honesty. That is inherent in the teaching of the cadet movement in schools. As regards our girls, I think that every father and mother will admit that they and their children would have been very much better if they had been taught home-craft and motherhood. [Laughter.] This is not a thing to laugh at.
      Mr. Butler: Does my hon. and gallant Friend mean mothercraft?
      Sir T. Moore: I mean mothercraft and motherhood. There are many things attached to motherhood which many young girls do not understand; and I think education should be given to girls on the subject. I am certain that the future of our race, mixed though it be, would be far sounder if there could be general instruction given to local authorities, to insure that part-time education on these subjects shall be carried on. I realise that my right hon. Friend will be quite unable to give any assurance on this subject, which I have put to him as a bolt from the blue, but there are two courses which he could adopt. He could deal with the matter when the Bill is in another place, or he could himself issue instructions or guidance to local authorities on the subject. My remarks have possibly been somewhat disjointed, but I would like to assure my right hon. Friend again that there was no discourtesy intended or implied by me in not giving him warning of this matter. I know that he has the subject so much in mind that he will be able to reply without having the words before him in black and white.
      Mr. Tinker: I beg to second the Amendment.
      I do so in order that we may have a discussion upon it.
      Mr. Logan: It seems a very funny thing to suggest that our educational system should include the teaching of mothercraft and motherhood by all and sundry, outside the home. I may be old-fashioned, but I think that the better way would be to have fewer girls on the streets late at night, and to let them be taught these subjects at home, instead of by an amateur at school. For an amateur to deal with so dangerous a subject would be deplorable. Some people may think that there is a great deal of ignorance on this subject, but there is not really much ignorance: what is wanted is more discipline. It is a subject which ought to be left severely alone by the schools. The mother and the father, or even the cleric or some friend of the household, might be able to deal with the matter; but if all and sundry are to be educated in this subject, a school of anatomy would be more suitable, so that they might be able to view the wonders of nature. Once, when I was a member of a hoard in the City of Liverpool, we had an appli-
      1820
      cation for the showing of a German film on the subject of procreation, in order to bring people into the cinemas to see the beauties of nature. I have seen so many people who want to see the beauties of nature running about wild, that I do not think that they have an intellectual objective. It would be better to keep girls off the streets at night, to have a curfew for them and for their mothers and fathers as well, so that they would all be in their homes at a proper time each night.
      Mr. Cove: One could pursue this subject very extensively because the hon. Member opened up the whole meaning and purpose of education. In his tone and attitude, and in some of the expressions he used, I thought he was very near Hitler. I thought he expressed views which were rather totalitarian and repressive in their outlook and effects. I rose mainly to say how often I have observed, during the Debates on this Bill, that many Members know little of the actual work which is being done in the ordinary schools of this country. Mothercraft is taught; the girls have a fine training in domestic science; the boys and the girls have implanted in them a high sense of citizenship. The sense of citizenship is not destroyed in the schools. If there is any destruction of the sense of citizenship and its responsibilities, that destruction takes place outside the school walls. There are no finer institutions, there are no more purposeful institutions, in this country for the training of citizenship and patriotism, in the highest and best sense of the word, than the ordinary schools. If the sense of citizenship is destroyed, it is destroyed in the streets, it is destroyed in slumdom, it is destroyed in bad housing, it is destroyed, I believe, in the cinemas.
      The schools are fighting against the extraneous forces that modem industry, based on profit-making, presents. Our cinemas are run not for the highest purposes of art, but to make profit. The children go there, and often what happens is that what has been built up in the schools is destroyed outside. My hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment cannot deal with that. I hope that one of the added purposes of our educational processes in future will not be the nursing and cultivation of a narrow nationalistic patriotism, but to make our children feel that they are citizens of the world and that the

      1821
      spirit of internationalism will percolate throughout our schools. The hon. Member emphasised, I think, what I would call the nationalistic aspect. I hope that Britain's contribution in the future will be increasingly on the international plane, in the unification of all men, and not the intensifying, as it were, of any narrow kind of nationalist feeling. The schools have done a great work, which is not fully appreciated by many hon. Members of this House. The schools have not put their goods in the window, and it would be a good thing if hon. Members like my hon. and gallant Friend, who are keen about the training of girls and boys in school, would go down to the common elementary schools, and to those magnificent senior schools, and see the work which they have done. I am quite sure that if my hon. and gallant Friend did so, he would come back with an intense appreciation of the contribution they have made to our national well-being in the past.
      Mr. Butler: In the first place, I am in some difficulty about an Amendment which I have not seen, especially as we have already amended this Clause at an earlier stage. I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member was here at the time, but it appears to me that his Amendment does not fit in with the Clause as amended by the Committee, and I must remind the Committee of what it is considering, because we must try to keep our minds on the facts. This Clause has now been amended to read:
      "(a) full-tune or part-time education for persons over compulsory school age."
      Paragraph (b) will include the present paragraph (c), and, therefore, on those grounds, I do not think the Amendment would fall into place in this Bill. If it is the desire to disregard the Amendments made, and to attempt to insert those words in the as it was before it was recommitted, I would be in a position to discuss it, but I do find myself in some difficulty in that the Bill has been completely altered by recommittal to-day. On the understanding that I take the hon. and gallant Member's views as high-flown sentiment, I could give him an answer.
      His point was raised previously on the Committee stage, and the matter was then fully discussed and an answer given on more than one occasion. What we attempted to say during the Committee
      1822
      Debates was that it was very difficult to try to lay down, for the hon. and gallant Member and his friends; the precise necessities to which he drew our attention. For example, in the case of military service for boys, I am quite convinced that military service for boys ought to be left to continue on the present basis. That is to say, it can be well organised by cadet organisations and other bodies outside school hours and outside the hours of the young people's colleges. If that happens, I think it is perfectly healthy, but I maintain that it is not healthy for it to be brought right into the middle of the school curriculum, or of the young people's colleges. Provided the hon. and gallant Member will accept my view that it is desirable for our boys and young men to train themselves in the military art for the defence of their country, and that it should properly be done outside school hours, I think we shall all be in agreement. But I do not think it necessary to insert words in the Clause.
      On the question of citizenship, I find myself in this difficulty. There are varying ideas in a democracy on what citizenship ought to be. If we tried to impose the ideas of the Minister of Education, we should never get agreement on the Floor of the House. Therefore, we think it much better to approach adult education, with which this Clause deals, on the basis of the desires and aptitudes of those who wish to be instructed. The more I study adult education, the more difficult I find that subject to be, and the more certain I am that directions cannot be imposed from above, and that desires must be met for instruction in particular subjects. The educative process is to bring out the best in a boy or girl, and full provision is made for that in paragraph (b) of the Clause as redrafted in Committee earlier. If that be so, it would be our desire to meet the wishes of the hon. and gallant Member and to bring out from the child or adolescent, or, in this case, the adult, the best that is in him or her, and, if the hon. and gallant Member will accept that as a definition of what we have in mind, he will see that it goes a long way to bring out the best in the way of citizenship.
      To deal with the last point of the hon. and gallant Member, I think the hon. Member who speaks with such conviction of his experience in Liverpool, was modest in not referring to the circular issued by

      1823
      the Hierarchy of his own faith which deals with the problem. The Board of Education has given its own lead in this matter. I, personally, think there are many agencies involved—not only the agencies of education. There is the agency of the home, to which I cannot make reference under this Clause, though I feel that it is most desirable that parents should exercise a right influence over girls when they are growing up, and that, I think, supports what we are trying to do in the schools. I must make it clear that, in the classes for adolescents, we are developing, to a very important extent, training in domestic science and mother-craft, and other matters which influence the lives of growing girls, and it is a subject which is becoming of more and more interest and greater status in the lives of these young people. It is now regarded as a subject which they all want to take, but it must not be forced upon them. I think the hon. and gallant Member may take it that the tendencies in our educational system are moving in the right way, and that the ideas he puts before us, and which I accept, are fully met by the scope of our educational system.
      Sir T. Moore: I am very much obliged to my right hon. Friend for his sympathetic reply, and, in the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

      CLAUSE 42.—(Duty to attend young people's colleges in accordance with college attendance notices.)
      Mr. Edmund Harvey: I beg to move, in page 34, line 18, to leave out "forty-four," and to insert "forty."
      There are two ensuing Amendments on the Order Paper—

      In page 35, line 6, to leave out "three hundred and thirty," and insert "two hundred and forty";

      In page 36, line 14, to leave out "three hundred and thirty," and insert "two hundred and forty."

      —which perhaps may be considered at the same time, because they deal with the same point of the length of the period of study, the length of the term and the length of the school day in the young people's colleges. The effect of this Amendment would be that, in place of a
      1824
      7½-hour school day, and a 44-week school year, which the Government propose, there would be a 4o-week school year and a six-hour school day, based upon the practice of existing secondary schools, which I think is justified by the experience of those schools. The unsatisfactory nature of the strain that would be involved on teachers and pupils, in the colleges under longer hours, I think, is borne out by the experience of the one local education authority which has tried to deal with the matter—Rugby. I have heard how the teachers in the Rugby day continuation school have felt the strain of the long hours and of having only one week's holiday at Easter. We must remember that, in these young people's colleges, the strain on the teacher will be greater than in the ordinary secondary schools, because of the conditions in which they will be carried on. The pupils will be coming from work and suddenly entering into a new atmosphere on one day, or two half-days, a week. The teacher will have to get to know a larger number of pupils than he would have to know in the ordinary secondary schools. In that way, he would not only have to deal with larger numbers, but would have to deal with them under unusual conditions.
      It is surely of the utmost importance, if this very great experiment and reform, on which we all congratulate the President, is to succeed, that we should not put an undue strain on the teachers, but that, as far as possible, we should give a little more consideration to this. We should have a smaller number of hours worked in the day and see that these hours are thoroughly well-spent So as to get the best out of the boys and girls, and give an opportunity for the teacher to give his best. I maintain that the hours suggested in the Government plan will involve too great a strain. We have to remember that a vacation does not mean just a period of rest, but it is of vital importance that the teacher should have opportunities during the vacation to prepare work for the ensuing term.
      It is also important that he should have an opportunity of renewing his own knowledge and getting fresh experience, apart from the ordinary refreshment of a holiday. If that is to be done so that a teacher shall be able to give his best, you ought to give as long a period of vacation to the teachers in the young

      1825
      people's colleges as you give to teachers in secondary schools. We do not want to begin a great experiment like this, under anything but the best auspices. It is far better that we should not attempt to crowd too much into the day, or crowd into the year too many weeks of intensive work, with the result that there might be a breakdown in some cases, or that in other cases work might be done too slackly. We do want to get the very best methods of teaching, and if we ask the teachers to come forward to take up this great work, surely we ought to see that they are given conditions which will enable them to have the best chance of making their work a success. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to assure the House that the figures in the Bill are not going to be too rigidly adhered to, but that there will be some way by which the paints which I have ventured to raise may be met. Otherwise, I fear that the children will suffer, the young people's colleges will suffer and it will not be true economy of money but will be false economy of life.
      Professor Gruffydd: I beg to second the Amendment.
      If I do so very shortly and formally, it is not because I could not speak strongly on the subject, but because I do not wish to take the time of the House. The teachers in this particular type of school must be of the best type available and with the very best training for the work they will have to do will be mainly experimental. I have had some experience of this and there is nothing so boring as trying to work out a new scheme in an experimental school when you get very little sympathy from the ordinary trained teacher who does not know that kind of work. I have worked out a scheme of holidays on the basis given here in the Clause. If the children go to school for 44 weeks, they will have only eight weeks left in the year for holidays.
      It has been found by experiment that you cannot do on less than two weeks at Christmas, for any school, and two weeks at Easter. That leaves only four weeks in the summer. It is the very minimum of holidays given in elementary schools of this country. I do not wish to make any distinction between secondary and elementary teachers but, if there is a distinction the teachers in the young people's colleges will be something more akin to secondary
      1826
      and university teachers than to teachers in the primary schools, and they are entitled at least to holidays similar, both in character and extent, to the holidays given in secondary schools.
      Mr. Butler: I hope that the word "forty-four" will stand part of the Bill. I appreciate the difficulties which have been put by hon. Gentlemen who have addressed the House, but the first reply that I can give quite definitely is that these hours are equivalent to those that are being worked at Rugby, and have been successfully operating there for over 20 years.
      Mr. Harvey: I pointed out that Rugby teachers themselves feel the strain, and that is one reason why I move this Amendment.
      Mr. Butler: I am coming to that point next, but in the interests of education generally, we found the Rugby experiment to be a very good one. We should not be at all averse to the rest of the country following this magnificent lead, given during the years of depression and continued to the present day, since the Fisher Act, and we should be glad to see that practice carried out in other parts of the country.
      Coming to the position of the teachers of the country, which I believe has moved my hon. Friend to move his Amendment, the difficulty there is that you have in Rugby an isolated experiment, and teachers are themselves very rarae aves or rare birds. They are not able to move about in other experiments of a similar kind and there is not that mobility within the general branches of the teaching service as there may be in the future. The McNair Committee in their Report in paragraph 378, include this sentence:
      "The staffing needs of young people's colleges can be met by mobility of staffs throughout the whole educational system, including the youth service, the need for which we have so frequently urged."
      That really is the answer in a nutshell to the fear of my hon. Friend, because if there is mobility in the teaching service and the teachers in these young people's colleges become isolated and tired and cramped by the limitation of their lives, and the fact that they are working longer hours than the rest of the teaching profession, it would be possible to arrange a change in exactly the same way as is

      1827
      arranged for troops in different stations to give them different times, and life with less long hours. From the point of view of the teachers, I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment. The McNair Report, which has supervened since this was considered, has pointed the way to the mobility which may result from the new arrangement.
      I take it that it will be in Order to pay attention to several Amendments on the same point which follow and, taking the whole subject together, we would be much more inclined to increase the number of weeks in the year, because we are here dealing with the release from industry. From the point of view of young people who are in industry, it would be legitimate to put the number of weeks over and above the 44 included in the Bill. I do not attempt to do so, but it would be possible for the reason that I do not think that young people in industry necessarily expect their lives to be organised in respect of holidays and term time exactly as they expect it to be organised in primary and secondary schools. Though they should get the industrial holidays, and holidays with pay and other developments which we all want to see, they would not be able to find themselves at work for 44 weeks in the year. I am leaving aside all question of unemployment, which is dealt with in other parts of the Bill. During the weeks they are in employment, it is our desire that they should be released for some form of supervision in these colleges.
      I believe that the effect of these Amendments would mean that they would have to make 90 hours per annum the general attendance at young people's colleges, and it would be very undesirable. We are only releasing these young people for what amounts to one day, or two half days in the week. The Amendments would reduce the proposed obligations to attend from 330 hours in the year to 240 hours and this would be far less than Mr. Fisher got Parliament to approve 25 years ago, when the hours approved were 320 per annum, as provided for in Section 76 (1) of the Act passed as long ago as 1921. Therefore, for all these reasons, first mobility of teaching experience, which is another factor and meets some hon. Members' fears; secondly, the belief that young people are in industry at least 44 weeks
      1828
      in the year and therefore need relief, and thirdly, that in this curriculum in young people's colleges there is going to be a period—and one which ought to be of interest to hon. Members opposite—of recreation and physical exercises, and fourthly, that experience has shown that this is stimulating work, I hope that hon. Members will not press the interesting Amendments they have put on the paper.
      Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Before the House passes from this Amendment—I think the Minister has relieved some of the anxiety which was expressed—I should like to place on record one or two relevant considerations on this matter. The two hon. Gentlemen opposite spoke in a professional capacity in this matter. I would like to say a word as one who has been a student, and who is now a governor, of a scholastic institution which embraces the education both of children, and of adults in the evening. One point which might be borne in mind—I do not know whether I shall carry hon. Gentlemen opposite with me but I think I shall—is that it is not so much a question of the working day as set down in the curriculum, or the length of the holiday that is set down, which covers the effort made by the teacher. As I understand, the Minister is anxious, at the same time, to provide the maximum educational time for young people coming out of industry and at the same time to keep his teachers as fresh as possible.
      I do not think I shall be contradicted when I say that a 44 hour week year of actual instruction does not mean eight weeks' holiday for the teacher. That is rather like the assumption by a section of the public that the moment this House rises, hon. Members spend Recesses in recreation and idleness, when exactly the opposite is the truth, especially in the case of Ministers. Even we Private Members cannot, the moment the House rises, throw away our activities and responsibilities and my right hon. Friend will agree that it is necessary that teachers should have a period in which to refresh their minds, and prepare new matter for instruction. One of the difficulties about education is that teachers get stale through having to put out the same lectures year after year, and it is most desirable that they should have longish holidays for the purpose of preparing new lectures.

      1829
      There is one point about young people's colleges. It refers to a 7½ hour day. I remember, when studying for an examination, being told by my coach that six hours' work was six hours' work; that seven hours' work was five hours' work, and that eight hours' work was four hours' work.
      Mr. Messer: Go on like that and you will do nothing.
      Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Yes, the result will be nothing. If you have to work 12 or 13 hours a day, the time comes when the brain reaches saturation point, and retains nothing at all. I am serious in this argument. We all know when a man is working on a curriculum for six hours a day, that is not the end of his working day. If he is studying for his examination, he writes up his notes in the evenings, and it is probably an eight hours' day by the time he has finished. But at these young people's colleges it is desirable to be teaching for, perhaps, a longer period than is provided for in the curriculum. If you have a six-hour day, it may be, according to the curriculum but it may be desirable that the matter shall be administered so as to give opportunities for the coaching of certain students who require individual attention, which may make all the difference between success and failure. I intervene only because I feel that this is a point which is worth making. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is fully alive to it. His speech shows us that this matter will be administered sympathetically but I felt that these few remarks should be on the record.
      Amendment negatived.

      CLAUSE 47.—(Provision of milk and meals at schools maintained by local education authorities.)
      Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 40, line 16, after "not," to insert:
      "except in so far as may be authorised by paragraph (a) of sub-section (3) of section fourteen of this Act or by any special agreement."
      I regard it as most important that the relations between the local education authority and the governors or managers of aided schools should be made clear beyond any possible doubt. It is because this Clause, coupled with Clause 14 (3),
      1830
      may give rise to some doubt that I am moving the Amendment. This Clause provides that the Minister shall make regulations which, in effect, may mean that schools will require to have structural alterations to provide them with dining-rooms and kitchens for the provision of meals. That is rather a short explanation of the purpose of the Clause, but it is pretty correct. It makes it clear that the expenditure for so doing should fall upon the local education authority, and should not be borne by the managers or governors of an auxiliary school. That is clear, but Clause 14 (3) provides that, in aided schools, the cost of doing structural work, in accordance with standards laid down by the local education authority, shall be borne by the managers of those schools. Therefore, it appears to be somewhat inconsistent, because it is conceivable that in laying down standards, the local education authority may require the provision of kitchens and dining-rooms, especially in the case of new schools. In such a case the cost may be required to be borne by the managers of those schools. If the words in the Amendment were accepted, it would make it abundantly clear that there is no inconsistency between the two provisions. This is rather technical, but the words in the Amendment are merely designed to harmonise the provisions of Clause 14 (3) with the provisions of Clause 47. I, personally, am not in the least concerned who pays in the long run. I think it is far more important that there should be harmony in this matter, and no possible cause for friction hereafter over the success of this Measure. Therefore I hope we may have a reassuring statement or an acceptance of the Amendment from my hon. Friend.
      Mr. John Wilmot: I beg to second the Amendment.
      In reinforcement of what my hon. Friend has said, may I draw attenton to the exact words of Clause 47 which says that such Regulations
      "shall not require the managers or governors of an auxiliary school to incur expenditure."
      And Clause 14 (3a) says:
      "the following expenses shall be payable by the managers or governors of the school, that is to say, any expenses incurred in effecting such alterations to the school buildings as may be required by the local education authority for the purpose of securing that the school premises should conform to the prescribed standards."

      1831
      If there are prescribed standards for the buildings in which meals are provided, and these governors are required by the regulations to provide meals, then they must incur the expenditure, and I think it is essential that we should know at this point who has to pay.
      Mr. Ede: I should not, myself, have thought there was any obscurity, and it shows the difficulty which clarification involves, that I had read this Amendment as an attempt to impose the expenditure on the managers or governors. I am glad to know, therefore, that that is not the intention of my hon. Friend, and that we are at one with regard to what we want to do, except that I understand the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) does not mind which way it goes—whether it is the local authority or the managers or governors—as long as he can be certain it is one or the other. Our intention is that no expenditure in connection with school meals shall fall upon the managers or governors of an auxiliary school, either with regard to staffing or with regard to buildings, and we thought that the words in Clause 47 made that clear. If there is any doubt—and I am bound to say there is no doubt in my mind—as to what Clause 14 (3a) may mean, in contradiction to that, I will have those words examined to make when that there is no possibility of doubt when the Measure comes into operation. I hope I have made it quite clear, however, that our intention is that this expense shall be borne by the local education authority.
      Mr. Silkin: In view of that explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

      CLAUSE 48.—(Provision of board and lodging otherwise than at boarding schools or colleges.)
      Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 40, line 30, at the end, to insert:
      "(2) In making any arrangements under this section for any child or young person a local education authority shall, so far as practicable give effect to the wishes of the parent of the child or to the wishes of the young person, as the case may be, with respect to the religious denomination of the person with whom he will reside."
      I think this is probably the one case in the Bill where it might be argued that the
      1832
      general provisions with regard to the wishes of the parents might not have been comprehensive. We desire to make it quite clear that if a child is boarded out, the local authority shall take every step it can to ensure that the child shall be boarded out with a family of the same religious persuasion as the parents of the child. That is the existing law which I believe every good local education authority would endeavour to carry out, but we want to put the matter beyond any doubt.
      Mr. Messer: I should be inconsistent if I did not say anything here. I have not once, but many times, pored over my desk in an attempt to find an alternative phrase to "so far as practicable." I have not succeeded, and I would very much like to consult the draftsman of this Bill to see whether he cannot have that phrase changed to something more definite.
      Mr. Logan: We are very thankful indeed to find a Clause of this description because we feel it will be very satisfactory for boys and girls, in a change from home life, to be in an environment to which they have been previously accustomed. We think it will assist us very greatly for that to be incorporated in the Bill.
      Amendment agreed to.

      CLAUSE 52.—(Power to ensure cleanliness.)
      Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 41, line 46, to leave out from the beginning to "reasonable," in line 47, and to insert:
      "A local education authority may, by directions in writing issued with respect to all schools maintained by them or with respect to any of such schools named in the directions, authorise a medical officer of the authority to cause examinations of the persons and clothing of pupils in attendance at such schools to be made whenever in his opinion such examinations are necessary in the interests of cleanliness; and if a medical officer of a local education authority has."
      I am afraid we shall have to spend some little time on these Amendments to Clause 52. They deal with a matter which is of great difficulty in the education service. I think some people first became aware of the problem, which had confronted local education authorities for many years, when they were faced with some of the results of evacuation, and when the condition of a comparatively small minority of the children gave rise

      1833
      to very great feelings of dismay on the part of a large number of people in the country. Those of us who have been associated with the elementary schools for many years have known of the existence of this problem, and I hope that the light directed upon it at the time of the evacuation will, in the days of peace, enable us to grapple with it more successfully than we have been sometimes able to do in the past. Also, since the evacuation we have had the publication of that volume called "Our Towns" which also dealt with this difficult problem. Now we have to act in the interests of the clean child, quite as much as against the parents of the lousy child, because the unfortunate thing at a school inspection is that sometimes the child on whom the vermin is discovered by the nurse is not the child who brought the vermin to school. If there is one thing that stands in the way of our getting a really national system of education, with a greater application of the common school principle than we now have, it is this problem of the vermin which are found in certain schools.
      This Amendment deals with the case where it is necessary to take the most drastic action; that is to say, where a local education authority feels that in the interests of all the children in the school there should be a general inspection of the school to ascertain whether any children are in a verminous condition. It is a terrible comment on our civilisation that we should have to move such a Clause, but in this matter we must face the facts, and the sooner we face them and endeavour to discover a remedy for the ills those facts reveal, the better for all of us. Therefore, in this first Amendment, we give the local education authority the power to inspect all its schools in what I imagine will be the more general case. In the case of particular schools, where it is feared that this difficulty is fairly large, a general inspection of the children may take place. This is stronger than the Clause as originally drafted. The Amendments we are introducing throughout this Clause are in the direction of strengthening it, and are the result—let us be quite frank—of representations we have received from local authorities all over the country that they desire that their powers in this matter should be ample. I hope we shall realise, in considering these Amendments, that we are really acting in the interests of the children whose parents take a pride
      1834
      in their cleanliness, and who are sometimes dismayed at the results of their attendance at certain schools. I hope we shall have the support of the House in endeavouring to strengthen this Clause.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendment made: In page 41, line 48, leave out from "attendance," to "at," in page 42, line 1.—[Mr. Ede.]
      Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 42, line 3, to leave out from "made," to "authority," in line 4, and to insert:
      "(2) Any such examination as aforesaid shall he made by a person authorised by the local education."
      This is a little more than consequential. We desire to emphasise the division of this matter, and so we propose to start a new Subsection at the point indicated.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendment made: In page 42, line 5, leave out "the pupil is found by the," and insert "any pupil is found upon such an."—[Mr. Ede.]
      Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 42, line 16, to leave out "a medical officer of the authority," and to insert "such person as may be specified in the notice."
      It has been represented that under the Clause as it stands it will be necessary for the medical officer himself to be satisfied that the cleansing has been properly carried out. This reform will be difficult in practice. I am quite sure hon. Members will realise that, where the local education authority has 100,000 children to deal with, it would be almost impossible for the scheme to be administered if the words were strictly interpreted, and so we propose the Amendment as set out.
      Mr. Woodburn: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether there will be some assurance that it will be a suitable person? The words "such person" might mean anyone, and there will need to be some safeguard that the person is a nurse or some other suitable person.
      Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir. We are dealing with responsible education officers in the counties and county boroughs.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendment made: In page 42, line 18, leave out from "if," to "then," in line 20, and insert:
      "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."—[Mr. Ede.]
      Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 42, line 24, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 32.
      The Parliamentary Secretary, in moving earlier Amendments, said that they were designed to strengthen the powers of local authorities to deal with dis-infestation. This Amendment is intended to speed up the process of dis-infestation. In the provision that is now being made hon. Members will find that notice has to be served on the parent where the local authority is satisfied that the clothing or person of the pupil requires to be cleansed. The parent then has the opportunity, within a certain time, of saying that he will not permit his child or its clothing to be cleansed. In that case the local authority is obliged to take proceedings against the parent and obtain an order from a court of summary jurisdiction. The Parliamentary Secretary laid stress on the fact that these provisions were being made in the interests of clean children. If this procedure is carried through to the end it may take 10 days or a fortnight before an order can be made by the court and during the whole of that time the child who is infested may be attending school—there is nothing to prevent it from doing so—and will have an opportunity of infesting clean children.
      I suggest that this procedure is too leisurely. It assumes that the medical officer of the local authority does not recognise a child who is not clean and that magistrates are in a better position than he is to decide that a child ought to be cleansed. I do not see how magistrates can over-ride a medical officer, and I do not think the point of giving a parent the opportunity of explaining to magistrates why his child should not be cleansed is a good one. Furthermore, there is no such procedure in the existing legislation; this is an innovation. While I have every desire that parents should have every opportunity of making representations to court on a matter of this sort, it can only have the effect of still further increasing the evil. It will considerably hamper
      1836
      local authorities in going on with the work, and cause difficulties for teachers, who may be called upon to give evidence in court. I do not understand why this proviso has been introduced, and I hope my hon. Friend will see his way to delete it from the Bill in order to strengthen and speed up this very essential procedure.
      Mr. Wilmot: I beg to second the Amendment.
      I hope the Minister will accept this Amendment. Nobody wishes that highhanded action should be taken by an education authority but I think the House should remember that this is a retrogressive step and that it is already provided in the Bill that before a child can be cleansed by a local authority the parents must have notice served upon them that the child is verminous, and must be cleansed by them within 24 hours. It is only if they refuse to take heed of the notice served upon them, and if they persist in allowing the child to remain verminous, that the education authority has power to carry out the cleansing. I should have thought that serving the notice was safeguard enough to give a parent the opportunity of obstructing the local authority still further by requiring them to get a court order in every case.
      Mr. Ede: In moving this Amendment, my hon. Friend suggested that an infested child may be continuing at school while the process with regard to this order was running. By Sub-section (7) of the Clause, if a child is in this condition it would be the duty of the medical officer or other officer concerned to exclude it from attendance. In the past, one of the most effective ways of dealing with this type of parent has been to exclude the child from school and then summon the parent for non-attendance of the child at school.
      Mr. Silkin: The whole purpose of giving the parent the right to go to court, is to challenge the fact that the child is verminous. If there is a dispute about the matter, how can the medical officer, while the dispute is going on, exclude the child from school?
      Mr. Ede: He can do that effectively, because each time the child appears at school it is refused admission while the exclusion order is running.
      Mr. Silkin: He has no power or right to do it.
      Mr. Ede: It is quite clear, by Subsection (7) of this Clause, that he has. The whole issue between my hon. Friends and myself is this: ought a parent have the right of appeal to a court? I cannot help thinking that it is right that a parent who objects to his child being cleansed at a public cleansing station—because that is what the objection is to—should have a right to that objection.
      Mr. Wilmot: He can cleanse the child himself. Surely that is the best possible right.
      Mr. Ede: Yes, he can do that and if he has done so within 24 hours he would not incur the necessity for the order. The dispute may go back to the first notice that the child should be cleansed. I have dealt with this matter, both as a teacher and as an administrator, and I know the feeling that is aroused in certain parents. I should have thought it was desirable, providing the child is excluded from school while the dispute is going on, that unless the doctor discovers it has been cleansed during that period, a citizen should have the right of appeal in this matter to a court. After all, it is inflicting a considerable stigma, both on the child and the family, if the child has to be taken to a public cleansing station to be submitted to the processes which result in his being cleansed.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page line 8, to leave out Sub-section (5).
      When we came to review this Clause, it was felt that there was no need to give parents the right to object to examination of their child under this Clause. The main Sub-section brings the Clause into line with Clause 46, in which medical inspection is obligatory, and we think it right that the local authority should have the right to inspect individual children.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 43, line 27, to leave out from "Where," to the end of line 29, and to insert:
      "after the cleansing of the person or clothing of any pupil."
      Sub-section (6) of this Clause provides that where an order has been made by a
      1838
      court, and the child once more becomes infested, then the parent commits an offence. The purpose of this Amendment is to provide that even although the matter has not gone to court where a child has had to be cleansed and is once more infested then the parent commits an offence. The distinction between the case where the matter had gone to court and where a child is cleansed by a local authority seems to be entirely arbitrary. In either case the parent is guilty of conduct which has caused the child to be re-infested once he has been cleansed, and it seems that the offence is an equal one in either case and should be treated on equal terms.
      Mr. Woodburn: I beg to second the Amendment.
      Mr. Ede: The effect of this Amendment would be to render a parent or a pupil liable to a penalty not exceeding £5 if the pupil, after being cleansed, again became verminous. In the Clause as it stands, this penalty can only be imposed where the cleansing has been done by order of the court. Some local education authorities would like this restriction to be removed, but opinion among them on this point is not unanimous. We desire not to increase the number of cases in which penalties may be imposed. As was pointed out on a former Amendment, Sub-section (7) enables a pupil to be excluded, arid then the parent can be prosecuted under the Clause that relates to school attendance. I hope the House will not insist on this Amendment.
      Question, "That the words proposed to be left out to 'examination,' in line 28, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
      Amendment made: In page 43, line 28, leave out "examination or."—[Mr. Ede.]
      Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 44, line II, at the end, to insert:
      "(9) In the application of this section to the County of London, the expression 'council of a county district' means the common council of the City of London and the council of a metropolitan borough."
      This is very largely a drafting Amendment and is considered necessary in order to make the provisions of this Bill apply to the London County Council.
      Mr. Wilmot: I beg to second the Amendment.
      Mr. Ede: I am in a difficulty; I gathered that this Amendment was consequential on a previous Amendment, to line 10 standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), which has been passed over. I do not think there is a reference to a county district in the Clause.
      Mr. Silkin: There is a reference in Subsection (3) to a county district.
      Mr. Ede: If there is any doubt as to the metropolitan boroughs being included for this purpose in the Clause by the use of the words "county district"—they are alluded to later on as minor local authorities—I will have the Bill corrected in another place.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

      CLAUSE 59.—(Prohibition of fees in schools maintained by local education authorities and in young people's colleges.)
      Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I beg to move, in page 47, line 18, after "maintained," to insert "or assisted."
      This Amendment would extend the field of those schools where no fees can be exacted from the pupils or their parents, and it would be to the advantage of the House to consider the whole field. The Minister started on his peregrinations with the high and laudable intention, expressed in the White Paper, of abolishing the exaction of fees in schools which derive the whole or part of their maintenance from public funds. However, he fell from grace—or was pushed—and when the Bill came before us, we found that in at least four places this undemocratic principle had been allowed to creep in. In Committee we, who feel very strongly on the matter, felt that we detected that the Minister was recovering a little of the grace that he had lost. This Amendment is moved in order to see whether he cannot now give a assurances which will show that his pigrim's progress has gone a little further.
      May I remind the House of the places wherein he can, by showing his intentions, do a great deal to reduce the size of this undemocratic blot on our educational system. The Bill provides in the first place for local education authorities to pay for places in schools where fees may be exacted. That is in Clause 76 (b). But
      1840
      such payments can only be, by the terms of the Clause, under regulations made by the Minister empowering local education authorities so to do. So the Minister is presented with an opportunity of exercising his powers in the right direction, and I ask for an assurance that he will exercise his powers in the right direction. Further, the Minister must himself, under Clause 94 (1, b), pay for the pupils to enter into fee paying schools, and he has to do that by Regulation. I ask that those Regulations shall be so framed as not to increase but to reduce the proportion steadily of fee paying pupils in schools which they may enter by the direct subvention of the Minister.
      Then there is the provision by which local education authorities may assist schools not maintained by them under Clause 9. Here, again, the assistance they may give can only be by arrangements approved by the Minister. Again the Minister will control the extent to which these schools may exact fees, and the manner in which those who will pay the fees will be selected, and indeed the proportions of those who pay fees in such schools. Finally, there is a question, more vexed than any of the three I have mentioned, and that is the direct grant schools, in regard to which the Minister has told us he proposes to make certain alterations in the list, and possibly in the conditions under which the direct grants will be paid. Out of the 1,400 schools which receive assistance from public funds without the control of public authorities, over 252 are direct grant schools, and nearly threequarters of the pupils in them are fee paying pupils. The average of free places in these schools is about 25 per cent., some have a fee of ten per cent. or less, and quite a number of them have a very high proportion of free places, and the number of fee paying pupils has been reduced.
      I think the House is entitled to be told whether it is the intention of the Minister to abolish fee-paying in these direct grant schools where the proportion of pupils paying fees has become low, thereby going statistically to show that he has reduced the number of fee paying places in direct grant schools as a whole, but at the same time has created out of the 250 direct grant schools a number which will be even more exclusively fee paying than they are at present. I ask

      1841
      the Minister for an assurance that his powers in every one of these directions is going to be used steadily to increase the number of free places in all these schools which the House in its wisdom has decided have to continue. There are the four specific problems each under his own control and I ask him to say in which direction he is going to exercise that control.
      Mr. Messer: I beg to second the Amendment.
      The Amendment goes rather further than my hon. and learned Friend's argument. It asks for something more than an assurence. It asks, in effect, for the complete abolition of fees in any schools in receipt of public money. I do not think anyone can counter the principle involved. Everyone knows that if people are paying fees, they are under the impression that they are getting something better than what they would get without paying fees. My own view is that that has a disturbing influence on our desire to have something in the nature of a higher national standard of education. If there is one thing that the Bill does which is to be welcomed, it is to give us a better measure of national standard than hitherto has been the case. One of the troubles of our system of education has been that from place to place there has been a varying standard, not merely in the type of education but in the conditions of the schools within which that education was carried out. I have correspondence showing that a doctor in London, whose children were evacuated to a village school in Staffordshire, discovered that no improvement had taken place for the 30 years since he himself had been a pupil there. In other parts of the country, things were not very much better. The only comment in this correspondence made by the Director of Education concerned was: "Well, this school is as good as most country schools are."
      I welcome the fact that in the new Ministry we are to have a measure of control. I would point out that we are promising to people that there shall be secondary education for all. If we mean that, it is dangerous for us to drive a wedge between the different types of school, dividing them into those for which fees are payable and the others. Is it right to charge people who can afford it in some schools, and wrong to charge fees in private schools
      1842
      where people equally can afford it. If we admit the principle, that it is right to charge at all, it ought to be right to charge wherever people can afford to pay. Recognising that if we are to widen the field so as to include all those who can benefit by this improved type of education, we have to say that it shall be free from the liability of payment. Then, there is no justification for public money being used to improve the status of the schools.
      Here is a school, a direct grant or an aided school, which, presumably, cannot continue without that aid, but it will be entitled to choose from those who can afford to pay. If the people who pay expect a better type of education and do not get it, they are being swindled. If they do get a better type of education, the other children are being swindled. Every child should have equal opportunity to get better education, but we make nonsense of our talk when we set up a financial barrier. This matter is disturbing the mind of hon. Members on this side of the House. We believe that there should be equality of opportunity and that there is a contradiction of that principle contained in the fact that some children will be able to go to the snob schools—that is what they are. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is true. Everybody knows quite well that you would not have the private schools if some people had not the impression that their children are better than the common herd, and the ordinary breed, and are to have a different coloured hat as a badge to distinguish them. Those people are prepared to pay a price for the honour. My own view is that that is disturbing in education. Children are not responsible for having been born into their families. If they could have their choice, many might be willing to make a change. We ought not to penalise them as we do when we say that some advantage can be gained by having parents who can afford to pay.
      I make an earnest appeal to the Minister. I want the House to be made aware that we are dealing with a point of major principle of great importance. Is there any reason why we should not fling open in the widest possible way the door of opportunity for everybody? If we are to pay public money, and if these schools cannot continue without receiving the amount of money represented by fees, let us give them a deficiency grant. Let us make up the money and do not let them con-

      1843
      tinue to live in an atmosphere of superiority, where there are a few places to which children of the poor can go but where most of the places go to children of those who can afford to pay. If it is not possible for these educational establishments to continue without the fees, let public money provide it, but let all children have an equal chance of the best that can be given.
      There will be tests. These people are going to cream off what they believe to be the better type for these free places and skim off if they possibly can those that will give to their schools a better reputation, which will be gained as the result of whatever popularity they might get, There will be a better inducement for people to pay fees. It is contradictory of what we have been saying in regard to educational opportunity being given equally to all children. I hope that the House will press, if not for the acceptance of this Amendment, then for an assurance by the Minister that we shall see the elimination by gradual stages of this principle of division between sections of the community.
      Mr. Cove: We discussed this important principle on the Committee stage, and, on the broad principle, we were turned down. So far as I can find out, it is not clear even now what field for free secondary education is covered by the Bill. There is some confusion, because of the terms employed in the Bill as to what categories of schools will be free. I would like the Minister to clear up the whole of that position. There is confusion, for instance, about what is an assisted school and how it will fit into the free place system. I hope that the Minister will give us a clear picture of the field within which secondary education will be free. I suppose the general effect of the Bill will be to narrow the field where fees will be charged.
      I do not expect that there will be secondary education in those schools. There is merely a change of name. I wish we could have another Debate upon the raising of the age, but we cannot. Mere change of name does not necessarily carry change of quality, content and opportunity in the school. I do not think there is any use in our pursuing this question as a matter of principle as it was decided on the Committee stage. If it is true that
      1844
      the field of free secondary education is widened under the Bill, and the field, as it were, of fee-paying schools is narrowed, that may mean quite definitely, from a social point of view, that these fee-paying schools will become even more select, and aristocratic, than ever they were before. Fee-paying for fewer schools will make the schools where the fees are being paid more socially significant than ever before.
      I know that one or two direct grant aided schools who mean to maintain what they call their independence are, even now, considering raising the fees. It becomes a more select area, and the schools will be more select schools and will be more directly related—I say this again, and I hope I shall not offend hon. Members opposite—to social prestage, social privilege. If, therefore, we are determined to have a democracy in our educational system, it is not merely necessary to widen the field and sphere of free secondary education. The essential and fundamental thing is that fees should be entirely abolished. I would like to point out what fees mean to the middle and upper classes. They mean that the middle and upper classes in our country believe in the education of their children. They believe, even almost before their children are born, that those children should have a prolonged education. They are entered for Eton, Harrow and elsewhere early in life. That is quite right. It shows that they believe in education. I only want to point out that that belief ought to be transferred in practice to all our people, to the common people, the working-class people, and it can only be transferred on the basis of equality by abolishing fees in all secondary schools and providing universal secondary education for all our children. There lies the path, quite clearly, of a truly democratic educational system. As has been pointed out over and over again, even in the "Economist" —a very respectable organ, I should think, from the point of view of hon. Members—this nation is the only nation in the world that provides and preserves privileged schools.
      I hope, therefore, we will come into the democratic scheme by completely abolishing fees, and allowing the common child to have what I agree, and what the middle class and upper class agree, is essential for their children, a prolonged

      1845
      education for the children of all our people throughout the length and breadth of our country, and not to condemn a section of our children to work at the age of 14 or 15 and allow another section to go to school up to 16, 17 and 18 years of age, and then expect the most intelligent of them to go to Oxford or Cambridge. That is the normal expectation of Members opposite regarding their children. It is quite an ordinary thing for them to say, "My boy shall go to the public school or grammar school, or direct grant aided school, and shall have an education up to 18," and "That boy of mine shall not only go to school up to i8, but shall go to the university as well," In that they are quite right. Those hon. Members know the value of education, the value of keeping boys and girls in school with a prolonged school life, with university education. What surprises me is that those who represent the universities seem to sneer at it for other sections of the community. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] I would like the Senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) to give his views.
      Mr. Pickthorn: If the hon. Member challenges me, I will.
      Mr. Cove: I do challenge the hon. Member. I challenge him on this: he would agree that people who could afford it are perfectly right in saying that their children shall remain under the educative process in schools and universities as long as possible, until they reach the age of maturity. That is perfectly right. I say that also ought to be applied to the children of the ordinary common folk of this country, and it cannot be applied unless there is a complete abolition of fees and, indeed, something else I cannot develop now, a positive contribution of maintenance grants, in order that our common children may go to the same educational institution as they so meaningly and intelligently desire their children shall go to.
      Mr. Wilmot: I rise only to say that I hope the Minister will give the most earnest consideration to this Amendment, which has been so ably moved and seconded by my hon. Friends. They stated the case for it so well, that I do not need to repeat it. We regard this as a vital point. We see in this omission of the assisted schools a major defect in this
      1846
      otherwise excellent Bill. The principle that you should not mix fee paying pupils and free pupils in a school has been admitted in the Bill. This Clause provides that no fees shall be paid in the case of a maintained school. We think it is absolutely vital that that principle shall be extended to include the assisted school and the school in receipt of public grants, so that all the pupils in these schools shall be on an equal footing, and that there shall not be some who are of a superior social level to the others. It is a vital point, and I hope that the Minister, between now and the Third Reading of this Bill, will consider this again.
      Mr. Butler: I realise from the Debates that have been held on this subject that much interest attaches to this question, and I think that some of the difficulty in the minds of hon. Members opposite arises from the fact that they have greatly enlarged the scope or area of the difficulty which they encounter. For example, it has been put to me that Sub-section (1) of Clause 9 of the Bill which actually uses this word "assist" and which reads,
      "… so far as may be authorised by arrangements approved by the Minister, to assist any such school which is not maintained by them."
      have given the impression that it is contemplated that there will be a large number of assisted schools which, by the mere fact that they are assisted will, thereby be able to charge fees.
      That is a point which was raised by the hon. Member for Averavon (Mr. Cove). I am very glad to have this opportunity definitely to deny that it is the intention, either of the Bill or of Government policy, that there should, in fact, be a large class of such schools or that there should be an opportunity for schools which have the right to opt for controlled, or aided, status to slip into some amorphous state and to charge fees. This will enable me to interpret the Bill in that way, and thus considerably to narrow the area of disagreement. What is the area of disagreement? I maintain that it is very small. Let us see what "assisted" means under this Bill. It is necessary to turn to Clause 105, on page 78 of the Bill, where it is seen that
      "where a local education authority make to the proprietor of any school which is not maintained by the authority or to the persons responsible for the maintenance of any training college or other institution which is not

      1847
      so maintained, any grant in respect of the school college or institution or any payment in consideration of the provision of educational facilities thereat, the school college or institution shall be deemed to be assisted by the authority."
      The words to which I wish-to draw attention are:
      "any payment in consideration of the provision of educational facilities thereat."
      Those words are very important. The object is precisely to give opportunities to children, who would not otherwise have such opportunities, of going to certain schools. That is a democratic procedure, and not anti-democratic. The fact that hon. Gentlemen opposite would prohibit the charging of fees in any school which was assisted would have the opposite effect to what they have in mind. The object of assisting these schools is to bring them within the reach of poor pupils, and to provide a link between the pupils in the maintained schools and others going to schools of a type to which they have not normally gone before. It would he a great mistake to accept the Amendment.
      But hon. Members have not only that in view, in moving the Amendment. One of their great difficulties arises from the problem of the direct-grant schools. I have tried before to put this matter into its proper perspective. It is fantastic to adopt the view in this House that it is immoral for a parent to pay for the education of a child. In fact, I think the sacrifice involved is, in many respects, a very good thing, and highly moral. Earlier, I said that, provided certain conditions were observed, we saw no reason why a clean sweep should be made of fees in direct-grant schools. We are abolishing the payment of fees in all maintained schools. I have said it is not the intention of the Government that schools shall slip into some amorphous status, and, so, charge fees. We restrict the fee-paying area to the comparatively small one where it will be possible for people to buy the education of their children a t a certain rate. I maintain, unlike the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer), that that is consistent with the whole spirit of the Bill. One of the fundamental principles of this Bill is that we shall have not complete uniformity, but a diversity of choice, in our educational system. Another principle is that we shall link up all the schools in the country much more closely than before, to give
      1848
      an opportunity for pupils to go to the types of school which suit them best.
      We found great gaps between the different types of school. For instance, the independent schools were not even inspected. The recommendations of the Committee presided over by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary were not even implemented. We have dealt with that in this Bill. There is no desire either on our part to avoid linking up the public schools with the general State system. We are awaiting the Report of the Fleming Committee, which I hope, like its brother the McNair Committee's Report, will see the light of day at a time not too far ahead. That will show how we are linking up the direct-grant schools with the maintained schools. The only difference between myself and hon. Members opposite is that I do not desire to make one uniform type of school for the whole country.
      Mr. Wilmot: It would help us very much if we had some idea how many direct-grant schools there, would be, and how many pupils they would have between them.
      Mr. Butler: That is my next point. If the picture is to be filled in for hon. Members, all they have to accept is the principle of diverse types of school. You cannot tell which type of school produces the best type of pupil. We have church schools and we have direct-grant schools. We have different types of schools. In order to satisfy the aspirations of hon. Members opposite, it is desirable that pupils should be able to pass from one type of school to another, that they should have some assurance that any schools which are to be given the option shall not all pass on to the direct-grant list, thereby overweighting the balance, and some assurance as to the way local authorities and others can pass their pupils into the schools. My desire is that there shall be a direct-grant list, and that schools entering this list shall fulfil certain definite conditions, which will be laid down in due course, directly we receive the Report, to which I have referred. We also desire that pupils at present catered for by local authorities shall have the opportunity of passing to direct-grant schools. I cannot do better than remind hon. Members of the words which I used on the Second Reading:
      "At the same time, these schools"—

      1849
      the direct-grant schools—
      "as others in the secondary sphere, must be accessible to all, whatever their financial circumstances. Further, it is essential that the local education authority, in planning the education for its area, should be able to count on places in these schools to the extent required to supplement the provision in the maintained schools. This is particularly the case where the direct-grant school forms the greater part of the provision."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th January, 1944; cols. 223–4, Vol. 396.]
      It must be realised that in some cities the direct-grant schools form the major part of the provision. We see the picture forming that all the schools in this country of varied and diverse types are gradually Brought closer together by the opportunities given for pupils of different types to pass from one to another, that there are opportunities of accessibility in the direct-grant list which were not given before and that we have in the direct-grant schools something, preferably not entirely local, which meets a need in our education system. We gradually see a linking-up in the whole school system of the country in a way which did not exist before.
      The only satisfaction which I cannot give to hon. Members opposite, if they accept this principle that pupils shall be able to pass to direct grant schools, if the authority in their area considers that it is desirable, is that I cannot say what are the exact details of the picture, because I am not yet in possession of all the information which will enable me to frame that picture. If I give an assurance to the House that it will be my desire in my official responsibilities to complete the work which I have tried to put into this Bill by drawing a complete picture of secondary education during the course of this summer, I think that will show that there is nothing particularly sinister in the way the Bill has been drawn, and that I am only asking the House to accept the view that, in itself, it is not immoral to pay for the education of your children, and that it is wise also to accompany that provision with another that children should be able to pass to other schools. But I will say that never has English schooling been brought more closely together in a compact whole, and I hope that never, from this day onwards, shall we try to make all our schools the same.
      Mr. Lipson: May I ask the Minister two questions? When a school receiving a direct grant is told by a local educa-
      1850
      tion authority to provide free places for other children, are the governors compelled to provide those places? My second question concerns the direct grant list. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean the existing list, or is he proposing to revise the existing list and bring in other schools, and will it be possible for schools at present maintained to apply to become direct grant schools, and, if so, would that request be granted?
      Mr. Butler: With the permission of the House, I will reply to the hon. Member. I would refer him to the White Paper on the Principles of Government in Maintained Secondary Schools, which refers to the question of the admission of pupils to secondary schools. Subject to consideration of the detailed circumstances of the direct grant school, these general principles will help us very much in considering this matter. On the subject of the direct grant list, the only thing I can add is that, subject to the schools fulfilling the conditions, they will be able to opt in those circumstances.
      Amendment negatived.
      Sir R. Wells: I beg to move, in page 49, line 2, to leave out "auxiliary."
      Might I ask whether the House might also consider the two following Amendments:
      In page 49, line 2, after the second school, "insert" except to the extent of any profit derived from the letting thereof";
      In page 49, line 2, after the second "school," insert "not conducted for private profit."
      which are all on the same matter?
      Mr. Speaker: It will be in Order to discuss all three Amendments.
      Sir R. Wells: The object of the Amendments is to relieve of rates schools which do not make a profit. I have been connected with direct grant schools for very many years, and I would like to tell hoe. Members opposite that we have provided a very large number of free places, and pupils have passed through our schools and gone on to universities for many years past. What we fear in our schools, in this change that is taking place in general free secondary education, is that the standard of education will fall because you cannot bring all the free secondary schools up to the same level as direct

      1851
      grant-aided schools. Gradually, they may arrive at the same level, and when that time arrives parents of pupils will have no need to pay fees at all, because they will be satisfied with the schools. This Amendment applies to schools that do not make a profit, and I would say also that it is our desire that we should keep the fees of these schools as law as possible in order to give the opportunities to parents that are available at the present time. As is generally known, expenses are going up every year, both general expenses and teachers' salaries, which have advanced very considerably, and relieving these schools of rates is going to help a great deal.
      Over a long term of years, we have saved the rates of the county many thousands of pounds each year, and it is time, I think, that they should realise this fact and help us now by relieving us of these rates. We have also saved the general taxes. I believe that in an ordinary secondary county school, the cost of a pupil is something like £20 a year to the local authority. In a direct grant school, with which I am connected, the cost is, I believe, about half, so that there is a general advantage to the local education authorities to keep these schools going.
      Sir J. Mellor: I beg to second the Amendment, which is for the benefit of course, of the direct grant schools and the independent schools. As these schools provide education which, if they did not exist, would have to be provided by maintained schools, I cannot see why these schools should not equally benefit by exemption from rates together with the maintained schools. The Parliamentary Secretary, during the Debate on a somewhat similar Amendment during the Committee stage of the Bill, said:
      "These schools are allowed to charge fees but are left with the obligation to pay rates."
      I really cannot see the logical sequence in the proposition that if schools are allowed to charge fees they should therefore be obliged to pay rates. After all, it is the parents who pay the fees and, when, you take it in the ultimate result, it is the parents who pay the rates, whether directly to the local authority or whether indirectly through the school being rated, having to pay higher fees than they would otherwise have to pay. During that same discussion the Parlia-
      1852
      mentary Secretary did, in fact, say that he would give consideration to a proposal put to him that, at least, a direct grant or independent school might be relieved of some part of its rate, the degree of exemption to be related to the extent to which local pupils attended the school. That seems to be a logical proposal, and I should like to know whether the Parliamentary Secretary has considered, as he indicated he would, and, if so, whether he has been able to view that proposal more favourably. I prefer to go further and argue the more general case. I think that there should be a uniform exemption from rates for all schools, not conducted for purposes of private profit, far the simple reason that these direct grant or independent schools provide education which, if they did not exist, would have to be provided by the maintained schools.
      Mr. Pickthorn: I should like to put in one short footnote in support of the hon. Members who have put forward this Amendment. If I fall into any inaccuracy, I apologise for not knowing the Bill so well now as on the Committee stage, but I hope I am putting the point fairly. The schools with which this Amendment is concerned at the present moment find a benefaction to be a positive burden. When a rich old boy gives a swimming-pool, or a gymnasium, or in some other way the premises are improved, the effect is that their rateable value increases, whereas, for the other schools, the rates do not matter either way because the thing is purely a book-keeping transaction. It follows, therefore, that if this Amendment is not accepted, there will be a real handicap to the kind of school which most of us encourage to improve their premises, because if it does so it thereby increases its annual expenses. I hope that my right hon. Friend or his deputy may be able to consider this Amendment.
      Mr. Messer: I want to oppose the Amendment for exactly the same reasons that I supported the previous Amendment. There may be a private school and it is possible that it is not being run at a profit. Why should people who want to pay for their children be relieved of rates? Public money is spent on these services, and if parents do not like their children to go to schools for which rates are being paid, they should be prepared to pay for the establishments which they support.
      Mr. Ede: The words of the Amendment, with the consequential Amendment later, go far beyond the argument that has been adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Sir R. Wells) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor). The effect of these two Amendments, if carried, would be to relieve every county school of rates, as well as auxiliary and direct grant schools. County schools are not carried on for private profit. The effect would he that every school, except the independent school, would be exempt from rates. I do not believe that that was what my hon. Friends intended to do, but that would be the effect of carrying these two Amendments. With regard to the point put by the hon. Member the Senior Burgess of Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), it is one of the faults of our rating system that the more you improve your premises the more heavily you are rated. When I had the pleasure of sitting on the other side of the House with less responsibility, I occasionally attacked the present rating system from that point of view, but I cannot recall that I ever received any great support from the hon. Member.
      Mr. Pickthorn: Nor can I recall the efforts, but I am sure that, if I were here at that time, I was always opposed to the present rating system.
      Mr. Ede: I am aware that my remarks do not excite as much interest in the House as those of my hon, Friend but, having hidden my light under a bushel, I can assure him that it was always burning on this particular matter. The difficulty with regard to the matter is that when we came to the re-arrangement system under the Bill we found ourselves faced with the anomaly that the old elementary schools called voluntary, the Church, Roman Catholic and Methodist schools, were exempt from rates and had been so for a good many years. The aided secondary schools, which were schools of a smaller type, had not been exempt from rates. When we made all education over 11 secondary—
      Mr. Pickthorn: You called it secondary; you did not make it secondary.
      Mr. Ede: We not only called it but we have made it secondary, at any rate, secondary in point of time. I hope that
      1854
      we are going to get rid of the idea that the grammar school product is a necessity in some ways superior to the product of the good technical school. A good many grammar schools are merely technical schools for the Civil Service. We are faced with the difficulty that either we have to make schools, which had not paid rates, pay them in future or relieve the old secondary school from the obligation to pay rates. We came to the conclusion that the proper thing to do was to exempt both these types of schools. I have no doubt that the rating law of this country will have to be amended at some time or other and the indirect points raised to-day ought to be dealt with under the rating law and not under this law. May I say to the hon. Member the Senior Burgess for Cambridge University that this is not merely a book-keeping transaction. The county ratepayer in future in the counties will maintain these schools, but the services that are rendered will be rendered by county district councils in the supply of drainage, of roads and of other essential services.
      The existence of these schools in certain areas involves the local authority in expenses in the directions I have indicated and in other directions. It would not be possible within the limits of this Bill to deal satisfactorily with this problem. The effect of the Amendment would be not merely to relieve these voluntary schools from paying rates but the county schools, the old council schools, the old maintained secondary schools, and would in many cases effect a substantial reduction in the rateable value of certain districts which serve an area far larger than the districts in which the school is situated. Therefore, I regret that it is not possible to accept the Amendment.
      Amendment negatived.

      CLAUSE 66.—(Registration of independent schools.)
      Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 51, line 8, to leave out "or any class of independent schools."
      Clause 66 deals with independent schools, but the Minister has the power to exempt certain schools from registration, including "any class of independent schools." I cannot understand—I could not understand on the Committee stage—why any class of independent school was

      1855
      omitted, and although he tried to explain it, he did not do it to my satisfaction. Eventually he promised that he might be able, on mature consideration, to accept the Amendment. He has had an opportunity of mature consideration, and I now await his acceptance of the Amendment. These words are quite unnecessary and they are capable of a sinister interpretation.
      Mr. Tinker: I beg to second the Amendment.
      Mr. Ede: I was not quite clear what this sinister interpretation was which my hon. Friend referred to when in Committee, and I was hoping, if he renewed the attack, he would be more specific to-day. It is a great administrative advantage that impels us in this matter to have these words in the Clause. May I give my hon. Friend a class of school—the approved schools. They are schools within the definition of the Bill. They are, as my hon. Friend knows, at the moment under the Home Office. They are conducted in accordance with certain Government requirements and I cannot imagine that anyone desires that those schools should be registered. If we were to exempt them, we should have to exempt them or deal with them name by name. Now under this we are able—
      Mr. Silkin: Would the hon. Gentleman call those approved schools, independent schools?
      Mr. Ede: Yes, according to the definition in the Bill, they are independent schools. That is one class of school we do not desire to have to specify individually. If my hon. Friend thinks that I refer to "class" in the Sense that I sometimes hear the words "class war" used, I want to assure him that that is not the case at all. There is also the group of schools referred to earlier to-day, some 35 schools in orphanages and other places, of which we have the fullest particulars and about which we know all that we could know under the Bill. That is what we mean by a "class of school" and, rather than have long lists of individual schools, I suggest that it is better in such cases to indicate that approved schools, certified efficient schools, and so on, will not be required to register.
      Mr. Silkin: I should like to continue the argument, but, in view of the time, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

      CLAUSE 76.—(Power of local education authorities to give assistance by means of scholarships and otherwise.)
      Mr. Butler: I beg to move, in page 58, line 34, at the end, to insert:
      "(2) A local education authority shall have power, so far as may be authorised 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."
      This is an Amendment to enable a local education authority, if they think fit and the Minister approves, to assist the governors of a secondary school or grammar school type to meet liabilities incurred before the date of the commencement of Part II of the Act. The Amendment is strictly limited in character, and required for a strictly limited purpose to carry on existing practice—for example, to enable the authority to continue to help—I underline those words—to pay off loans, to meet expenditure on the school premises where the authority had previously given that assistance by way of a deficiency grant under the existing law. That, I think, explains the Sub-section which was made necessary by a small omission in the Bill as drafted, and which I think brings it into line with existing practice.
      Amendment agreed to.

      CLAUSE 92.—(Compensation of persons prejudicially affected by this Act.)
      Mr. Butler: I beg to move, in page 66, line 46, to leave out "President of the Board," and to insert "Minister."
      This Amendment, and the next Amendment which is consequential, follow on an earlier decision taken by the House.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendment made: In page 67, line 3, leave out "President of the Board," and insert "Minister." [Mr. Butler.]

      CLAUSE 97.—(Power of the Minister to make grants in respect of aided schools and special agreement schools transferred to new sites or established in substitution for former schools.)
      Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 71, line 14, to leave out Sub-section (2).
      It will be within the recollection of the House that earlier to-day we inserted a new Clause in the Bill to take the place of this Sub-section, and therefore this Subsection is no longer required.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendment made: In page 71, line 28, at the beginning, insert "Provided that."—[Mr. Ede.]

      CLAUSE 98. — (Power of Minister to make loans to aided schools and special agreement schools in respect of initial expenditure.)
      Mr. Butler: I beg to move, in page 72, line 24, at the end, to insert:
      " (3) If upon an application being made to him under Sub-section (2) of Section fourteen of this Act for an order directing that a school shall be an aided school or a special agreement school it appears to the Minister that the area served by the school will not be also served by any county school or controlled school, then, unless he is satisfied that the managers or governors of the school will be able to defray the expenses which would fall to be borne by them under paragraph (a) of Sub-section (3) of that Section without the assistance of a loan under this Section, the Minister shall consult such persons or bodies of persons as appear to him to be representative of any religious denomination which, in his opinion having regard to the circumstances of the area, are likely to be concerned; and, unless after such consultation he is satisfied that the holding of a local inquiry is unnecessary, shall cause such inquiry to be held before determining the application."
      This is an important addition to the Bill, and was inserted as a result of our discussion on the Committee stage. The object of this Amendment is to enable the loan procedure which we agreed upon before to be so administered as to give satisfaction in areas which are known as single school areas. This Sub-section in one way makes educational history because it is the first occasion upon which there has been any definition; of this problem in an Act of Parliament. To that extent I think it should be widely welcomed by the House.
      I have had an opportunity of discussing it with certain interests outside and I am
      1858
      glad to say that it has, on the whole, been very well received. The definition of the single school area is included in the middle of the drafting, which can be read upon the Order Paper:
      "That the area served by the school will not be also served by any county school or controlled school."
      The machinery of this Sub-section is tied up with the Minister's examination of the question. Where the managers of an auxiliary school are unable to meet the liabilities under the new terms of Clause 14 without the aid of a loan, and desire a loan in order to meet their liabilities
      "the Minister shall consult such persons or bodies of persons as appear to him to be representative of any religious denomination which, in his opinion, having regard to the circumstances of the area, are likely to be concerned."
      The object of that is simply to bring into the consideration of the question of their meeting their liabilities with the aid of a loan the diocesan bodies representing those concerned in the local area. Of course, as this will be a single school area, it would be necessary to consult the diocesan body representing the Anglicans and the analogous body representing the Free Churches. The value of that is that it enables the Minister to examine the question at that level, and to consider whether the loan in those circumstances is desirable. The Clause then goes on to read:
      "Unless after such consultation he is satisfied that the holding of a local inquiry is unnecessary, shall cause such inquiry to be held before determining the application."
      The object of that is simply that it is a very good thing, if a loan is to be given in what is known as the single school area, to enable a school to be an aided school, that there should be an opportunity for a local inquiry so that the locality can express its views. In this way it will be possible to see under the normal procedure under which the Board conducts its inquiries—and the Board are very used to conducting local inquiries with an independent person—whether it is desirable to give a loan to enable that school in that area to become aided or not. That meets the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes) in the course of the Committee stage, when he himself mentioned the device of a public inquiry. We thought it was very valuable to provide for consultation at the diocesan level in case it should prove that

      1859
      a local inquiry was unnecessary. It may be that in some cases, the village being so predominantly Anglican, for example, there is in fact no grievance.
      Our researches all go to show that what is known as the grievance of the single school area does not in fact exist in every area in the country where there is only one school of a denominational character. But it does exist in certain areas. I had a discussion on this matter with certain hon. Members who represent different parts of England where this grievance may be said, to be the most endemic, and it became quite clear to us that fortunately to-day local difficulties are very strictly limited to certain areas. The advantage, therefore, of having some consultation before an inquiry is held is simply to render it unnecessary to hold a very large number of inquiries in cases where they would in fact be totally unnecessary. But in cases where it is in fact necessary to ascertain local opinion, we have adopted the machinery suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen, and we have inserted in the Bill a new provision which limits the giving of a loan to places where the Minister is satisfied that after a local inquiry the grievance, if there be one locally, would not be perpetuated. Therefore, with the aid of the House, I think we have devised machinery which will help the Board of Education locally.
      Mr. Cove: I am sorry to introduce a rather critical note on this Amendment. I know. that the House has already decided that loans shall be granted, and I have to accept that decision, but, frankly, I have to express deep regret—and in this I am expressing the views of organised teachers—that this Amendment should have been necessary, and that it should have taken this form. I do not want to argue the case at great length but I, and others outside who have studied it, regard this as a concession to the Church authorities which control the Church schools throughout the single-school areas. The scheme which the Minister has put forward is that there shall be a diocesan area and a pool for financing Church schools. If individual Church schools were on their own footing then those schools would, in a number of areas, go out of existence, but by this scheme they have a chance to review the whole of the
      1860
      area. What can conceivably happen? The Church authorities will say, "Here is an area which is partly industrial and partly rural," and they will be able to combine a pool of finance. Where there is a school of 200 children they will take money out of the diocesan fund, but where there is a school of, say, 30 children on the border they will let that school go. The Bill provides, rightly, that transport shall be found for Church children in those schools to go to other Church schools. So, the general effect of this Amendment is to strengthen the hold of the Church of England in the single-school areas.
      Mr. Butler: Perhaps I can save a good deal of misunderstanding. We have brought in mention of the persons representing these schools for the purpose of bringing in, particularly, the opinion of the Free Churches. This is not a method of financing; it has nothing to do with finance. It is to bring in opinion from Free Church and Anglican leaders so that the Minister may be informed as to where trouble is to brew locally, and a local inquiry can be saved. It is not a sinister method of financing anything.
      Mr. Cove: It is related to finding the other 50 per cent. by loan. There is a 5o per cent. grant, and then a loan, and this machineryis directed to financing that loan. I say, quite definitely, that it will result in the entrenchment of the denominational schools in the single-school areas. I am surprised that the Free Church Members of this House have been so anaemic, so lacking in the old historical attitude towards this problem. I am prepared to meet up to 100 per cent. clear and genuine denominational schools, but I am not prepared to give public money to schools that do not meet that situation. The schools in the single-school areas do not. Those schools, with their varying political opinions among residents in the villages, and, more particularly, with their varying religious opinions, ought to be council schools. I feel profoundly and deeply that single schools throughout the whole of Britain ought to have gone over to the State and become council schools. One could then have met genuinely all the deep religious feelings Of our people in the various areas. I do not accept the explanation which has been given. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes) may disagree, but I say that this will result in the con-

      1861
      tinuance and entrenchment of the Church schools in the single-school areas, and I regret that I epresentatives of Nonconformity have agreed to that policy and that result.
      Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: It will be news to my doctor that I am an anaemic Nonconformist, but at any rate I am not ignorant. Apparently, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) has not appreciated the terms of the new Clause we are discussing. I would inform him, and remind the House, that the ability of a denomination to collect its funds from any quarter and employ them to provide money for a particular school has already been accepted and is in the Bill. This Clause has nothing to do with that whatever. I deplored that myself, but it has been accepted and, therefore, it is not under discussion now. The power given to the Minister to grant these loans to enable a denomination to raise the necessary 50 per cent. has already been established; it is not at issue on this Clause at all. Those two things cannot any longer be discussed.
      On that basis what have we here? My hon. Friend says a concession to the Church schools. In fact they are provided, where they otherwise had not got them, and quite properly provided, with two hurdles to get over which did not exist before this Clause came into the Bill. In the first place they will have to satisfy the Diocesan Conference that it is proper that a school in a given area should be an aided school. I know it will not be the same in every diocese but there are many dioceses where the authorities take a very broad view of these matters and will discourage any effort to establish an aided school in some of these single school areas. Even if the Diocesan Conference is ready to proceed, the Minister under this Clause will call a conference of the interested religious denominations and, unless they can satisfy him—and all kinds of representations will be made from different directions—they will find themselves faced with the Minister's disapproval. Suppose the Minister accepts that the religious authorities are satisfied that this should go forward; there comes the second hurdle. A local inquiry has to be held. I regard this as a very considerable concession agreed to by a number of responsible authorities in the Church of England, because there are single-school areas
      1862
      where, on the counting of heads, the Anglican Church might claim to have a majority whereas on a local inquiry they will not find in that area itself the popular support which would justify the continuance of an aided school. These two additional hurdles have been provided, and they are fair and proper ones. I welcome their provision and I hope the Amendment will be wholeheartedly accepted.
      Mr. Tinker: I support the Amendment. I think the Minister has tried to get over a difficulty. I take it that the Bill is trying to give satisfaction to every section of the community. The Minister is saying, "If you want to be an aided school you must make application to me and I will have an inquiry," because, no doubt, we want to find out about these single school areas and see whether they shall get public help if they are to be kept on. If the Minister is satisfied that they should have it he says, "I am prepared to do it.' If he decides that a single school area should not have support, and the school is not worth keeping on, he can decide that way. He will decide whether they shall have it or not and there can be nothing wrong in an Amendment of that kind.
      Mr. Harvey: The Minister is to be congratulated upon the sincere effort he has made to do justice to various claims which seemed to conflict, and to get a settlement of an ancient difficulty which has caused great heartburning in the past and, even now, may cause in some places serious disagreement. It has been a matter of great regret. Under the limitations of the Bill and of the decisions that we have already reached, the Minister has done exceedingly well in putting forward this proposal, and I believe that, if on all sides we have good will and a desire for justice to others, this proposal wilt work. It will remove from our national life a real cause of difficulty and of educational disturbance.
      Think of the discussion that we have had to-day, and compare it with the bitter and heated discussions which this House knew 40 years ago. We shall agree that immense progress has been made, not because we have fewer differences hut because we have a deeper understanding of the great common things that unite us and a greater appreciation of different points of view. The growth of understanding has been shared: it is not confined to

      1863
      any one Church or religious community. I think the country as a whole will welcome the spirit in which the Minister and his colleagues have made this proposal. We can look forward to its being carried through with great success, because we can trust to this spirit and to the desire for justice that goes with it.
      Mr. Denman: In a couple of sentences I want to thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for the wholehearted acceptance that he gave to this Amendment. The spirit that he showed ought to be met on this side with equal warmth. I hope the concession will really serve to close the door on an ancient and exceedingly regrettable controversy. I believe that the President has taken a very wise course in removing the controversy from the immediate area in which it arose and taking it into a wider pool where it can be suitably dissolved.
      Mr. Cove: Back to the localities.
      Mr. Denman: I think the machinery is wise, and I congratulate both the Ministers on their ingenuity in devising it and those who have so thoroughly accepted it.
      Mr. Ede: I want to make it clear that the greatest consideration has been given to the Free Church point of view on this matter. Representative Free Churchmen, who speak for them nationally, were consulted, and have given their whole-hearted approval to the line that my right hon. Friend has adopted. It will be within the memory of those who attended our deliberations in Committee that I read a letter from one whom I regard as among the more extreme holders of the historic Nonconformist point of view, expressing his approval of this proposal before the Amendment was drafted. The effect is not to give an additional concession to the Church. It is, in fact, a limitation of the possibilities of the Clause as originally drafted. The Nonconformist bodies, after all, are not so loosely organised as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) suggested. The denomination in which I was brought up, the Congregational, has it County Congregational Unions, which are capable of speaking for the Congregational Churches and mission stations.
      Mr. Cove: I do not want to enter into any controversy, but, quite frankly, there
      1864
      are published letters which I can bring before the House showing that the Nonconformists are loosely organised and deeply divided.
      Mr. Ede: I am giving the House my experience as one who was brought up as a Nonconformist and has never been a Free Churchman. The Baptist denomination has its own associations covering similar ground. There are few more highly organised communities in this country than the Methodist communion, with its tremendous hold on the people of the villages through its class leaders and highly organised social system. Of course there are in addition the Free Church Councils, which do not exist in every part of the country, although there is little of the country that is not now organised. If they are in any district where there is a single school grievance the machinery in this Amendment will enable local opinion to make that known. That is a thing that has never been possible before.
      When I was a lad attending a Church school in a single school area my father went to the town hall to vote for a school board, because the Church was unable to raise the money to maintain its school. It was announced at the meeting that it would be unnecessary to proceed with the business because the Epsom Grand Stand Association had found the money to carry on the school. They paid a fifth of the rates and did not want a school board. So I always feel that I have to explain my religious shortcomings, not to the Archbishop of Canterbury but to the Stewards of the Jockey Club. That will not happen under this Bill. When the application is made for the loan my right hon. Friend will consult representative Free Churchmen of the locality and if they say "This is an area where we think that owing to local circumstances it is desirable that this school should not be an aided school but a controlled school" a local inquiry will be held in respect of the application for a loan. This is the first time in the history of education law that that has been possible, and I, for one, as a Nonconformist am heartily glad that my right hon. Friend has been so largely able to meet the one outstanding grievance which remained to people of my faith and order.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Ordered:
      "That further consideration of the Bill as amended in Committee and on re-committal be now adjourned."'—[Mr. Pym.]
      Bill (as amended in Committee and on re-committal) to be further considered To-morrow.

    PARLIAMENTARY REFORM
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pym.]
    Captain Cunningham-Reid: I am a little diffident at starting an Adjournment Debate at this late hour, because I have been particularly anxious not to abuse this certain half-hour concession that has been given to Private Members, but as my right hon. Friend, the Minister who is taking this Debate, has been good enough to stay, I shall proceed. I want to raise the question of Parliamentary reform. Once upon a time I was an official member of a political party, but recently, by my political actions, I deliberately severed myself from any party. The natural inference to be drawn from that would be that I am against parties. On the contrary, I have no quarrel with the party system as such. My objection is that the party system has been carried too far, to the unjustifiable length of preventing the representatives of the people acting in Parliament in a way that they, and very often the majority of their constituents, think right. There was a glaring example only the other day, and there had been many examples before then. The example to which I am referring was when Members of Parliament were forced by the party managers to retract their decision concerning an increase of pay for certain women workers. It seems to me that there is a growing tendency for M.P.s to be more members of parties and less Members of Parliament.
    I am anxious to put both sides of this question. I believe that I would be stating the official Government case against more freedom of voting in Parliament if I were to say that as a. Government have to go to the country if they have a series of minor defeats in quick succession, or if they have a defeat on a major issue, and that if all Government party M.P.s voted in Parliament just as they pleased, the situation could well become intolerable
    1866
    from any Government's point of view, and injurious from the country's point of view. For, in the event of constant changes of Administration, as might occur in such circumstances, there would be no continuity of national policy, and the same condition might prevail as did in France with such disastrous consequences. I hope that that will be considered a fair interpretation of the official case. Anyhow it sounds a plausible justification for the party Whips—that is to say, the party managers—demanding that Members of Parliament shall do what they are told, and not what they would sometimes like to do, as dictated by their consciences and the fitness of things.
    The official explanation—and I have often heard it—is a cunning one, so much so that it is accepted by what one might even call undocile Members, those Members who resent being fettered. The result is that the Whips and other party functionaries often laugh up their sleeves, because they know, just as many Members know, that that time-worn excuse for demoralising M.P.s does not bear close examination. They also know that an alternative workable procedure could be arranged by a very simple Parliamentary reform. There may be several ways of dealing with this, but here is one. I have discussed this method with one or two people who know considerably more abort procedure than I do, and I am informed there is no reason why it should not work. It should be recognised that the only adverse vote upon which a Government would be expected to resign would be if they did not carry a Vote of Confidence in the Government as a whole, and that in no circumstances should any such Vote of Confidence in the Government as a whole be linked up with the particular detail of Government policy that the majority by their votes did not approve of.
    The following would be the course of events. When the Government were defeated in the Division Lobby on any issue, that Vote to be followed by a definite Vote of Confidence in the Government as a whole, on the understanding that, if they were defeated on that, there would either be a new Government or a General Election would be called. If not defeated, the Government would bow to the will of the House on the particular issue in question and carry on, or, if the Government were still anxious to have their way on the

    1867
    issue upon which they were originally defeated, they would reintroduce it, not as a Vote of Confidence, but in the ordinary way, and, if again defeated, it would then be the Government's responsibility whether they accepted such a determined wish of the majority of the House on this particular matter or whether they preferred to consult the majority outside the House. In that case, they might look very silly and lose much support, having just received a Vote of Confidence in their stewardship as a whole from the representatives of the people in Parliament.
    The proposed revised procedure would mean that staunch supporters of the Government could, by their vote, defeat some particular aspect of the Government's programme without necessarily right away jeopardising the life of that Government, and their attitude would be made clear when, subsequently, they supported a Vote of Confidence in the Government as a whole.
    Captain Prescott: If I understand the position correctly, if the Government were defeated upon a certain matter in the Division Lobby, then they would come to the House and ask for a Vote of Confidence in general, and not on that particular issue. If they received that Vote of Confidence, they could, if they wished, reintroduce the Measure on which they had been defeated, and, if again defeated, either accept the defeat or go to the country. Is that logical? How can the hon. and gallant Member call it a Vote of Confidence when the House would be declining to accept the wishes of the Government in one particular respect?
    Captain Cunningham-Reid: It does not necessarily mean, because hon. Members of this House should defeat the Government on a particular issue, that they have lost confidence in the Government as a whole. That is what I want to try and get over, and I think it is what a great many hon. Members want to get over.
    Captain Prescott rose—
    Captain Cunningham-Reid: I have very little time and I want to leave a few minutes for the Minister to reply and there are only a few minutes left. Provided that the Government—any Government—was reasonably sound, its followers would undoubtedly support the second
    1868
    Vote of Confidence in the Government as a whole, because, to put it at its lowest level, no hon. Member enjoys having to expend hundreds of pounds for election expenses as many have to do, and into the bargain, possibly losing his seat and £600 a year.
    I know full well that this question of Parliamentary reform cannot be adequately dealt with in a short Adjournment Debate. Consequently, to use the parlance of the movies, I am merely employing this occasion as what one might term a trailer, which I hope will have the effect of bringing to the House, and possibly to the Minister in charge, the desirability of time being given, possibly after Whitsun, for a full Debate on this subject. I am not asking the Minister to-day for any long reply, but I am asking him that he will be so good as to convey what I have said, and what I am going to say, to the Leader of the House, and that possibly, when he finds, as I hope he will, that a large number of hon. Members of this House would like to discuss this all-important question of Parliamentary reform, a full day will be given to it. I understand that there is a possibility that the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton) may be raising this matter on the Adjournment before we go away for Whitsun. But although of necessity that, in turn, may also be a very short Debate and not sufficient for the purpose, the fact that he is raising it shows that there are hon. Members who are taking an interest in the subject generally and emphasises my demand. I am hoping that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy, if there is such a Debate, will be taking it. We know that he is a great authority on these matters; possibly the House may not be aware that in 1931–32 he was Chairman of a Select Committee that looked into the question of Procedure and sat for over a month. One can appreciate how successful was his chairmanship because there was something unique about that Committee inasmuch as all its findings were adopted. That was a Committee which was largely to do with Parliamentary reform of one kind or another.
    The simple voting procedure that I have outlined would do away with that constant General Election bogy which the Whips have used for so long and so effec-

    1869
    tively to justify their despotic control. Nobody could possibly complain—and it is essential that there should be Whips—if they confined their persuasion of M.Ps. to vote in a certain direction by using persuasion which was fair. It will be agreed that an M.P. very properly has not the right or the power to say to his electors, "Unless you vote for me, you will not get on in your career, in fact, however efficient you are, I can, and shall, see to it that you are not to be given a chance, or, alternatively, if you vote for me, I will advance your financial and social position, and possibly both." Such a practice would be most immoral but it is exactly what happens in Parliament. The people whose job it is to persuade Members of Parliament to vote in a certain direction are the same people who have the power to make them support the Government. The Government Whips have it in their power constantly to threaten the representatives of the people with a General Election and other dire penalties, such as taking away from a Member at a subsequent election the support of a powerful party machine or possibly the letter of endorsement from a popular Prime Minister. But the power of the Government Whips only starts there. It is they who make recommendations for Government jobs and it is the Chief Whip, alias the Patronage Secretary, who doles out the patronage.
    The boys in the back room have a bun for practically every taste. If the recipient would be content with a minor civilian decoration, they can provide it. It may be a knighthood, it may be a marquisate, it may be a governorship abroad or a lord lieutenancy—they have got them all. They can cater for the vanity and the ambition of practically any man. Surely the time is long overdue when the Government party Whips should most certainly be completely divorced from patronage. Patronage, if we must have it, should be left entirely to the Lord Chamberlain's Office, where a special permanent commission should be established, charged solely with preferment. It would be composed of men and women of integrity, as far removed from the political arena as possible, and this commission would take over the patronage power now possessed by the party Whips and make recommendations to the Lord Chamberlain. The various established political parties would make suggestions to the
    1870
    commission as would other accredited bodies, but the commission would be under no obligation to accept those recommendations, which it would only do after the most careful scrutiny. They would make recommendations for all civilian honours, including lord lieutenantships and suchlike. Where admissions to the peerage were deemed necessary, for Parliamentary purposes, the commission should determine the elevations.
    Anyhow, this procedure would have this effect: it would check the practice of handing out rewards to party hacks. That national honours should be handed out for party services—
    Earl Winterton: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I desire to ask you how far it is in Order in this House to discuss patronage by the Crown?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): It is certainly not in Order to discuss the direct patronage of the Crown, but I understand that the hon. and gallant Member is discussing the action of Members of the Government who, he says, make recommendations.
    Captain Cunningham-Reid: That is so, Sir. What I am wanting to say is that I consider that it is a national disgrace that national honours should be handed out for party services and to recoup party coffers.
    Earl Winterton: I desire to raise another point of Order, Sir. I suggest, with great respect, that the hon. and gallant Member is referring, when he talks of honours being handed out—he can only refer—to honours by the Crown, and I submit it is a gross breach of Order of this House for any criticism to he made of the manner in which the Crown gives honours.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will continue.
    Captain Cunningham-Reid: Surely honours are given on the advice of Ministers?
    Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. and gallant Member will confine himself to the question of Ministers, I shall be with him. Otherwise I think the Noble Lord is probably right on the question he has raised. It is not in Order to discuss the direct patronage of the Crown, but the hon. and gallant Member may discuss the actions of the Ministers.
    Captain Cunningham-Reid: Then I gather, Sir, that I would be correct to pursue my argument by saying that there is a necessity for a permanent commission to deal with these matters rather than it being left so much in the hands of the party Whips. That, no doubt, would be in Order. Therefore if such a permanent commission came into being, the Whips being relieved of their virtual power to dispense honours, the hon. Members who have no designs of becoming Ministers—
    Earl Winterton: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I must again raise a point of Order. I would call your attention to the fact—I apologise to the hon. and gallant Member for raising it—that this goes to the root of the position of the Crown in this House. The hon. and gallant Member has used the words "to dispense honours". That can only imply, in the ordinary meaning of the word, the contention that in some way the Whips are the people who dispense honours. I submit that all the hon. and gallant Member is entitled to do is to deal with the question of recommendation, and that by the use of the words "dispensing honours" he suggests that the Crown acts solely on the advice of the Whips.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That, of course, would be quite out of Order.
    Captain Cunningham-Reid: I will put it another way, for the benefit of the Noble Lord. The Whips, being relieved of, shall I say, their virtual power to recommend honours, and in most cases of having those recommendations accepted, the ordinary Member of Parliament, having no designs on becoming a Minister, would be less inclined to submit to a tyranny that brooked little advantage to himself and even less to the nation. Many such 'Members would, possibly, revert to the city or the backwoods from whence they came, and the Whips would be restricted to exercising their reactionary compulsion on Members dominated mainly by the hope of office and to their proper function, which, I maintain, is to arrange Government business in Parliament. As things are now, if a party M.P. persists in being politically progressive and keeps abreast of our times he will very likely run foul of his Whips' Office, in which case he will be for the "high jump," as has
    1872
    occurred to many distinguished Members of this House, and which is likely to happen, sooner or later, to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan).
    Mr. Silverman: Who said so?
    Captain Cunningham-Reid: Well, I think the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is progressive enough not to be able to run in harness with his Whips for very long. I would remind the House of the case of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps); then there is the case of the lion. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) and the case of the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt). They have all been through it, and it is all for the same kind of reason. Parliament today is run too much by the party caucuses and not enough by the representatives of the people as, I understand, was originally constitutionally intended. The majority of key Government positions to-day are not filled by the best that the country can provide, but are filled by the best party men. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Had our country not been ruled by the privileged inefficients produced by our peculiar party system Germany would never have been allowed to rearm and it is possible that this war might not have taken place.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Who supported rearmament? Who was a member of the Anglo-German fellowship?
    Captain Cunningham-Reid: Anyhow I was not a member. The abuse of our political system has a lot to account for. For years now it would appear that Governments have taken advantage of the people's political ignorance. If only the public could learn the lessons of the past and realise what is the grim prospect for the future unless they bestir themselves and prod Parliamentarians from their Rip Van Winkle lethargy and insist that we put our House in order.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Ernest Brown): The hon. and gallant Gentleman has left me 2½ minutes in which to reply. [An HON. MEMBER: "Four."] No, my time is accurate. I shall convey to my colleagues the interest that hon. Members show in Parliamentary procedure, if,

    1873
    indeed, that were necessary. As a matter of fact, ever since 1832 we have had continuous inquiries into Parliamentary procedure, quite rightly, because there is nothing more vital to the working of democratic institutions than to make sure that they are flexible and adapted to changing events and changing times. I should like, coming to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's general remarks, to say that he is not progressive, or any friend of democracy, who does two things, first of all sets out to disparage Parliamentary institutions and, second, to disparage the men who work Parliamentary institutions. He seems to think that he is the only man who has been independent. I myself at one period threw over my Whips and my party and went alone. I never complained. I took my decision because I thought it right and remained in perfect amity with my friends while taking a different line. Indeed, the present Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury at one time divided the House against the Government of the day
    1874
    of which he was a supporter, on the Local Government Bill of 1929. The hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to think there are no independent minded people in the House but himself. That is not so. The fact is that the normal Member of Parliament regards the Whips of his party not as enemies, but as friends. I agree with Disraeli, who once said that without the party system Parliamentary government would be impossible. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has not left me time to say more, but I should be delighted on another occasion, as he courteously referred to my chairmanship of the Select Committee in 1931–32, to go further into the vital question of Parliamentary institutions and procedure, whether relating to public or private business, but I will not join the ranks of the cynics, once described by Oscar Wilde, who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
    Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

BRITISH ARMY
  C Medical Category
  C Medical Category
  Assistant Record Officers
  Assistant Record Officers
  Royal Army Pay Corps
  Royal Army Pay Corps
  Overseas Service (Age Limit)
  Overseas Service (Age Limit)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Land Workers (Income Tax)
  Land Workers (Income Tax)
  Interest-Free Loans
  Interest-Free Loans
  Elderly Persons (Income Tax)
  Elderly Persons (Income Tax)
  Small Savings
  Small Savings
  Cost-of-living Subsidies
  Cost-of-living Subsidies
  COMPENSATION (DEFENCE) ACT
  COMPENSATION (DEFENCE) ACT
HOUSING
  Prefabricated Houses
  Prefabricated Houses
  Rent Control
  Rent Control
COAL INDUSTRY
  Production
  Production
  Household Allocation (Wales)
  Household Allocation (Wales)
  Miners (Recall to Forces)
  Miners (Recall to Forces)
  Open-cast Coal
  Open-cast Coal
  CORNISH ENGINES PRESERVATION SOCIETY
  CORNISH ENGINES PRESERVATION SOCIETY
  DROWNING ACCIDENTS (LIVERPOOL AND WIRRAL)
  DROWNING ACCIDENTS (LIVERPOOL AND WIRRAL)
  TUBERCULOSIS
  TUBERCULOSIS
  ENEMY-OCCUPIED COUNTRIES (RELIEF)
  ENEMY-OCCUPIED COUNTRIES (RELIEF)
  TURKEY (EXPORTS TO GERMANY)
  TURKEY (EXPORTS TO GERMANY)
  VEGETABLE PRICES
  VEGETABLE PRICES
  ROYAL NAVY (PAY ADJUSTMENTS)
  ROYAL NAVY (PAY ADJUSTMENTS)
SCOTLAND
  Tuberculosis
  Tuberculosis
  Lime Producers (Exchequer Grants)
  Lime Producers (Exchequer Grants)
  Water Supplies (Outer Hebrides)
  Water Supplies (Outer Hebrides)
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (AFFIDAVITS)
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (AFFIDAVITS)
  TEA AND SUGAR THEFT
  TEA AND SUGAR THEFT
  LIVING ANIMALS (EXPERIMENTS)
  LIVING ANIMALS (EXPERIMENTS)
  UNEMPLOYMENT
  UNEMPLOYMENT
  FORESTRY (PEEBLESSHIRE)
  FORESTRY (PEEBLESSHIRE)
  AIRMAN'S DEATH (INQUEST)
  AIRMAN'S DEATH (INQUEST)
Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
  NATIONAL LOANS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; and read 1a.
  PENSIONS (INCREASE) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
  POLICE AND FIREMEN (WAR SERVICE) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons, and read 1a.
  EDINBURGH MERCHANT COMPANY ENDOWMENTS (AMENDMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
  PEOPLE'S DISPENSARY FOR SICK ANIMALS OF THE POOR BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  PONTYPOOL GAS ORDER, 1944.
  LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
  Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  ECONOMIC WARFARE.
  LORD NATHAN LORD NATHAN rose to ask His Majesty's Government for a statement as to the efficiency and effect of the blockade and other activities of the Ministry of Economic Warfare, as part of the attack upon the Axis Powers; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, to-day I wish to bring to your minds an almost forgotten Ministry. Back in 1939, in the early days of the war, the Ministry of Economic Warfare was always in the headlines. Then some people thought and some people said that the war could be won by blockade alone without fighting, that Germany would suddenly collapse for lack of fuel, lack of special steels, even lack of food. In a bitter school we soon learnt differently. Even to-day, though Germany is extremely short of oil, she has enough for actual military operations, and her people are still reasonably well fed. But after those early days we went to the other extreme. Blockade did not do the trick -by itself, so we put blockade on one side in our minds.
  If the early hopes were exaggerated, we must not attenuate the actual achievements. The blockade almost certainly saved us from defeat. It quite certainly made it possible for us to win. The longer the war, the more powerful the blockade. Time in regard to the blockade has been on our side. It has given us the precious time to make ready for the final blow. Some years ago an economic writer put it like this: "The blockade won't make Germany crack, but it will make her brittle." Now she is brittle, now our Armies can crack her. The blockade is more important now at the climax, on the eve of invasion, when the strain is telling, than ever before. There have been of course during the past years from time to time, some relaxations of the blockade for the advantage of children, expectant mothers, and old people. A new proposal has been placed before the public recently by Dr. Howard Kershner. Surely this is not the time to relax. The famished people of Europe must now look not to a Kershner scheme; they must look to the onward sweep of our advancing Armies coming as liberators and bringing bread in their train.
  Let me just remind your Lordships of what we mean nowadays when we speak of blockade. We do not simply mean, as in the last war we very much meant,

  629
  stopping raw materials and goods from going to the enemy. This time, unlike the last war, he had prepared for it. He had built up stocks, rationed everything, established substitute factories. He conquered most of the stocks, resources and man-power of Europe. We do not nowadays mean just sea blockade. This time economic warfare has had to deal with the air as well. In fact we do not just mean blockade at all. We mean the whole of economic strategy, and this includes, in addition to blockade in the ordinary sense, the bombing of factories and communications, the laying of mines in enemy waters, the cutting-off of the enemy from all his financial connexions with other countries, including neutrals, both nearby and overseas.
  In fact this is a particularly apt moment for bringing up the question of economic warfare. In the first place, we have just concluded a not unsatisfactory agreement with Spa in dealing with wolfram exports to Germany. We are negotiating with Portugal, which exports still more. These are important episodes in the long, crowded, dramatic story, and it may be that the Minister will be able to add something to day to what he said last week in this respect in answer to the question by the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart. Then there is the colossal air offensive against German Europe. That has recently entered a new stage. For a time economic bombing, which is part of the work of economic warfare, was mainly concentrated on large centres of Germany's production. Now, with the Second Front in sight, the targets have been shifted. Lately they have been railway centres and factories producing special key goods, fighter aircraft, electrical equipment, ball-bearings. Our targets are new and our attacks have decreased Germany's war output. We have working together in the economic war the area bombing of that great tactition, Air Chief Marshal Harris, and the wonderful, quite uncanny precision bombing of the American Air Force. These two current examples—the wolfram agreement and the bombing of the railways—are admirable illustrations of the work of economic warfare.
  Let me describe our economic strategy against Germany as I see it. The work of blockade plus bombing and milling since 1940 has weakened the enemy's war effort
  630
  while we and our Allies mobilized. Blockaded, the enemy could draw on his stocks and eke out his supplies by planning, but at all events after Russia was brought into the war he could not increase supplies. He could not get stronger but inevitably at some point—and the point has now been passed—he was bound to get weaker. Of course the results of the blockade came slowly, so bombing had to be used as an accelerator—an accelerator of blockade. The point when the German war effort would weaken was brought forward partly by the development of bombing, partly by dislocation in his wide-flung and intricate system of industrial power and transport. If this accelerator had not been used, if this dislocation had not been created, Germany might have built up such a strength while we were getting ready that we might not have been able to win; we might indeed have lost. Transport has, of course, been crucial. German Europe is a very big place. As one writer put it four years ago: "Delivery is almost harder than production." Here we see how blockade and bombing went together. Cut off from overseas oil, the enemy had to cut down road transport. This threw a great strain upon the railways and caused a big demand for coal which, in turn, had also to be carried by rail. We bombed the railways, we bombed the coal mines and we bombed the synthetic petrol plants as well. The result was that shortage of oil meant not so much shortage of fuel in the field as shortage of transport of supplies to the field and for domestic use in metropolitan Germany. Under this strain on German Europe, Germany is finding that German Europe is too big.
  Wolfram and other rare materials are almost as good an example of the combined effects of our economic strategy as transport. With the resources of other European countries, Germany has been able to produce steel in bulk to the extent of about three times as much as we, but this, my Lords, is a war of scarce metals, of precision engineering, of alloys like nickel, chrome, cobalt and tungsten. So we bombed the molybdenum mines at Knaben; we attacked them twice and successfully. We have given nickel a pretty rough passage on its hazardous journey from Petsamo. We first pre-empted a fair amount of chrome and then we persuaded Turkey to cut

  631
  off chrome altogether. Then recently, as a result of an exercise in diplomacy, we persuaded Spain to cut down wolfram. Germany, indeed, can still produce great quantities of steel but, as the grip of the blockade grows tighter, Germany is less and less able to produce armour, armour-piercing projectiles and machine cutting tools. Our economic warfare is taking the cutting edge off the German war machine on the eve of our invasion.
  These are special effects of our economic warfare during the recent past. There are also general effects. To counter our blockade Germany has set herself to the making of substitutes. Nowadays almost anything can be made synthetically but such production is tremendously costly not only in materials, but also—and this is extremely relevant—in terms of labour. Thus, in order to reduce our blockade, a much larger labour force has to be kept by Germany out of the Army and put in the factories. The same is true of food, which Germany cannot import from overseas. True she has enough, perhaps barely enough, food, but a quarter of her labour forces is on the land compared with only one-twelfth of our labour force here. If we had as large a proportion of labour on the land as Germany we should hardly have any Army at all. If we had to make substitute fuels and commodities as she has to do we should not have a Navy or an Air Force either. These are stark facts too often overlooked.
  And the blockade has been effective since the outset. It is true there has been some blockade running though there does not seem to have been really much. It has been mostly in relatively tiny parcels. The Germans want bulk materials from overseas but important quantities of rubber and vegetable oils destined for Germany have sought in vain to breach the blockade. They have only been able to run quite minute cargoes, little wolfram now and then from the Far East, industrial diamonds and platinum, and perhaps a few other easily carried precious metals and special glandular extracts carried in aeroplanes, and may be sometimes concealed in navicert cargoes or carried by members of the crew before crew control was established. The wants of Germany's Ally Japan are smaller in bulk. She wants, however, as much as she can get in the way of specialized
  632
  goods, precision instruments and machine tools which -Germany can supply. They are vastly important to Japan if she is to increase her war potential. Therefore the outward cargoes are scarcely less important than the inward ones. But I believe, and I hope, that the Minister of Economic Warfare, when he replies to this debate, will be able to tell us that not much gets through either way.
  Sea mining, as we have used it in this war, is a new method of blockade. It ties in not only with attempts to stop blockade running but also with the offensive against German transport. Petrol is scarce, railways are overstrained and bombed, and so coastal traffic is tried instead. But our ships and aircraft have laid mines in the waterways, according to the master plan of the Ministry of Economic Warfare. So Germany is losing the ships she has, and has been forced to apply labour and material to the building of new ships. Those new ships in their turn will go the same way down into the vasty deep. It probably is not an exaggeration to say that the cumulative effect of the blockade is to increase the strain tenfold.
  But there is more even than economic bombing and economic mining in the pattern of combined blockade operations, for these are indeed combined blockade operations upon which we are engaged. We not only stop trade between Germany and other countries by trade agreements and search for contraband at sea. We do it also by financial blockade. The United Kingdom Commercial Corporation has competed with the enemy for materials in neutral markets, and over a large area has won the deal. Then there is the Black List drawn up by the Minister of Economic Warfare. Firms trading directly or indirectly with Germany are put on this Black List. The result is that Germany can neither buy goods nor sell goods nor acquire foreign exchange. There is one rather interesting example to which I might draw the attention of your Lordships, one which is perhaps but little known. It is the attempt to prevent Germany from getting foreign exchange in the shape of premiums on insurance policies. Steps are taken to prevent neutrals from insuring with German insurance companies. In connexion with the Black List there are one or two questions which I should like to ask of the Minister. I

  633
  wonder if he can tell your Lordships whether he is entirely satisfied that the machinery of the Black List has in fact been operated without fear or favour and might not perhaps at some times and in some cases have been earlier and more firmly applied. Then I would like to ask him this further question. Can he tell us something of the relationship between our own Biz ck List and the American Proclaimed List, and something also as to the methods and machinery of co-operation in the working of the two systems?
  In what little more I have to say I look not to the past but to the future. Indeed the time has come for us to look ahead. I want to ask the Minister a question or two which seem to me to be of the very greatest importance for the future. Here in the Ministry of Economic Warfare there has been built up a very remarkable economic intelligence system. The Ministry knows the industries, trade, transport, finance of Germany inside out. Has the Ministry not an obviously great function in ensuring the disarmament of Germany after the war, the economic disarmament of Germany? Should not the Ministry in some form be continued for the perpetuation of peace? They are important questions. I can scarcely expect that the Minister can answer fully to-day. It is a matter of high policy. Again, attached to the Ministry of Economic Warfare we have the United Kingdom Commercial Corporation, skilled and experienced in trading against the enemy. Has not that, too, a function to prevent the infiltration of world markets by the defeated enemy in preparation for another war? After the last war Germany built up abroad not only her trade but also a series of industrial experiments and established para-military training beyond her own frontier. She built up an interest in other countries, through interlocking directorates and shareholdings, especially in heavy industry, armaments, chemicals, explosives.
  There are signs from reports that we get from Lisbon and Stockholm that she has already started in this way again. She has already started laying the economic foundations of the next war. That we must prevent and the Ministry of Economic Warfare, kept on in some form, perhaps even with a different name though with very much the same functions, can make a contribution towards preventing it. The United Kingdom Com-
  634
  mercial Corporation, the Economic Intelligence branch, the Black List and all the detailed detective apparatus of the Ministry must be kept up-to-date so that we may see that all this does not happen again. To that end I venture to make two suggestions for the consideration of the Ministry. When hostilities cease the Economic Intelligence section and the detective apparatus of the Ministry might well be used to place at the disposal of the United Nations Germany's holdings outside her own confines in heavy industry, armaments, explosives and chemicals. Then if, as will doubtless be the case, there are restrictions upon certain of Germany's industries and prohibition upon certain of her imports after the war, the machinery and experience of the Black List might usefully be applied to the purpose of ensuring that Germany does not resuscitate prohibited industries and does not import prohibited goods. I believe that a real contribution—and I submit it for the consideration of the Government and your Lordships' House—can be made by the equipment of the Ministry of Economic Warfare to these special ends in the period following upon the war.
  Now, my Lords, I have done. I hope I have indicated to your Lordships that there are solid grounds for paying tribute to the work of the Ministry of Economic Warfare during the past harsh four and a half years. I hope that in some form the Ministry may be kept in being so that it may help to maintain the peace as undoubtedly, in my submission to your Lordships, it will have helped to win the war. I beg to move.
  LORD RENNELL: My Lords, I crave your indulgence in speaking to you for the first time, but I speak on the subject of the Ministry of Economic Warfare with particular pleasure—in fact I regard it as a privilege—since I was among the first who started that organization some months before the war broke out. Indeed, I think I was myself, with four other people, the first to inhabit their then premises.
  In certain quarters the argument has been that the time had come to wind up the Ministry of Economic Warfare on the ground that there was now no more need of it, or virtually none, and that its function in continuing the blockade of Germany had practically come to an end. But anyone who has followed what the

  635
  Ministry has done, and has done lately, must realize that such an argument is really entirely outside the point. The thing which strikes anyone who has followed its activities more than anything else is the vast amount of information which the Ministry must have collected for many purposes, and not merely in order to bring to a successful conclusion, through the various channels used, negotiations like those which have recently been discussed in Spain and Turkey. Anyone who has followed the comments on, and the explanations of, the bombing of Germany and other European countries, cannot fail to realize how much of the information that has gone towards the planning of that bombing is of an industrial, economic and commercial nature. If, therefore, in the course of these years the Ministry has accumulated this very large body of knowledge, knowledge not of Germany alone, is not that in itself sufficient justification for considering the continuation in existence of that organization as part of our machinery of government after the war? Lord Nathan referred, in particular, to the uses to which the Ministry might be put in dealing with Germany, but that is not the only purpose which the Ministry can, and should, serve after the war. We shall have to fight for our trade and for our economic existence—bin other words for our well-being and standing in the commercial and industrial world in the situation in which we are likely to be. We require the maximum of information and organization in order to do that, and that organization and that information are in the Ministry.
  The question, therefore, does not seem to be whether the Ministry or a similar organization should continue, but rather in what form it should continue. The Service Ministries each have their own intelligence machinery which serves their own specialized purposes. The Ministry of Economic Warfare is the intelligence machine, as I see it, on the commercial, industrial and financial side. But, whereas the Service Ministries are their own executive organs, the Ministry of Economic Warfare, in the nature of things, is not, and cannot be, its own executive organ. It has to use other executive organs, and in point of fact, we have seen that it has used the Air Ministry in the selection of bombing targets, and, no doubt, the Treasury and other financial organizations
  636
  in exerting financial pressure, and, of course, in its negotiations with neutral countries like Turkey and Spain, the Foreign Office. I wonder if the future place, or locus of the Ministry of Economic Warfare is not, perhaps, appropriately in the Foreign Office. That place would not only give it a home where it could remain permanently in being, but would also, at the same time, provide for that organization an executive organism which, to some extent, it now lacks.
  There is another point in that connexion which I think is of great importance. The Ministry of Economic Warfare has collected a very large body of extremely competent persons with specialized knowledge, not only civil servants but men in business, industry and finance, and a highly technical personnel who deal with subjects to which Lord Nathan referred, such as the rarer metals and other products of that sort. As the war draws to a close, I have no doubt that a large number of these experts who have been collected will want to return to their own avocations, but in their association with the regular and permanent civil servants in the Ministry they will, no doubt, have been able to pass on to the latter a great deal of the knowledge which they themselves have, and, what is perhaps even more important, pass on to them the knowledge of how to get hold of the information they want. Those of us who have been, to some extent, in specialized industries and trades before the war have always suspected, in fact have really known, that somewhere or other in this country there was always required information to be obtained if only one knew where to look for it. But it was in the Ministry of Economic Warfare that all that specialized body of information and that group of experts were gathered together under one roof.
  Having gathered that information together, and having, perhaps, taught the regular civil servants a little about where to gather it if they have not got it themselves, the Ministry, even if it loses the services of these experts, will still have a continuing knowledge of very practical everyday affairs, which, in the realm of foreign policy, has been the thing that the Foreign Office itself has frequently lacked. In fact, in the proposals recently made in regard to recruiting for the Foreign Service, and the future staffing

  637
  of the Foreign Office, great stress has been laid on obtaining people in closer contact with the outside world than has been the case with the Foreign Office. Is not the fusion of the Ministry of Economic Warfare, if not immediately at any rate at an early date, at least a contribution to that recruiting problem which has engaged the attention of His Majesty's Government wilt regard to the Foreign Office? I venture to suggest that if the present staff of the Ministry, or even a substantial part of it, were fused regularly into the Foreign Office—not as an accretion or as an accessory, but as intrinsically a part of the Foreign Office—all the present members of the Foreign Service would have the benefit of that specialized knowledge which those regular civil servants who were drafted into the Ministry at the beginning of the war have been able to obtain h the course of the last four years.
  Finally, and in that same context, the Ministry has had very practical experience of how to deal with trade, commerce, and finance. Even if it is not necessarily a spending Department within the meaning of that technical term, it has had the United Kingdom Commercial Corporation and the financial machinery of the Treasury and the banks at its disposal to put its policy into execution. That executive side, involved in close contact with commerce and finance, has been lacking in the Foreign Office for obvious reasons. More than that, by the form which the organization of the Foreign Office has taken in past years, it has suffered by losing that Commercial Department which it had before the last war. There seems to me, therefore, to be every argument for restoring to the Foreign Office, at some fairly early date in the future, by keeping the Ministry in existence, those parts of it of which it was deprived at the end of the last war and which it clearly lacks, if one may judge by the form which proposals for recruitment to the Service have taken.
  If it were possible to elicit from the Minister any information in regard to future plans, I for one should be very happy, especially if that information took the line that there is no intention on the part of His Majesty's Government to bring the Ministry of Economic Warfare to an end and wind it up. It is unnecessary for me to add anything more to what the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has said, because the Ministry has so amply justified
  638
  itself, and is justifying itself now, that to praise or commend what it has done would obviously be out of place, especially coming from myself.
  THE MINISTER OF ECONOMIC WARFARE (THE EARL OF SELBORNE): My Lords, I should like to be the first to congratulate the noble Lord who has just sat down on a speech which I am sure will make your Lordships wish to hear him on many future occasions. I am fortunate in speaking after h m, because it enables me to tender our congratulations, and that is particularly pleasant to me because he was one of the founders of the Department over which I have the honour to preside.
  I do not wish to go over the ground covered by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, in the eloquent tribute which he paid to my Department, a tribute for which I should like to thank him; but I shall endeavour to touch on some of the points which he raised, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, also referred. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, commiserated with us on being an almost forgotten Department; but the senior British Service, the Navy, is known as "the silent Service," and during the war, at any rate, the Ministry of Economic Warfare can well take a leaf out of the Navy's book in that respect. In thanking the noble Lord for what he said about my Department, I should like to make it plain from the outset that nothing could have been achieved towards enforcing the blockade had not it been for the Royal Navy and for the Navies of our Allies.
  I hope that the public realize how much more difficult a task the Navy have had in this war than they had in the last. It has been much more difficult because in the first place the Navy was much smaller; secondly, Italy and Japan were always hostile, and later enemies; thirdly, in 1940 we lost the French Fleet; and lastly, there was no European bottleneck. In the last war the Dover Patrol functioned at one end of the North Sea and the Tenth Cruiser Squadron at the other, the Mediterranean was blocked at both ends, and that completely blocked the entrance to all the ports to which Germany had access; but in this war, after 1940, the whole Atlantic seaboard lay clear, and therefore the fact that the blockade has been maintained to the extent that it has been maintained is, I

  639
  think, a very remarkable performance on the part of the Royal Navy.
  LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I rise to a point of procedure. I am very loath to interrupt the eloquence of the noble Earl, but I was waiting to hear him say why he had intervened at this stage of the debate, and whether he proposed to ask your Lordships' permission to speak again, in order to cover any points with which he does not deal now.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I intervened at this stage because I thought that it would be for the general convenience, as the noble Lord may realize as I proceed; but if there are points which require an answer later, and the House gives me permission, I shall be very glad to answer them at the conclusion of the debate.
  There is one other point about the blockade which I should like to make, and that is that the methods of the blockade have, of course, had to be altered from what they were in the last war. In Nelson's day the blockade was enforced on the high seas. My noble relative Lord Cecil of Chelwood, when he was Minister of Blockade, introduced the navicert system, which revolutionized the application of the blockade, and in this war that has been developed still more to what we call control at source. Our weapons were the bunkering facilities on which all ships that sail the seas depend, from the coaling stations, which are nearly all British controlled throughout the world, or where British companies operate, and also the facilities of insurance. Unless a ship conforms to the requirements of the Ministry of Economic Warfare it can get neither insurance nor bunkering. That has been effected by means of what we call ship navicerts and ship warrants. None of that would have been effective, however, if the British Navy had not been in the background. To that extent the machinery of the blockade has been very much developed in the new conditions, compared with what it was when the noble Viscount was Minister of Blockade.
  The methods of the Navy have also changed, of course. The close patrols of the last war have given place to long-range interception, and in that the Fleet Air Arm and Coastal Command have been playing a very big part. The other
  640
  weapons with which we have enforced the blockade are the Black List, of which the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, spoke, and rationing the neutrals. That is again a device that we took over from the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil. It was he who first introduced the rationing of neutrals, and that was adopted from a much earlier date in this war than it was in the last war. By these Means Germany has been prevented from using her Atlantic seaboard to import food and raw materials. When Japan entered the war at the end of 1941 our enemies tried to break the blockade, and it was very important for them to do so, because it so happened that their economies were complementary: Japan had the tungsten, the rubber, and the oil that Germany so much needed; Germany had precision tools, blue prints, ball-bearings and the like, all of which Japan required very much. And therefore they started a system of fast blockade runners, that ran from the East to West and from West to East without showing lights or using their wireless or calling at any port. For a time they had a limited success, but before long the Royal Navy, the Navies of our Allies and the Air Forces were able to get on the job, and we have altogether sunk some fifteen blockade runners, four outward and eleven inward. Now that traffic, except for a few submarines, which can carry very little, has practically ceased. The cargoes that were destroyed included 45,000 tons of rubber, 1,500 tons of tungsten, 17,000 tons of tin, 25,000 tons of vegetable oils, and Far Eastern drugs of great importance, such as quinine. But it was not the cargoes that were sunk that were most important, it was the cargoes that never sailed on account of the way that we were able to demonstrate that the blockade could be enforced.
  Thus the Royal Navy imposed deficiency on Germany from outside, and at the same time—and again this is where the blockade is very different from what it was in the last war—the Royal Air Force and the American Air Force have created deficiency inside Axis Europe. The work of the Air Forces is a most powerful addition to the work of the Navies. The Navies stop the import of rubber from Malaya, the Air Forces destroy the synthetic rubber factories in Germany. That was why in the last war it was called the Ministry of Blockade

  641
  and this time it is called the Ministry of Economic Warfare, because we are really co-ordinating a vast combined operation against the enemy's fighting power by various methods outside and inside his frontiers, in his coastal waters by bombing and mining, and in men's minds by propaganda—and I should like to add fiat the peoples of occupied Europe have joined in this in their resistance movements in actions which have had such important economic results in what is called sabotage. In all this we have worked in the closest co-operation with our American colleagues, both at home and abroad. All our economic information is pooled with our American Allies.
  Your Lordships will realize, as the noble Lords, Lord Nathan and Lord Rennell, have pointed out this afternoon, that this co-ordinated attack on the resources of the Axis could not be carried on without a very well manned Intelligence Department. This organization assesses the economic factors in Germany's military capabilities and her intentions, and these are embodied in inter-Service appreciations, through the medium of the Joint Intelligence Committee of the Chiefs of Staff, upon which my Department is represented. This is the organization by which the vulnerable parts in Germany's economy are discovered, neutral firms trading with the enemy are detected, enemy efforts to build up foreign exchange balances are prevented, and smugglers of diamonds, platinum, etc., are frustrated. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, spoke truly when he said that the importance of these small materials is very great in this war; things like platinum and diamonds have a most vital importance. Modern industry depends on an adequate supply of industrial diamonds. And I need hardly say that the smaller the object, the more difficult it is to enforce the blockade in respect of it. Therefore the blockade is enforced not only by the Allied Navies and Air Forces but by every means at our disposal.
  If I might give an example of the efficacy of our methods, I could quote the case of tie Spanish and Portuguese Merchant Navies plying to and from their own harbours all over the world. You would think that Germany, through what we call "cloaked transactions"—transactions which are different from what they purport to be—could have imported a
  642
  tremendous amount of materials by those routes. And yet we know that if you take the whole period of the war not more than 1½ per cent. of that tonnage has operated on enemy account, and at the present moment less than half of 1 per cent. is operating on enemy account, and that is on the short voyage across the Bay of Biscay.
  The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, asked some questions about the Black List. First, he asked me U it had been applied without fear or favour. I can give him that assurance without hesitation. No matter how big or how powerful any firm may be, if its activities are calculated to be prejudicial to the Allied cause we should not hesitate, in conjunction with our Allies, to act. Re also asked me what the relations were between the Statutory List, as we call it in Great Britain, and the Proclaimed List in America. For all practical purposes those two lists are identical, and steps are taken and machinery exists by which they are kept identical. The Black List is a most potent weapon. It means the destruction of a firm's whole foreign trade and frequently in a firm going into bankruptcy. The firm is from that moment onward boycotted by the world of commerce. I should like to make it clear that the end of the war may not necessarily mean the end of the Black List. Our memories are proverbially short, but they are not quite so short as all that, and we shall not readily forget what neutral firms did during this war.
  Another method by which the blockade is enforced is, as the noble Lord said, what we call pre-emption. That again was practised by my noble relative, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, in the last war—buying in neutral markets accessible to Germany commodities which would be of use to the enemy. By this means, for instance, we greatly reduced the dispatch to Germany of wolfram from the Iberian Peninsula, chrome from Turkey, and ball-bearings from Sweden. In that connexion I should like to join with my noble friend Lord Nathan in the tribute he paid to the United Kingdom Commercial Corporation for the very valuable work they have done in that respect.
  Finally, of course, it is by diplomacy that we have also endeavoured to enforce the blockade. We have made agreements with neutral countries. These neutral

  643
  countries require certain things from us, and we require certain things from them. Therefore there are the opportunity and the means by which we can make a fair agreement. One of the things we require from them is that they shall not send commodities of military importance to the enemy. As the fortunes of war swung decisively in our favour and the danger to European neutrals of German invasion vanished, we have been able to make increasingly satisfactory agreements with European neutrals. I spoke last week of our recent agreement with Spain, and I should like to stress one point. I was sorry to see that in some quarters that that agreement was hailed as a victory over Spain. It was nothing of the sort. It was a compromise mutually satisfactory to Spain and to the Allies; but it was a victory over Germany.
  LORD LATHAM: Not over Franco?
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, asked some questions about the efficiency of the blockade, and in answering them I want to be careful not to overstate the facts. We must remember that after the last war the Germans publicly ascribed their defeat to the blockade. If I may say so, I think that they exaggerated partly in order to pretend that their Army was invincible; but they did publicly ascribe it to the blockade, and undoubtedly the blockade played a very important part in bringing about their defeat. That having been their theme and their experience, the Nazis laid in vast quantities of all the materials of which they anticipated shortage during the next war in the years immediately preceding 1939. More than that, long before the Nazis got into power—almost before the ink of the Treaty of Versailles was dry—the Germans started creating those great synthetic industries such as synthetic rubber, synthetic oil, cellulose textiles, and the like, which would make them to a much greater extent independent of outside supplies when the next war came. Besides that, the Nazis organized their agriculture so that far more food should be produced in Germany in this war, and they devised a system of rationing more complete, more scientific, and more efficient than they had in 1918. Therefore they started this war very much better qualified to withstand the blockade. Then in 1940 they conquered
  644
  the greater part of Europe and with it, of course, immense supplies of all the raw materials which are useful to war. They then proceeded to organize all the territory they had conquered in such a way as to make it work for the Nazi machine. Nevertheless, these tremendous resources were not inexhaustible if they were not replenished from outside.
  The effect of the blockade, which may have been slight at first, has been cumulative, and in my opinion is now undoubtedly very great. I am not going to suggest that Germany will collapse because she is running short of this or that commodity. The picture should be painted with a broader brush. This is how I see it. Germany's stocks, once so plentiful, are seriously depleted. Submarine blockade-runners can do little to replenish them. Neutrals are increasingly aloof. Air raids create fresh problems which every day are harder to solve. Surpluses have become deficiencies, of which the most serious is probably manpower. To those responsible for German production the prospect at this crucial moment must indeed seem sombre. This result is mainly due to three things—first, the vast expenditure of supplies and reserves and the German losses in Russia; second, the Allied victories in Africa; and third, the Allied command of the sea and the air. The part that my Department has played I have tried to explain. We are the "boys in the back-room" in this matter.
  Germany has for a long time been short of many things essential to modern warfare—oil, rubber, textiles, ferro-alloys. The noble Lord said that Germany had enough oil for military operations. It all depends what military operations he means. In my opinion there is no doubt that German military operations have been for some time past severely hampered by shortage of oil. Their greatest shortage however is in men. The effect of the blockade can be seen clearly in terms of man-power. For instance, Germany has nearly a million more men and women employed in agriculture than she had in the last war. If it were not for the blockade all these men and women would either be making munitions or else using them. Again, German civilian motor traffic has practicaly entirely gone over to producer-gas. Our Ministry of

  645
  War Transport has quite rightly refused to allowed producer-gas to proceed in this country beyond what may be described as a thorough experimental stage because it is grossly wasteful in man-power; but Germany has been forced on to it because her oil has been cut off. We in this country, on the other hand, are importing literally scores of millions of tons of goods every year. All the ersatz industries are very wasteful of man-power and this, combined with her colossal losses in the field, has produced Germany's acute man-power crisis which she has tried to solve with European slaves, of which some seven millions are working in Germany itself. Now we have got to the point where Germany is even enlisting unwilling foreigners into her armed Forces. That is surely very significant. The time has now come when Germany cannot maintain simultaneously the numerical strength both of her armed Forces and her civilian labour force, while the quality of both has steadily declined. Germans up to the age of sixty are called up for military service, and for fresh recruits the enemy now relies on classes under eighteen or over forty-seven.
  I give one other angle from which I think it is fair to look at the picture. When Hitler attacked Russia in 1941 he hoped to conquer the Ukraine, the Donetz Basin, the Kuban and the Caucasus, and I think r he measure of his defeat and the precariousness of his economic situation can be seen in that single fact. He may well have calculated that the vast mineral and agricultural resources he would get from those territories would repay the tremendous losses of the campaign. As it is, he has had the losses of the campaign and none of the gains of conquest. Any one who supposes that the sea blockade in this war was ineffective or of minor importance must have found it difficult to explain the events in the Bay of Biscay at the end of last December when the Germans risked a large force of destroyers, of which they lost three, in order to bring in a single blockade runner. In our opinion the difficulties of Hitler's Generals are being increased every day by the growing scarcity of commodities. Therefore any neutral who now sends Germany vital war materials is simply prolonging the war and we shall certainly do our best to prevent that happening.
  646
  The noble Lords, Lord Nathan and Lord Rennell, both asked me about the future, and Lord Nathan suggested that the Ministry of Economic Warfare should continue into the post-war period. As I have pointed out, there are two parts of the Ministry of Economic Warfare. There is the administration of the blockade on the one hand and on the other hand the intelligence system that has been built up to advise me about the blockade and to advise the Services in regard to their operations. I would, however, like to make it clear that when we tender advice to the Services about military operations, all that my Ministry can do is to indicate the relative importance of certain targets; how, and when, and whether those targets should be attacked must of course depend on the decision of the Commander-in-Chief. But obtaining the information on which to advise the Services and on which to advise the Minister of Blockade involves a great organization and the compilation of most detailed information about the whole of Axis Europe. If I may say so, I think what Lord Rennell said in that respect was very true, but I see no reason why the Ministry of Economic Warfare, as such, should continue long after the Armistice with Germany.
  I am not in favour of the prolongation of war-time Departments beyond their period of usefulness, and if I am Minister of Economic Warfare at that time it will be my ambition that my Department should be the first war-time Department to close its doors. I think not only the liberties of His Majesty's subjects but also the prosperity of the country will be sustained in inverse ratio to the number of Government Departments and Government officials who survive this war. But that does not mean that economic warfare against Japan would not continue, nor does it mean that the Black List, as I have already said, would necessarily come to an end. All it does mean is that it would no longer be necessary to have a separate Ministry for the purpose. I might explain to your Lordships that in the matter of enforcing the blockade we are working, as I have said, very closely with our opposite numbers in Washington and it is a natural division of labour that, whereas our American Allies are the greatest authorities on the economic situation in the Far East, we perhaps are in more intimate touch with the economic

  647
  situation in Europe, and therefore., for the purpose of enforcing the blockade in the Far East, Washington requires little assistance from my Department. For these reasons I do not think that the continuance of a separate Ministry of Economic Warfare would be justified for long after the Armistice with Germany, and the remaining administrative functions of the Ministry of Economic Warfare could very well be administered by the Foreign Office or one or two other permanent Departments.
  But the intelligence side of the Ministry of Economic Warfare which, by the way, is known by the name "Enemy Branch" is in my view in a different category altogether, and I very much share the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, in that matter. Quite apart from the manifold uses of economic intelligence for fighting the war, economic intelligence is of vital importance for the planning of many operations which will follow the defeat of Germany. In the first place, there is intelligence for the Far Eastern war, economic disarmament and economic control of Germany, reparations, the economic effects of frontier rectification, the rehabilitation of occupied territories, the development of economic sources of supply to allow Europe to recuperate. These are matters on which the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers will need expert advice in the months immediately succeeding the Armistice.
  I am glad to be able to announce therefore that the Foreign Secretary has decided to create an Economic Intelligence branch of the Foreign Office and it is clear—and I am glad to know that both noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon will agree with this—that he could have no better servants for this purpose than the very efficient and experienced staff which has hitherto been working in my Department. The Foreign Office, however, already has to consider these problems and others requiring economic intelligence. Therefore there is an overlap, as it were, between the peace-time requirements of the Foreign Office and the war-time work of the Enemy Branch of my Department. For this reason the Foreign Secretary and I have recently agreed to transfer the control to the Foreign Office of all that part of my Department which is concerned with intelligence in enemy worlds. This does not mean that I have transferred to
  648
  him my functions. The transferred staff will continue to be responsible to me for everything within the scope of my responsibilities and will continue to do for other Departments, particularly the Service Departments, work they had been doing in the past. In addition, however, they will be responsible to the Foreign Secretary for everything outside that work, and in consequence will be, I hope, of much use to him in dealing with the increasing number of problems relating to the period after the German collapse in which an appreciation of economic development and policy is essential.
  For the time being, therefore, Enemy Branch is serving both the Foreign Secretary and myself, and its official name is now Enemy Branch, Foreign Office and Ministry of Economic Warfare. There is really less change in that than might appear at first sight, because throughout the war this section of my Department has been advising not only me as Minister of Economic Warfare, but also, as I have said, the Service Departments and the Foreign Office and other Departments. It merely means that their work as the war draws to its end, will more and more be concerned with peace-terms problems and problems of transition, and less and less with purely war-time problems. I am sure that your Lordships will rejoice with me in the decision of the Foreign Secretary that henceforth the Foreign Office is to be adequately equipped in regard to economic intelligence, which must play an increasingly important part not only in foreign policy but in all politics. I personally am very proud that it is a section of my Department that has been selected for that function—or rather let me put it in this way, I am very proud to have worked with such men during the war.
  VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, my first duty and pleasure is to join with my noble friend opposite in expressing congratulations to Lord Rennell for his admirable speech this afternoon and to note how he has acquired already exactly the right tone in which to address your Lordships' House. May I also express my congratulations to my noble friend who has just spoken? He has been able to give us a most interesting and encouraging picture of the operations of his Department. He has shown that they have progressed a great deal beyond what they were in the last war, and they give

  649
  a very interesting example of the way in which under our system and with our particular character these things gradually grow.
  When I was first in what was then called the Blockade Department it was strictly speaking a blockade department. I doubt whether it differed very much from what it had been in the Napoleonic Wars. It was different in technical methods but in substance what we did was to establish a blockade across the North Sea so that no ship could get into any of the German harbours or any of the harbours of the neutrals facing on the North Sea and therefore on the Atlantic without passing through that blockade. That was a very essential thing, and gradually to that was added a great number of other efforts by which we sought to reduce the financial and economic power of Germany. I was grateful to my noble friend for reminding the House that some of the devices which he has been so admirably putting in force were developed in the last war—the navicert system and what we used to call the bunker control. I remember that we had not only bunker but jute control. I do not know whether that has survived or has been necessary in this war. We had a complete monopoly of jute which, added to the kind of control we exercised over bunkers and insurance, made a very great part of the economic pressure put on Germany. All that is very satisfactory.
  There is another thing which is satisfactory. Perhaps the noble Lord does not realize how satisfactory it is. That is the chorus of approval which has met his administration and which must be gratifying to him. I could not help remembering how very far I was from being greeted with any such chorus of approval when I had to make any explanation. That was partly due to a variety of different circumstances but mainly to the fact that we in that war had to deal with the great problem caused by the existence of neutrals, who of course had a right to trade. We had to put pressure on neutrals which added immensely to the complications and difficulties. In that respect my noble friend's problem is a simpler one, but that is the only respect. In all other respects it is a far more complicated and difficult thing than we had o carry through. At the same time I think it is satisfactory—I do not say this as any claim for myself because I am not entitled
  650
  to any credit in the matter, it was done by my Department not by myself—that the steps we took then were evidently the right steps and have been developed into a much more complete system in the second war. That is a very encouraging thing because I think it does show that we still have the quality, which has been of such enormous value to us in our history, of being able to meet new difficulties without relying unnecessarily or excessively upon precedent.
  My feeling is so much one of complete approval and support of my noble friend that I shall not trouble your Lordships for more than a very few minutes, but there are one or two questions I should like to put. I noticed that he did not say anything about blockade running by air. I do not know whether that has developed into a serious difficulty. Air transport is a new thing, and I imagine that at any rate articles of small bulk like industrial diamonds might be conveyed by air to some extent. That might not be a very serious matter, but I would like to know, if my noble friend can answer the question, whether that is one of the things we have to consider now.
  Then I would like to say a word about the Black List. That is also a very vivid recollection in my mind. We established a Black List the principle of which, as your Lordships are perfectly aware, was that any trader wherever he lived who was found to be dealing with Germany or with German assistance should be cut off from all trade. We controlled not only trade with this country or the Empire but with other countries as well. That proved to be a very serious matter. It is rather interesting to recall that our efforts to establish that Black List met with the most violent criticism in the United States. It was about the only instance in which we came to something perceptibly near a serious diplomatic difficulty with them, and I remember the admirable Ambassador of that day, Mr. Page, pressing the Foreign Office very strongly, and through the Foreign Office, myself, to abandon the Black List. I must, say, therefore, that it is a great satisfaction to me to read in the papers to-day that it is the United States who are taking a foremost part in supporting the Black List. That shows that we were not always wrong. I should like very much to know whether the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, can tell us, in addition to

  651
  the things which he has told us, something more on this head, particularly with regard to the question in relation to Ireland; about what we have read in the papers as to thirty-eight Irish firms being put on the Black List, and so on.
  Another curious reversal is illustrated in the question which we have at issue with Sweden. There have been protests—made with great force, I think—to the Swedish Government to the effect that they ought not to sell their ball-bearings, or material for the manufacture of ball-bearings, to Germany. In the last war exactly the reverse was the case. We were continually pressing the Swedes to supply us with ball-bearings, and it was the Germans who were protesting vehemently. That, however, is only an accident in connexion with the development of industry.
  I should like very much to know if all one hears is correct as to how far the Government have been able to get over the difficulty—with which I remember we failed in dealing—in the matter of a strictly financial blockade. We had a great idea, which we pursued unavailingly I am afraid, that somehow or other we could prevent Germany obtaining financial resources in other countries, and in that way prevent her buying articles which would be the kind of articles we wished to keep out of her country. I am bound to say that our efforts at enforcing a financial blockade were not very successful. I cannot remember details of the plans we made, and there is no record of them, because they were never put into active operation. It is evident that if the Government have found some way out of the difficulty, it must be an immense addition to their power of pressure on Germany.
  I do not know that I should be doing any good by prolonging my observations, and I will just conclude by saying how heartily I agree with what fell from the lips of my noble friend Lord Nathan and from the lips of my noble friend Lord Rennell about the continuance of the Blockade Department. Again, it recurs to my recollection that we made a great struggle, at the end of the last war, to try to preserve at any rate what the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, has called the intelligence departments. There was a War Trade Department, a War Trade Intelligence Department and other Departments
  652
  of that kind, and we failed simply and solely on the ground of finance. The Treasury declined altogether to sanction continuance of those Departments. I cannot help thinking that it was a very serious mistake to have made. I think that we should have been in a better position at the outset of this war, and right through the intervening period between the two wars, if the great amount of information which had been made available to the Government had been retained and kept up to date between the two wars.
  I agree with my noble friend that we do not want to keep the Ministry of Economic Warfare in operation in its present form after the war has come to an end. Our business, no doubt, from every point of view, is to encourage the interchange of commerce to the greatest degree we can, subject always to the overriding considerations of safety. The old assumption that there is only a certain amount of prosperity in the world and that the more one nation gets the less there will be for others is now recognized as an entire fallacy. It is now realized that the richer one nation is the richer others must be. That must be the ground of our policy. We realize that there must be a tremendous amount of work to be done of an economic character. I should like to see a sub-department brought into existence with a name something like the Department of Economic Co-operation. That, I think, is essential, and I entirely agree that it should go into the Foreign Office Departments as soon as there is no question of fighting, to assist in co-operation with other nations. I very much hope that that will be done. I am satisfied that there will be ample work for a department of that kind to perform, and after the immense amount of thought and inquiry that has been directed to this matter during the last four and a half years it will be simply scandalous, if not criminal, for us to waste it in the coming years, which will be at least as difficult and perhaps as dangerous as any we have seen in the past few years.
  LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like to join in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, on the interesting speech which we have heard from him to-day in which he has given us an admirable review of the position with regard to his Ministry. I wish, also, to join in supporting what the noble Earl said in paying

  653
  tribute to the arduous, unceasing, dangerous, and often delicate work of the Royal Navy, without whose services in exercising the sea blockade no economic warfare would be possible. Once more we are seeing the proof of the old principle demonstrated that, in a fair field, the power which controls the sea routes will defeat the power which controls the land routes. In other words, sea power must defeat land power. It is a long and difficult process, but in the end the crushing weight of a complete maritime blockade is decisive.
  I hope nevertheless the noble Earl will not delude himself with the idea that there is not a certain amount of uneasiness among the public about certain other aspects of economic warfare. I was very much surprised to hear him say he regretted that in certain quarters the arrangement, I think he called it, with the Franco Government in Spain was hailed as a victory over the Franco Government. I think that the criticism has rather been the other way, especially on the ether side of the Atlantic; and the general tone of the Spanish Press has been that it is a victory for the Franca Government. That, of course, is an exaggeration. It is an arrangement; but it is rather curious that all that the Spanish Press talk about is that Spain is going to get oil and petrol again, and there is apparently no mention of the other arrangements, such as the reduction of the supply of wolfram to Germany.
  What is even more significant is that I have noticed in the organ of my noble friend Lord Southwood, the Daily Herald, which I always read first thing every morning—and which no doubt the noble Earl opposite also reads with great attention, though I do not know at what time of the thy he reads it; but I am sure that he does read it, or it is read for him—that the Spanish authorities in Tangier have apparently been extremely slow in carrying out that part of the arrangement (which the noble Earl told us was a victory over Germany) which provides for the removal of the German Consul-General and his espionage staff from the Protectorate or territory of Tangier. It is also stated that all mention of this part of the arrangement has been forbidden in the Tangier newspapers. I did not give notice to the noble Earl that I was going to raise this matter, but, when
  654
  he comes to reply to the other points raised by noble Lords, I respectfully suggest that it would be useful if he could say something about it. I suggest that a warning that we mean business with regard to Tangier is required.
  Before I leave this question of the Spanish arrangement, I note that in the United States, and particularly in the Washington newspapers, which are presumably in the closest touch with American political circles, it has been openly stated that the State Department of the United States Government, which has sometimes been criticized for over-tenderness to certain Powers in Europe, wished to be far more severe in the terms of this arrangement with General Franco's Government in Spain, and that it was on the insistence of the British Foreign Office that they withdrew and reluctantly agreed to this present arrangement. That has been very widely stated in the American Press, but I do not expect the noble Earl to make any comment on it.
  My noble friend Lord Cecil of Chelwood referred to his difficulties with neutrals in the last war—and well I remember them—and to the difficulties which the noble Earl has with neutrals in this war. The truth of the matter is that the old conception of neutrality, which we were brought up to understand, is disappearing. In wars in which we were neutral we always insisted on our right to trade, and my noble friend Lord Cecil will remember very well the case of our ships being intercepted by Russian cruisers in the Mediterranean in the Russo-Japanese war, and the tremendous tension which arose and which nearly led to a break of diplomatic relations. When we became a belligerent we insisted on the full rights, as far as we could exercise them, of maritime pressure by our Navy. Lord Cecil has reminded us of the United States protest against the Black List in the First World War, and he will remember that the moment the United States came into the war they adopted our Black List holus-bolus and proceeded to add to it.
  The truth of the matter is that in these days, first of all of totalitarian war, and then of war against robber States such as Germany and Japan, the conception of neutrality has largely disappeared. You cannot have neutrals any longer in the old sense in the future, and we shall

  655
  not have won this war in the political sense if we do not succeed in establishing a system after the war by which in the case of a new aggression or new outburst of lawlessness no neutrals remain. I think that I carry my noble friend Lord Cecil with me, and he is not only very experienced in these matters but very learned in International Law. I hope that this whole problem of neutrality has been closely studied from the point of view of the future. For that reason alone I should have thought there was a very strong case for preserving at any rate the nucleus of the Department over which Lord Selborne presides, even when the war is over. I understand his opposition to bureaucracy and his dislike of Government Departments and of authority generally, but for those reasons I think there is ground for preserving at any rate a nucleus of the Ministry over which he is so proud to preside.
  I should like to ask the noble Earl a question with regard to the Black List. He has said that there is a possibility of the present black-listed firms being discriminated against in the future, but I notice that in the United States it is declared categorically that certain firms who are transgressing very blatantly will remain on the Black List after the war. The question which I venture to address to the noble Earl is this: What steps are we taking to let these Quisling firms in occupied territories and these neutral firms who are trading in war materials with our mortal enemies know that it will not be a case of "kiss and make friends" after the war, but that they will be discriminated against as heavily as possible afterwards? Is that being publicized and conveyed to them through all the usual and possible channels, so that they are in no doubt that, although they may gain now and become rich on this iniquitous trade with the Nazis and the Japanese, they will suffer for it for many years afterwards? If that is made known to them, it may cause a good deal of searching of heart among these scoundrelly merchants.
  I should like to go a little further. I suggest not only that they should be warned, but that in certain cases in occupied countries their factories should be bombed, after due warning. The case which I particularly have in mind is that of Belgium. I took the liberty
  656
  of informing the noble Earl beforehand that I intended to raise this matter. According to the information which reaches me, as we have increased our bombing of the Ruhr and of other centres of heavy industry in Germany, the enemy have relied more and more on the highly-organized Belgian steelworks to supply the deficiency. According to the Belgian underground newspaper Libération, this trade between these Belgium ironmasters and Germany has increased. If your Lordships will permit me to make a quotation from Libération, it is as follows:
  "People talk a great deal about traitors, profiteers, and collaborators … they talk less of the big industrialists who betrayed (heir country in cold blood from the very first day of the invasion—and for more than thirty pieces of silver, too."
  On November 29, Radio Belgique, which is the radio station controlled by the Belgian Government in this country, alluded to this particular type of collaborators
  "who trade on the misery of the times, work at full capacity for the enemy, and amass scandalous fortunes."
  The speaker on Radio Belgique went on to say:
  "Any Belgian working of his own accord for the enemy will have to account for his action before Belgian tribunals."
  That is very satisfactory; the Belgian people, through their Government, will punish these guilty men. The paper Liberation goes on to say, however, that no names were given. It also says:
  "In September of this year, Thomas (basic Bessemer) steel production alone showed a 12 per cent. increase on the average production for the second quarter of 1943. The biggest producers are Ougree-Marihaye (8·5 per cent. increase), Cockerill (14·5 per cent.), Athus-Grivegnee (17 per cent.), Thy-le-Chateau (38 per cent.), Metallurgique du Hainaut (19·5 per cent.), Clabecq (7·5 per cent.)."
  Those, your Lordships will remember, are the largest producers, and they have modern works in Belgium producing high-grade steel. Apparently all this product is going to our enemy.
  I have not seen—possibly something has been done, but I do not know about it—any accounts of these targets being bombed. I am suggesting to the noble Earl that these miscreants, the directors of these Belgian steelworks, should be warned that if this traffic continues not only will they be black-listed—they will

  657
  not mind that, it they can retire to Buenos Aires with large fortunes—but their works will be bombed now. I suggest that that should be done. The reason for this increase given by Belgian editors of Libération, who presumably know the facts, that to a great extent these Belgian industrialists have taken the place of Krupps and the other concerns in the Ruhr. If that is the case I suggest that the situation requires very close attention by the Minister of Economic Warfare. It may be that this has already been given; I hope it has, and I hope that the noble Earl will give the Necessary assurance. I took the opportunity of informing him beforehand that I intended to raise this question, and I think, in the interests of the whole war effort and of the Belgian people themselves, who are suffering cruelly under the German tyranny, that we might have an answer.
  The other question that I would like to ask the noble Earl, if there is no objection, is with regard to the Turkish chrome. That matter, as he stated and as my noble friend Lord Nathan reminded your Lordships, now presents a more satisfactory position. The Turkish chrome has been cut off, and the pre-emption has been successfully carried out by the body referred to, but apparently we were not very far-sighted in the early days of the war. I have here a very curious statement 'which has appeared in a newspaper of wide circulation in this country, purporting to be a quotation from a speech by the Turkish Premier at the time of the rather difficult diplomatic situation which had arisen between the United Nations and Turkey over the continued export of chrome to Germany. Apparently the Turkish Prime Minister declared en the 21st April last that at the beginning of the war in 1939 we could, have purchased the whole of the Turkish chrome output for the duration, but we would only contract for two years' supply, with an option for a third year.
  According to this newspaper M. Menemenjoglu stated that
  "in 1939 a British Delegation asked for a monopoly of Turkey's chrome, and this was agreed. But when the Turks suggested a contract lasting for the duration of the war, the British would sign for only two years, with the option of a third 'in the event of an agreement.' A third-yeas monopoly was granted, but then, with British consent"—
  658
  this is the curious part of the statement—
  "Turkey signed a chrome agreement with Germany."
  I am sure there is an explanation of that, and obviously His Majesty's Government, and still less the noble Earl, have no responsibility for what the Turkish Prime Minister said. But I think some explanation is needed. If the facts are as stated, the explanation may be that there was difficulty in transport. I have seen sonic excuses of that kind put forward, but surely we could have purchased it and stored it. It represents value. I do not know whether it was in the time of Lord Rennell, who made such an interesting contribution in his maiden speech to-day, and presumably it was outside the personal responsibility of the noble Earl, but if the facts are as stated then there must have been a lack of foresight and a great deal of chrome has reached Germany, to her advantage and to our disadvantage, because of this lack of foresight. But, as I say, there may be an explanation, and I should like the noble Earl to give it if he can do so.
  I have mentioned these two matters not in a critical sense, especially not the one with regard to the Belgian steelworks. I know the difficulty of attacking such works without damaging the Belgian civil population, but they are important to Germany's war effort. I should like to conclude by generally echoing the view of my noble friend Lord Nathan. I think that our whole policy, viewed over the whole world, with regard to economic warfare, has been well conceived and well carried out, and will have very important results.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I should like first of all to pay a tribute to the noble Earl and his Department for the operations which they have carried out during the war, and I hope will carry out in the future until the war is concluded. I should not have risen merely to say that, but I feel that I must strike a jarring note in the chorus of praise which has been given to the noble Earl for the plans which they have in view for the future. I listened with very great satisfaction to every part of the noble Earl's speech until he arrived at that part of it in which he outlined the plans for the future. There were two points, both of which gave me grave cause for anxiety. The first one was that as soon as the war with Germany is concluded the Department of Economic Warfare would be

  659
  closed down, and the United States of America would take charge of all the blockade operations in the Far East.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: If I may correct my noble friend, I did not say "take charge." I would like to repeat what I said—namely, that I did not think a separate Department in England was necessary for the purpose.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I do not quite know what that exactly means. It is rather a cryptic sentence, if I may say so, but I should like to urge at least that if a separate Department is not necessary such Department as may be set up for the purpose in American waters should have a very fair representation of this country upon it. Our trade with the Far East is of very great importance to this country, and measures which are taken under the blockade might affect it very seriously in the future. I hope that the interpretation which my noble friend has placed upon what they intend to do means that we shall be very fully represented on any Department of Economic Warfare that does operate in connexion with the Far East campaign. That was the first point I wanted to raise.
  The second point, also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, was in connexion with the plan outlined by the Minister for the continuance of the Economic Intelligence section of his Department by attachment to the Foreign Office. I cast my mind back about fifteen or twenty years when the same issue was a very serious one—both in the House of Commons and in your Lordships' House. If I recollect aright, there was a Committee appointed by the Government, of which the Chairman was the Lord Chancellor of the day, Lord Cave, and this Committee recommended very strongly indeed that a separate Department should be set up to deal with trade matters—in other words, with economic intelligence. That Report was not immediately adopted by the Government of the day, but it was supported both in the House of Commons and in your Lordships' House. I took part in the debates, and the conclusion come to was that the Foreign Office was not the proper place in which to house that section of our overseas trade because it was felt—and there is no reflection in any way on the Foreign Office in this—that while representatives of the Foreign
  660
  Office are good diplomatists, they do not pretend to know anything, or very little, about commerce or business.
  Therefore I feel very anxious indeed when I hear to-day that my noble friend has made an arrangement with the Foreign Secretary by which it is definitely decided that the economic intelligence side of the Department of Economic Warfare is going to be handed over practically holus-bolus to the Foreign Office. The proper Department to assimilate that section of the Ministry of Economic Warfare is the Department of Overseas Trade. That is the Department which understands these matters. It is dealing with them all the time, and it has to prepare policy and so on. If the Department of Overseas Trade were entirely separate from the Foreign Office, that might be another matter, but the Department of Overseas Trade is responsible to the Foreign Office as well as to the Board of Trade. It is the central organization which tries to meet these particular points—first, trade, and secondly, the foreign diplomatic side which is bound up with trade.
  I entirely agree that after this war there will be many trade questions which did not arise after the last war. It will be far more difficult to get out of this war from the trade or any other point of view than it was after the last war, because after the last war we had no preparations, no plans, we did not know where we were going, the whole thing was practically chaos, whereas in this case we are making our plans and trying to see where we are going and we do know something of the conditions we shall have to meet. Nevertheless it will be a great mistake if the Economic Intelligence section of the Department of Economic Warfare is handed over to the War Office, and the Department of Overseas Trade is left out of altogether. I urge with all the strength that I can that my noble friend should discuss this matter again with the Foreign Secretary and see whether it is not possible to bring within the ambit of this new arrangement the Department of Overseas Trade, which is the natural Department to look after this matter.
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but the very important statement made by he noble Earl regarding the arrangements which have been effected in putting at the disposal of the Foreign

  661
  Secretary the Intelligence branch of his Ministry is such a cause of congratulation to some of us that I cannot refrain from saying a few words on the subject. Some of us have been trying for a long time to reinforce the economic side of the Foreign Office which had been distinctly lacking. The noble Viscount who has has just sat down seems to me to divorce completely diplomacy from economics. It is a thing you cannot do.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I cannot allow that statement to pass. Under the present arrangement representatives of the Department of Overseas Trade are attached to the various Legations and Embassies in foreign countries. Therefore there cannot be entire divorce. I never suggested that for a moment.
  THE EARL OF PERTH: The noble Viscount said that in the Foreign Office people were brought up to have very little knowledge of economics.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I accept that.
  THE EARL OF PERTH: Therefore it is very important that people who do know economics should be introduced as a competent Department in the Foreign Office. I would go very much further than the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, who only suggested a sub-department. I should like to see a very strong Economic Department co-ordinating all this mass of knowledge that comes in and advising the Foreign Secretary. I would hope very much that the nucleus of this valuable Department should continue under the control of the Foreign Office, thus strengthening the central organization, making it more capable of dealing with world problems, and equally strengthening thereby the position of the Foreign Secretary himself.
  VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, we can scarcely fail to be satisfied with what we have heard to-day regarding economic warfare against Germany, but I am very disappointed with what we have not heard about economic warfare against Japan. There are a good many people in this country who talk as if we were only fighting Germany. It cannot be too heavily insisted on that we are also fighting Japan, and that we are fighting her not only with armed forces but also with all our economic power. I do hope, if the noble
  662
  Viscount is going to give us a few words at the end, he will tell us a little more about Japan.
  LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I suffer from the disadvantage of not having been here when the noble Earl commenced his speech, but I did arrive early enough to hear his remarks with regard to the arrangement which has recently been made with Spain. I confess I was a little disturbed when he, speaking for His Majesty's Government, appeared to be anxious that we should not regard this agreement as a victory over Franco. Why, I cannot think. Why should not we be quite satisfied that in the last resort Franco, having realized that his friends and associates cannot now win this issue, has been compelled by the logic of events and the dangers of the future to conclude this agreement with this country? It is in fact, let us be candid, what we have sought ever since the war started—a victory over Franco and a victory over those doctrines and tendencies for which Franco stands.
  After all, he provided the initial playground on which the preliminary experiments for this dreadful conflict could be tried out. He co-operated as much as he could with the Axis Powers until it became dangerous to do so. He boasted about sending a Blue Division to Russia and regretted to find that in fact it did become blue from what it met with in Russia. Therefore I cannot really understand this hypersensitiveness of the Government or of the noble Earl in these days not, apparently, to offend General Franco. I think we should exult in the fact that the course of events, the courage and the fortitude of those assembled on the side of freedom and liberty have at last been able to bring Franco to realize what the result of this world conflict will be. I find the only satisfaction in the arrangement made with Spain to be in the fact that we have at last succeeded in bringing Franco to heel. I hope that the Spaniards will be able to continue the process and in the end achieve a democratic and libertarian system in Spain which will accord with what we have in mind as the object of this conflict.
  I was also interested to hear that the Black List compiled in war was likely to be kept in existence after the war. After the last war we know that the Black List

  663
  rapidly became a White List; that those who were on it as a result of what they did during the war became the white-headed boys for peace-time international industrial activity. I would like to suggest to the noble Earl that if the Black List during the war is to be effective after the conclusion of hostilities the Government will need to control the international cartels who were not unfriendly to many of the concerns which have been put upon the Black List during the war and might be in no sense less friendly to them immediately after the war, unless the Government are willing to take control of the activities of these international cartels. I really was interested and amused to note with what glee the noble Earl danced upon the coffin of his own Department. He seemed to be quite encouraged by the fact that he had taken part in his own demise and that the Foreign Office should take over what remained of his Department at the appropriate stage—a kind of Sidney Carton doing a "far, far better thing than I have ever done." If I may say so, this control of those on the Black List after the war cannot be satisfactorily done unless there is an organization to do it, and you cannot plan international activity after the war unless that planning be based upon some effective controls. Whilst I should be the last to suggest that all the Departments which have arisen during war should be maintained in existence after the conclusion of hostilities, I do hope that such arrangements will be made that those concerns which have been quite properly put upon the Black List during the war shall remain on a Black List, the international cartels notwithstanding.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, if I may, with your Lordships' permission, I will reply to one or two points on which noble Lords have asked me questions. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, asked me whether there has been any blockade running by air. It is the fact that in the early part of the war the Lati Airline did fly between South America and Europe and during that period a certain number of very important small articles like diamonds and platinum and the like were imported into Europe. Owing to the action of the Brazilian Government and of the United States Government that was brought to a close, about two years ago, and since then there has been, practically speaking, no air
  664
  flights that would be of benefit to the enemy. There may be attempts to smuggle things like diamonds on airlines that go through territory which we control but I need hardly assure the noble Viscount that we take very elaborate steps to try to prevent that. The noble Viscount also asked me about thirty-eight Irish firms that have been put on the American Proclaimed List. Those firms have been on our Statutory List ever since the outbreak of war, but it really is a matter of little importance because they could not do any trade with Germany; they were mainly the local representatives of German firms. For some reason this small difference between the Proclaimed List and the Statutory List was never adjusted by the United States Government until yesterday, so there is very little significance attaching to that act.
  The noble Viscount also asked questions about the financial blockade. I am happy to be able to tell him what we have done in that direction. I need not say that it makes a tremendous difference in this matter that America is our Ally. It would be impossible if the United States and the greater part of the South American Republics were not our Allies, but owing to that fact and in co-operation with our American Allies, we have been able to freeze the assets of all enemy firms and enemy Governments in the American banks. Then we have also black listed neutral firms that exported works of art from Europe to America which we knew to have been looted, or exported works of art or objects of value on German account. Obviously the purpose of that would be to get American exchange in America. Firms who attempted to do it have been threatened with the Black List, and we did stop that traffic. We also did the same in regard to the export of highly valuable postage stamps in which there was a certain amount of trade going on.
  But I think the most significant act my Department was able to take was in connexion with a particularly horrible manifestation of Nazi brutality. About eighteen months to two years ago the German Government hit on the fiendish idea of getting American exchange, which they required for espionage purposes, by arresting wealthy Jews in Holland—and in other parts of occupied Europe, but it started in Holland—Jews who had

  665
  wealthy relatives in America, and by informing those relatives that unless by such and such a date they paid £5,000 or £10,000 into the German, Embassy at Buenos Aires their relatives in Holland would be sent to a concentration camp, and not only the man but his wife and family too. Certain test cases were started by the Germans of this horrible method. The unfortunate victim of this blackmail came to us and of course the matter had to be referred to me. I consulted the Dutch Prime Minister on the subject and we agreed that no man had yet ever given way to blackmail without subsequently regretting it, and that the only way to treat the blackmailer was to tell him to do his worst. Therefore we announced at once that any bank or financial house that facilitated such a transaction or had any part in it, or any individual or firm who acted as intermediary in such transactions, would be put on the Black List. About thirty or forty cases of blackmail of this sort were tried and a corresponding number of victims massacred in Germany because the blackmail money was not paid. Then the attempt to extract American exchange by this horrible method was dropped by Germany because it failed. That is a story from which I think we can derive considerable satisfaction. That is the fullest answer I can give my noble friend in reply to his question on that matter.
  The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, asked a question about the Tangier Consulate. I have not the slightest doubt that the Spanish Government will fulfil their undertaking in this matter. In reply to his question about the Black List I can assure him that firms on the Black List have not been left, and will not be left, in any doubt about the attitude of His Majesty's Government. He also asked me a question about Belgian steelworks. I am grateful to him for having given me notice on that point, but nevertheless I cannot discuss particular targets in public. I can say, however, that every target of economic importance has been reported on by my Department to the military or air force authorities concerned.
  LORD STRABOLGI: That was not the point of my question. May I be allowed to clarify it? Have the Belgian proprietors of the firms been warned of what may happen to them?
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: All owners of factories in occupied territory know that if their factory is working for Germany in a military sense, or indeed in any sense that is important and that justifies it as an operation of war, that factory is liable to be destroyed. The noble Lord will be aware also that we have through the B.B.C. warned on a number of occasions the local inhabitants to get at least one kilometre away from all such factories.
  The noble Lord also asked me a question about chrome. Again I have to thank him for giving me notice of the question. Of course the agreement that was made with Turkey in 1939 was not made by this Government. It was made by the preceding Government. That agreement provided that the entire output of Turkish chrome until the end of 1941 should be acquired by Great Britain and France with an option of one year's continuance. That option was exercised and so the entire output of chrome came to this country until the end of 1942, and indeed until January 8, 1943. It is a fact, I believe, that the British and French Governments at that time were offered a very much longer contract but the financial terms were judged to be so onerous that the offer was not accepted. In my view a very great mistake was made, but it is very easy to be wise after the event and critics must remember the fact that our financial position was in many respects much more difficult than it is to-day because Lease-lend had not been born or thought of. It was very important for us to consider in what direction we could best spend our limited resources.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, and the noble Earl, Lord Perth, had a little debate on the subject of foreign affairs by themselves, and I will not venture to intervene except to say that I welcome the assistance of the noble Earl, Lord Perth.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Is that the answer to the question I put? Does that mean that the whole matter will not be reconsidered at all?
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I can assure my noble friend that before I made an announcement to your Lordships the matter was very carefully considered, not only in my Department but also in the Foreign Office and by an Inter-Departmental Committee. I can assure

  667
  him these changes have not been made without providing that those functions which are necessary shall be fulfilled. I really must ask my noble friend to believe me when I tell him that it is not necessary to keep a separate Ministry for purposes which can perfectly well be left to the Foreign Office and other Departments if the various duties and functions are split up as arranged.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I did ask whether the Department of Overseas Trade would come into this arrangement or not.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Of course the Department of Overseas Trade already has very close liaison with the Foreign Office, and no doubt will have with the Economic Intelligence Branch of the Foreign Office, which will advise as it does now other Departments beside the Foreign Office. That point, I can assure the noble Viscount, has not been overlooked. The noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, asked me a question about the blockade of Japan. I must apologize if I gave a false impression. Everything I said applies equally to Japan, but of course there is this difference that Japan is an island and many of the blockade questions with regard to Germany arise from the fact that Germany has contiguous neutral countries. It is when you are bargaining with neutrals that complicated problems generally arise. In the case of Japan it is the American Fleet, now assisted by the British Fleet, that is enforcing the blockade and the complication of negotiation with neutrals really does not come in.
  VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: In regard to the position of neutrals and Japan, I suggest that in the case of those people who are black listed for trading with Japan, of whom there must be considerable numbers in Siam and similarly situated countries, it is important that we should insist on their being treated in the same way as if they traded with Germany.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Oh, yes, entirely. They are on the Black List already. Anyone who has traded with Japan is on the Black List; he has been from the moment he was detected, and he will continue to be on the Black List. The noble Lord, Lord Latham, treated us to a most eloquent speech, to which,
  668
  I confess, I find some difficulty in replying, because, if he will forgive my saying so, he did touch upon a number of subjects which are a little bit outside the scope, of this debate. He likes to think that we have scored a victory over Franco. I never mentioned the Caudillo's name at all. I said that there had been no victory by Britain over Spain; that Spain and England and America had made an agreement that was satisfactory to all parties. Agreements of this kind are agreements between independent countries made by the consent of all the parties. The only country that was defeated was Germany. I assure the noble Lord that that represents the fact. In conclusion I should like to thank noble Lords generally for the kind way in which they have sat in judgment on my colleagues and myself.
  LORD NATHAN: My Lords, I believe your Lordships will agree that this debate has been well worth while. It is a debate to which particular distinction has been given by reason of the contribution made to it by a former Minister of Blockade and the maiden speech of Lord Rennell. I congratulate Lord Rennell on behalf of my noble friends, and I welcome him to our counsels here. I am glad that the noble Earl, the Minister, who has just sat down, has illuminated, but not illuminated too much, so many dark places. He has given us some most interesting and valuable information. He has made a most important announcement with regard to the transfer of the Information Department from his Department to the Foreign Office. I do not wish, at this stage, to enter into any controversial matter, but I would say that it seems to me that the transfer of that branch to the Foreign Office is very apt and appropriate, and useful to the public service. It cannot be believed that the Department of Overseas Trade, and the Board of Trade also, will not have access to any information which may be available to that branch although it be, actually, an organ of the Foreign Office.
  I was a little taken aback by what the noble Earl said with regard to the closing down of his Department; not so much from the standpoint of the desirability, at the close of hostilities, of bringing wartime Departments to an end, but because of what seemed to me to be the practical implications of that proposal if it were

  669
  to be brought into effect as promptly as the Minister seems to anticipate. I have in mind the continuation of the Black List against Japan after hostilities with Germany have ceased. As regards Japan, the list will continue, and it may well have to be extended. The necessity for the list will continue, and the necessity for some organ of Government to supervise its operation will also continue. Moreover there will be a period after the war when the list will have to be continued in operation in some respects. I have already ventured to suggest to the noble Earl that the Black List might be used for the implementation, after the cessation of hostilities, of terms for trading with countries which have been enemy countries. Certainly it appears that, for all these periods, some Government Department will be necessary to deal with matters connected with the Black List. It looked to me as if some gap might be left in the organization. That no doubt will have attention so as to ensure that no such gap is in fact left.
  I am prompted by observations made by my noble friend Lord Latham to mention again in a sentence a matter which touched upon in my own speech at the opening of this debate—the propriety of trying to ensure after the war that Germany's holdings in industry, especially certain industries outside the borders of Germany, should be made available to the United Nations. It is clear that, if this is to take place, the necessary operations must be undertaken with care so as not to strengthen unduly the cartels which at present exist even without the participation of German interests. Often in another place, and less often in this House too, I have heard Ministers, replying to debates, say: "I have no complaint to make of the course that this debate has taken." I think the noble Earl, the Minister of Economic Warfare, may say—for I repre
  670
  sent, I believe, the temper of your Lordships' House in suggesting this—that he has no ground for making any complaint of the course of this debate. We would say to him, "Proceed in the way in which you have thus far gone." I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD STANMORE): My Lords, I beg to move that Viscount Mersey be added to the Select Committee on Procedure of the House.
  Moved, That the Viscount Mersey be added to the Committee on Procedure of the House.—(Lord Stanmore.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid on the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the Bill have not been complied with.
  The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

  HERTS AND ESSEX WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  The King's consent signified and Bill reported with Amendments.

  CONNAH'S QUAY GAS BILL.
  The King's consent signified and Bill reported without amendment.
  House adjourned.