Sitting of 11 May 1944

PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  NORTH WEST MIDLANDS JOINT ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,
  "to confirm a Provisional Order under Section One of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1922, relating to the North West Midlands Joint Electricity Authority"; presented by Mr. Tom Smith; read the First time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 25.]
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (NORTH LINDSEY WATER BOARD) BILL,
  "to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the North Lindsey Water Board"; presented by Mr. Willink; read the First time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 26.]
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (WARRINGTON) BILL,
  "to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the borough of Warrington"; presented by Mr. Willink; read the First time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 27.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  COAL INDUSTRY

    Worker's Dismissal, Lanarkshire
    Mr. Fraserasked the Minister of Labour for what reason William Finnan was dismissed from Dawn Mine, Nether-burn, Lanarkshire; and why he has been directed to employment outwith the mining industry.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): Mr. Finnan was dismissed for serious misconduct. He was sent, but not directed, to other employment temporarily pending suitable coalmining employment being found for him. I am pursuing the question of the possibility of his return to coalmining.
    Mr. Fraser: Is the Minister aware that the nature of this man's misconduct was that he refused to work a double shift in the pit?
    Mr. Bevin: I was not aware of that. I will look up the papers.
    Mr. Foster: Is the Minister aware that a number of these youths have been discharged by the employers in the mining industry and are being permitted, by National Service officers, to go into employment other than mining?
    Mr. Bevin: If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of that matter, I will look into it. I was not aware of it.

    Man-Power
    Commander Galbraithasked the Minister of Labour whether he is satisfied that the necessary number of new entrants to the coal-mining industry will be provided by the existing compulsory recruitment machinery.
    Mr. Bevin: The number of new entrants into the coalmining industry through the machinery of the ballot cannot be dealt with in isolation but must be considered in conjunction with all men from the military field available for call up and directed to coalmining, as well as with men released from the Forces for coalming for whom replacements have to be provided. Taking these sources together, and having regard to the acute stringency in man-power, I am satisfied with the progress that is being made. There may be fluctuations from time to time in the number of recruits compulsorily directed to the coalmining training centres, especially having regard to claims of other urgent requirements.
    Commander Galbraith: Has the right hon. Gentleman found it necessary to amend to any extent the scheme which he described to us last December?
    Mr. Bevin: No, Sir.

    Balloted Worker's Death (Compensation)
    Mr. Montagueasked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the circumstance that Henry Robert Hale, of Luard Street, Islington, who was killed in an accident at Heworth Colliery, Durham, would, if he had been directed into the Fighting Forces, have qualified for the payment of a pension to his parents in a similar case; and if he will look into the disadvantageous position of boys directed to the mines in this regard.
    Mr. Bevin: Men selected by ballot for service in the coal mines work under the same conditions, and the same rights to compensation apply in respect of injury or death as in the case of other miners. It would not be practicable to apply to these men provisions applicable only to members of H.M. Forces without reconsideration of the whole basis of their employment, and also that of other men who, though liable for military service, are required to remain in, or transfer to, essential civilian work.

    Trainees (Employment)
    Mr. Fosterasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is satisfied that he now possesses full power to compel the employers in the mining industry to employ those youths who are being trained for the industry; and whether he can give the number accepted into full employment below ground.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Tom Smith): Yes, Sir. The Coal Mining Undertakings Control Order, 1942, General Direction (Employment in Coal Mines) No. r dated 14th March, 1944, and the Coal Mining Undertakings Control Order, 1942, provide the requisite powers. I am not yet in a position to give my hon. Friend a reply to the latter part of his question. I will let him have the information as soon as possible.

  I.L.O. CONFERENCE, PHILADELPHIA
  Mr. Manderasked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement with regard to the proceedings of the I.L.O. at Philadelphia.
  Mr. Bevin: I am not in a position to make a statement at the present time.
  Mr. Mander: Could not the right hon. Gentleman indicate the attitude of the Government to the Philadelphia Charter?
  Mr. Bevin: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the Government cannot make a statement about a charter that they have only just heard about on the wireless.
  Mr. Shinwell: While I appreciate that that is quite a proper position to take up, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that the statement issued on the radio yesterday was that the British Government's proposal in relation to social security was defeated by a large vote at the Conference? If that is so, is it possible to have the position clarified? Cannot my right hon. Friend make a statement at an early date?
  Mr. Bevin: I will consult my colleagues. There is bound to be a Debate on the I.L.O. Conference when we have the full report. I should like to make this point clear, so that there should not be any misapprehension. The Government did not vote against social security. What they asked for, quite properly, was that the recommendations which had been advanced should be submitted to the Governments before the final vote, so that when we gave our final vote it would be with the intention of giving effect to it in our laws.
  Mr. Leslieasked the Minister of Labour if a report of the meetings and decisions of the I.L.O. at Philadelphia will be available in the Library of the House at an early date.
  Mr. Bevin: I will arrange for a copy of the record of the Conference proceedings, which is published by the I.L.O., to be placed in the Library of the House as soon as it is received, but in present circumstances such a record is not likely to be available at any early date.
  Mr. Leslie: Would it be possible to have more than one copy, because of the interest likely to be shown in it when we do get it?
  Mr. Bevin: I will consider that question.
  Mr. Edmund Harvey: Would my right hon. Friend consider issuing a White Paper, which would be available to the public, showing the decisions of the Conference, and any decisions ensuing on them by His Majesty's Government?
  Mr. Bevin: I should have thought the House had nearly had a surfeit of White Papers. I assumed that there would be a Debate on the proceedings sooner or later.

  NATIONAL WAR EFFORT

    Central Register (Ex-Officers)
    Mr. Ballengerasked the Minister of Labour how many ex-officers are on the books of the Central Registry awaiting suitable appointments; and will he give a tabulated statement in HANSARD showing the numbers by service, ranks and age.
    Mr. Bevin: I regret that the available statistics do not enable me to give the information required by my hon. Friend. I am considering whether information of this kind could be conveniently recorded in future.
    Mr. Ballenger: Could not my right hon. Friend make further inquiries, because my information is that a considerable number of ex-officers, especially senior officers, are now being retired from the Army, and are waiting on his books, with very little hope of getting suitable employment?
    Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir, but the hon. Gentleman has asked me for precise information, and I have said that it is not being kept in that form. I think I have met my hon. Friend in saying that I am considering whether the information can be kept in a form which will satisfy him in future.

    Appointments Register (Inquiries)
    Sir John Mellorasked the Minister of Labour why his Appointments Department usually inquires of persons enrolled on the Appointments Register, who have obtained employment by other means, the medium through which they obtained such employment; and whether he will prohibit such inquiry.
    Mr. Bevin: The practice referred to is not restricted to persons enrolled on the Appointments Register. It is part of the general machinery for ensuring that manpower is used to the best advantage, and I cannot agree to its modification in respect of a particular class of persons.
    Sir J. Mellor: What is the purpose of this question? Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is even asked of persons who
    2060
    are not restricted in finding employment, and who have accepted employment with firms who are not restricted to engaging their labour through the Ministry?
    Mr. Bevin: There is the Restriction on Engagement Order, under which certain persons in certain age groups and for certain industries must be employed through the employment exchanges. If I do not ask this question, I do not discover whether employers are evading their obligations or not, and I am not prepared to make any distinction as to the class of person of whom I ask the question.
    Sir J. Mellor: Surely my right hon. Friend knows which category a particular employee and a particular employer is in.

    Government Factories (Inspection)
    Miss Wardasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the large numbers of State employees in industry, he has made the powers of the factory inspectorate equally applicable to both State and private enterprise.
    Mr. Bevin: The Factories Act itself expressly provides that it applies to factories belonging to or in the occupation of the Crown, and such factories are inspected by the factory inspectorate in the ordinary course.
    Miss Ward: Have factory inspectors the right of prosecution in the case of factories owned by the State, in the same way as they have in the case of privately owned factories?
    Mr. Bevin: One cannot prosecute the Crown. If a matter is wrong, then it becomes the Government's responsibility to put it right.
    Miss Ward: Has the Government's responsibility always been accepted in Royal Ordnance Factories?
    Mr. Bevin: I think so.
    Mr. Thorne: If an accident happens in any of the Government's factories, I take it that the Government are responsible?
    Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir, certainly.

    Mental Hospitals (Staffs)
    Major Nieldasked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to relieve the acute shortage of staff in mental hospitals; and if he is able to say what progress has been made in this direction.
    Mr. Bevin: Since the registration of all nurses and midwives took place in April, 1943, under the Nurses and Midwives (Registration for Employment) Order, 1943, steps have been taken by my Department to increase the number of new entrants to the nursing and midwifery profession, to secure the return to these professions of women with experience who are not now employed in them, and to see that women with special qualifications are employed in posts where those qualifications will be used. Since August, 1943, nearly 1,800 women have been placed by the appointments offices of my Department in employment, or training in mental nursing work, and, in addition, nearly 550 persons have been engaged by mental hospitals and institutions direct. As a further step to improve the position in this and other shortage fields of nursing work, mental nursing has been included amongst the fields of special service which newly state registered nurses are required to perform for 12 months after registration.
    Mr. Bowles: In view of the difficulty indicated, would my right hon. Friend consider consulting the Minister of Health to see whether some of these mental patients could not be let out?
    Mr. Bevin: Where should I transfer them to? Here?
    Sir Joseph Lamb: When my right hon. Friend refers to mental nurses, does he mean male or female, or does he include both?
    Mr. Sevin: Both.
    Mr. Sorensen: Would not my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in any matters concerning mental hospitals, he should have the closest consultation with the Minister of Health, in regard to patients?
    Mr. Bevin: Obviously. All I do is to provide training. The actual work of dealing with the hospitals is my right hon. and learned Friend's job.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that many patients in mental hospitals are quite capable of assisting in nursing?
    Mr. Bevin: All questions dealing with the administration of the hospital service should be addressed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health.

  NEW SCHOOL BUILDINGS (ALTERNATIVE USES)
  Sir Waldron Smithersasked the President of the Board of Education whether, when the question of building new schools arises, he will consult with other Departments with a view to the utilisation of classrooms and assembly halls for local functions and meetings.
  The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): School buildings and especially school halls are already extensively used out of school hours for a wide range of social purposes, and the Board hope that, so far as this can be done without detriment to the work carried on in the daytime, this use will be extended further. The matter is one for consideration by the local education authority or other body controlling the school.
  Sir W. Smithers: When new schools are to be built, will the right hon. Gentleman see that this golden opportunity is not allowed to slip, especially in country villages, of giving the best accommodation that can be provided for meetings in the evening?
  Mr. Butler: That matter has already been referred to in a volume called "Suggestions for the planning of elementary school buildings." I undertake to bear it in mind when we are drafting our Regulations under the new Bill.

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    Crane Flies.
    Sir John Mellorasked the Minister of Health what reports he has received from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and other authorities with regard to the nuisance during recent weeks, near Minworth and Curdworth, from crane flies, which breed in the sewage filter beds of the Birmingham Tame and Rea District Drainage Board; and to what extent measures taken by the drainage board have reduced this nuisance by comparison with the corresponding periods of previous years.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Millink): The information received from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research indicates that this is a matter requiring lengthy expert investigation,

    2063
    which is continuing. The trouble varies greatly with the weather, and it is not, therefore, easy to assess results by comparison with previous years. A chemical treatment is now to be tried. I shall be happy to arrange for my hon. Friend to discuss the matter with the investigators, if desired.
    Sir J. Mellor: While thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply may I ask him whether he will have this horrible nuisance kept under specially close observation during the next few weeks?
    Mr. Willink: Certainly, Sir. As my hon. Friend knows, it is being considered by the Water Pollution Research Board, and two universities, and I will take note of what he has suggested.
    Mr. Keeling: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this nuisance is not confined to the Birmingham area; and will he consider having an inquiry as to the prevalence of the nuisance over the whole country?
    Mr. Willink: All of us who are aware that the crane fly is the "daddy long legs," or leather-jacket, are aware that the nuisance is prevalent over the whole country.
    Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. and learned Gentlemen stop considering, and get something done?
    Mr. Keeling: Will my right hon. and learned Friend answer my question whether he will have an inquiry into the prevalence of the nuisance over the whole country?
    Mr. Willink: I will consider that.

    Mental Hospital Patients (Tobacco)
    Major Nieldasked the Minister of Health if he will consider granting a free issue of tobacco or cigarettes to such patients in mental hospitals under the Board of Control as are allowed to smoke.
    Mr. Willink: The question of a free issue of tobacco and cigarettes to patients in a mental hospital is one for the visiting committee of the institution and I am not empowered to give any direction in the matter.
    Major Nield: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the very real
    2064
    hardship to these unfortunate people who may be inveterate smokers?
    Mr. Willink: No, Sir; if any case of real hardship such as my hon. and gallant Friend suggests were brought to my notice I should bring it to the notice of the proper authorities.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that to say that these cigarettes or tobacco are given free, is quite misleading, because the mental hospital has to pay for them?
    Mr. Reakes: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in one mental hospital in Cheshire no such complaint as that exists?

    Ministry of Health (Medical Advisory Committees)
    Dr. Russell Thomasasked the Minister of Health how many of the doctors appointed to negotiate with him before the publication of the White Paper on National Health Services serve, and have served during the last two years, on advisory committees appointed by his Ministry; and how many serve, and have served during the same period, on advisory committees of other Ministries.
    Mr. Willink: With regard to my own advisory committees I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which my predecessor gave him on the same point on 21st October last. I am afraid I have not enough information to answer in regard to the advisory committees of other Departments.
    Dr. Thomas: Seeing that that answer was that there were 13 of these advisers to the Minister, will the Minister say whether these negotiator advisers are paid or, if not, whether they are living in expectation of glory and honour to come, which is the general impression?
    Mr. Willink: No members of my medical advisory committee are paid as such.
    Dr. Russell Thomasasked the Minister of Health if the Council or any executive body of the British Medical Association act in a general way in an advisory capacity to his Ministry.
    Mr. Willink: It is my practice to consult the British Medical Association on matters affecting, the professional interests which

    2065
    it represents. But neither the Council nor any of its executive bodies acts in an advisory capacity to my Department in the manner suggested by my hon. Friend's question. That is the province of my Medical Advisory Committee and other special advisory bodies constituted by me for the purpose.
    Dr. Thomas: In view of the fact that it is asserted by those who are well informed that the negotiators are known to have been responsible for part of the White Paper, does my right hon. and learned Friend think that to speak of them as advisory is putting rather mildly this very unhealthy alliance?
    Mr. Willink: No member of the British Medical Association was responsible for any part of the White Paper.
    Sir W. Smithers: Will my right hon. and learned Friend inquire how long it is since the council of the British Medical Association was re-elected, and whether it represents up-to-date medical opinion?
    Mr. Willink: That seems to be an entirely different question. If it is put down, I shall endeavour to answer it.

    National Health Insurance Benefits
    Dr. Littleasked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the trying circumstances under which recipients of Health Insurance benefits are placed owing to the increased cost of living; and, in view of this, whether he will take immediate steps to have these benefits substantially increased.
    Mr. Willink: The whole future of Health Insurance is under consideration in connection with the Government's social insurance proposals, and I cannot make any statement on the matter in advance of the White Paper.
    Dr. Little: As this matter is most pressing and urgent, and the need great, will my right hon. and learned Friend further the interests of these Health Insurance recipients by increasing the benefits?
    Mr. Willink: I think that the value of the Health Insurance benefits is universally recognised.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: Is the Minister aware that, when the present Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he re-
    2066
    duced the State subsidy to Health Insurance by £2,250,00o per annum; and that if he had not done so, this question would not have arisen?
    Mr. Willink: No, Sir; my memory is not so good as that of my hon. Friend.

    Hospital Nurses (Marria£e)
    Mr. Reakesasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that a nurse on the staff of the Northern Hospital has been given notice consequent upon her pending marriage; and what steps he proposes to take to safeguard the nursing profession from the effect of the marriage ban.
    Mr. Willink: No, Sir. Staffing matters are ordinarily for the hospital authority concerned, but if the hon. Member will let me have further particulars of the case he has in mind, I shall be glad to make inquiries.
    Mr. Reakes: In view of the fact that this is a concrete example of the marriage bar against nurses, will the Minister consider raising the bar in that profession, particularly in view of the fact that it has been raised in other professions?
    Mr. Willink: I could not possibly deal with this most far-reaching matter by way of question and answer.

  HOUSING

    Empty Houses, North-West Kent
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Health how much housing accommodation is vacant in the areas controlled by the Chislehurst and Sidcup Urban District Council and the Orpington Urban District Council; and, in view of the shortage of housing accommodation, will he give the necessary instructions to release these empty houses and to give preference to the wives and families of serving soldiers.
    Mr. Willink: Two hundred and two houses are held on requisition by the Clerk of the Chislehurst and Sidcup Urban District Council and of these only 32 are kept in reserve for persons who may be made homeless. The figures in Orpington are 190 and 50 respectively. I do not at this moment feel able to reduce the homeless reserve further but the figures are kept under review and developments in the war situation may enable me to revise my decision in the near future.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that many people who want housing accommodation are the very people who are suffering from enemy action? Why keep these houses empty for hypothetical use, in a set of circumstances which may never arise? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is very galling for these people, especially soldiers' wives, to see houses empty when they are not able to get accommodation?
    Mr. Willink: From three years' personal experience I am very fully aware of the difficulty of balancing these needs, but they are weighed constantly.

    Buildin£ By-taws
    Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Health whether he is making an endeavour to bring greater uniformity and simplicity to building laws and regulations to eliminate the delays now inseparable from the production of constructional working drawings caused by variations in bylaws now in force in the different built-up areas.
    Mr. Willink: As I stated in reply to the hen and gallant Member for Skipton (Mr. H. Lawson) on 4th May, by-laws made under the Public Health Act, 1936, are now practically everywhere in force, apart from London and the provincial towns where the position is governed by special Acts. The by-laws under the Act of 1936 are substantially uniform and in accordance with my model by-laws. I do not know of any variations between different areas which would cause delay in producing constructional working drawings, but if my hon. Friend can call attention to any such variations I will look into them.
    Mr. Bossom: Could my right hon. and learned Friend look into it anyhow, because if he does so, he will find that the towns have so many slight variations, that they delay the architects and engineers considerably in producing their. working drawings?
    Mr. Willink: My hon. Friend is an expert and I have given him an invitation to produce examples of this. I think that is perfectly fair.
    Mr. Bossom: I have not an entire Department at my disposal to do this. My right hon. and learned Friend has.
    Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Health whether any new developments, approved by the Building Research Station or other authorised body, will be made available and legally usable throughout the country without further separate applications having to be made in each individual case to the different local authorities before they may be employed.
    Mr. Willink: It is not proposed to take away from local authorities their present statutory duty of considering whether building plans satisfy the Public Health Acts and by-laws made thereunder. Outside London these are based upon model by-laws which were issued just before the war, and the model can be revised, as necessary, in the light of any important developments in building technique.
    Mr. Bossom: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this House votes money to the Research Station? Could not the nation get the advantage of its work, instead of the advantage being confined to one place only?
    Mr. Willink: If my hon. Friend can suggest any way in which the nation does not get the advantage of that work, I shall, of course, consider it.
    Mr. Bossom: Will my right hon. and learned Friend make a model by-law every time a system is approved, so that the nation will get the advantage?
    Mr. Willink: I cannot imagine that such a procedure would be practicable.

    War Dama£e Repairs
    Sir Leonard Lyleasked the Minister of Health, in view of the statement in circular 49/44, that all war damage repairs should be completed, so far as practicable, by local authorities by the end of the current year, what approximate estimate exists of the houses which will be thus dealt with.
    Mr. Willink: I have asked local authorities to furnish estimates of the work. When I receive these estimates, the preparation of which will involve a considerable amount of surveying in some areas, I will communicate with my hon. Friend.
    Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give instructions

    2069
    to the local authorities to grant more readily and more speedily these certificates so that many other houses can be repaired as well?
    Mr. Willink: I will take note of what my hon. and gallant Friend says.

  SOCIAL INSURANCE (DISABLED PERSONS)
  Major Nieldasked the Minister of Health what special provision is being made in the Government's plan for social security for crippled or otherwise chronically disabled persons.
  Mr. Willink: I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend to await the issue of the White Paper in which the Government's proposals on social insurance will be presented to Parliament.
  Major Nield: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an approximate date for the White Paper?
  Mr. Willink: No, Sir, that is not for me.
  Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Lord Woolton promised the White Paper after Easter? To which Easter was he referring?
  Mr. Willink: That question was put by my hon. Friend last week, and I said then I had no recollection of that statement.
  Mr. Shinwell: I shall put that question again next week.

  WAR-TIME NURSERIES, WILLESDEN
  Mr. Viantasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the Willesden Borough Council, in response to instructions from his Department, approved sites for the establishment of war-time nurseries as far back as 28th September, 1943, and sent particulars of same to his Department on 7th and 12th October, 1943, and, despite the plea of urgency emphasised by his Department, they are still awaiting a decision; and will he expedite this.
  Mr. Willink: The Willesden borough council have, at my request and in consultation with my officers and those of the Minister of Labour, set up II wartime nurseries and two more have been approved and will shortly come into
  2070
  operation. The proposals submitted in October last have been discussed with the Departments concerned and after a review of all the circumstances the conclusion has been reached that there is no sufficient need to justify the approval of additional services in the borough at the present time.

  ENEMY AIR-RAIDS, 1914–18 (CIVILIAN VICTIMS)
  Lady Apsleyasked the Minister of Health what provision was made in the 1914–18 war- for civilian victims of enemy air attack; and how many people or dependants benefited.
  Mr. Willink: Awards from Exchequer funds were made, on the general principles of the Workmen's Compensation Acts., in cases of death or permanent disablement, where the victim or his dependants were not otherwise provided for. The number of awards was 449, and the total amount paid up to the present date is about £80, 000.

  BILLETED EVACUEES (RELIGIOUS BELIEFS)
  Mr. Walter Edwardsasked the Minister of Health if billeting officers are instructed that the religious beliefs of the parents must be taken into account when allocating billets to evacuees where the accommodation situation permits it.
  Mr. Willink: No general instruction has been issued to billeting officers; but when representations have been made to my Department on particular cases, we have endeavoured to adjust the billeting arrangements, so that the needs of the case can be appropriately met.
  Mr. Edwards: If I give my right hon. and learned Friend particulars of a case where a billeting officer definitely refused to grant a transfer, which had been requested by a soldier father, for a child denied the right of instruction in its Catholic duties, will he take definite action?
  Mr. Willink: I should certainly like to have details of such a case.

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

    Barlow, Scott, and Uthwatt Reports
    Mr. Manderasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he

    2071
    can now state the decisions of the Government with regard to the Barlow, Scott, and Uthwatt Reports; and when any legislation or White Papers may be expected on any of the questions involved.
    The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I have nothing at present to add to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member on 30th March, 1944.
    Mr. Mander: When does my right hon. Friend think he will be in a position to give a decision on this matter? Is it true that all efforts to secure agreement on Uthwatt have failed?
    Mr. Morrison: It is not true that all efforts to secure agreement on this matter have failed. My hon. Friend's Question deals with three Reports. I stated the Government's views on the Scott Report on 30th November last.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is it not true to say that the Government have not the slightest intention of implementing the recommendations of the Uthwatt Report; and would it not be only fair to the country to say so?
    Mr. Morrison: No, Sir, it would be neither fair nor true.
    Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I hope my right hon. Friend will not be stampeded by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Air.
    Mr. Mander: When is the legislation promised a year or two ago to enable local authorities to purchase bombed sites likely to be introduced?
    Mr. Morrison: I hope that that Bill will be before the House very shortly.

    Bombed Areas (Ancient Lights)
    Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning, whether, in view of the inevitable complications arising in the large bombed areas from the question of rights of light, etc., he will introduce regulations ending the causes of expense and delay formally associated with ancient lights.
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: This matter is under consideration in connection with the Bill shortly to be presented to Parliament.
    Mr. Bossom: Will my right hon. Friend give the matter very urgent consideration, because it has caused delays and great expense for many years, and it would be undesirable to allow that state of affairs to continue in the post-war years?
    Mr. Morrison: I have given the matter very careful consideration, and I hope that the provisions I shall include in the Bill will meet the difficulties my hon. Friend has in mind. If they do not, I shall be very glad to have his observations.

  MENTAL CASES (MAINTENANCE)
  Mr. Fosterasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is now in a position to make a further statement on the question of mental cases in local hospitals who are having to be maintained by relations or the local authorities.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Mr. Paling): I regret that my right hon. Friend is not at present able to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend on this subject on 16th March.
  Mr. Foster: When will my right hon. Friend be in a position to make a further statement?
  Mr. Paling: I cannot say definitely. This Question has caused a lot of in-quiries, both wide and detailed, but I hope that the answer may be given very soon.

  PENSIONS AND GRANTS
  Mr. Tinkerasked the Minister of Pensions if he will state, to the most recent date available, the number of parents who have lost sons through war service and have not been awarded a pension through their means being above the scale upon which a pension is awarded.
  Mr. Paling: The number of such cases is approximately 24,000. All the cases can, of course, be reopened at any time if the parents' circumstances alter.
  Mr. Tom Brown: Is my right Friend aware that the index of public opinion is rising very rapidly against his Department for not granting pensions for these parents?

  INDIA

    Economic Development Plan
    Professor A. V. Hillasked the Secretary of State for India whether copies of "A Plan of Economic Development of India," published in Bombay last January, by a group of Indian industrialists, can be made available to Members of Parliament.
    The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): A copy is being placed in the Library of the House. I understand that the Plan will shortly be published commercially in this country.

    Post-war Educational Developments
    Professor A. V. Hillasked the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India publication, "Postwar Educational Developments in India: Report by Central Advisory Board of Education, January, 1944," can be reprinted and made generally available in this country.
    Mr. Amery: Copies of this report are on the way to this country from India, and will be obtainable before long from the office of the High Commissioner for India. Meanwhile, copies have been placed in the Library of the House.
    Professor Hill: Can a summary of this report be printed and made generally available?
    Mr. Amery: I hope to have copies in a month's time. They are on their way by sea.
    Mr. Gallacher: Can the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Congress leaders to come here and address the Members of the House of Commons?
    Mr. Amery: That is a separate question.

    Lottery Bonds
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for India if he is aware of the continued concern expressed by Indian and British persons and organisations at the institution of lottery bonds; whether any reply has been given to the protests of religious leaders on this matter, including the Metropolitan; if there is any likelihood of this method of raising money being brought to an end; and how much money has been raised by this means up to date.
    Mr. Amery: I am not aware of the grounds on which the first part of the question is based, but I have no doubt that the Government of India have given due attention to any such representations as they may have received. As regards the last two parts of the Question, I am not prepared to anticipate any announcements which may be made hereafter by the Government of India.
    Mr. Sorensen: Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman is unaware of the protests made by large numbers of people in India against this method of raising finance, and is the financial gain equal to the moral loss?
    Mr. Amery: There is self-government in India.
    Sir Herbert Williams: Cannot we have an opportunity to buy some of the lottery tickets here?
    Mr. Sorensen: Although there is self-government in India, has the right hon. Gentleman not received many protests from India about this method?
    Mr. Amery: No, Sir.
    Sir Irving Albery: Which Governments in India are making use of this method of raising finance?
    Mr. Amery: The Central Government.

    Congress Leaders (Health)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for India if he has any further statement to make on the illness and present condition of Mr. Gandhi; whether he will also report on the health of Jawarharlal Nehru and Khan Abdul Goffur Khan; if they are receiving every medical attention; and whether they and other detainees are likely to be released.
    Mr. Amery: Mr. Gandhi, whose health was giving cause for serious anxiety, was released solely on medical grounds on the 6th May. Subsequent bulletins issued by his private doctors have been reported in the Press. I have received no adverse reports on the health of Jawarharlal Nehru or Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, who will, of course, receive any medical attention that they may need. As regards the last part of the Question, the policy of the Government regarding the detention of the Congress leaders is on record and I have no further statement to make in the matter.
    Mr. Sorensen: Might I ask the Minister whether Gandhi was not released unconditionally, and will not the same principle apply to the other detainees if, in fact, they become ill?
    Mr. Amery: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and the answer to the second part is that that is a matter which the Government of India will consider in due course.
    Mr. Tinker: If Gandhi does recover, the right hon. Gentleman will not consider putting him back again?
    Mr. Amery: That is a matter which we must leave until the situation arises.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is there any truth in the report that Gandhi is about to see the Viceroy?
    Mr. Amery: I have no information.

  HOUSEBREAKING, NORTH KENSINGTON (POLICE PROTECTION)
  Captain Duncanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered appeals from residents of the Northland Ward, North Kensington, asking for stronger police action, in view of their concern and anxiety because of the number of burglaries in the neighbourhood; what reply has he sent; and whether he proposes to increase the police protection of this district.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir. I have consulted the Commissioner of Police, who informs me that a small number of cases of breakings into premises have occurred in this neighbourhood. The police are fully alive to the situation and constant attention is being paid to it, with the result that several arrests have been effected. It is not the case that the police protection of the district has been reduced, and I can find no grounds for any further action on my part.
  Captain Duncan: In view of the anxiety and of the responsible character of the people who have sent this memorial to the right hon. Gentleman, will he be prepared to receive a small deputation if I find a suitable day?
  Mr. Morrison: I hardly think I should be justified in that. I will try to find some means whereby the complaints can be further examined, if that will meet the hon. and gallant Member. In the meantime, I hope he wit not call too much attention to this, otherwise, perhaps, it will induce burglars to come from other parts of London.
  Commander Locker-Lampson: Is the Minister aware that Dolphin Square had five burglaries in one section in a fortnight, and should the policemen no longer run the black-out but leave it to the A.R.P., to catch the real criminals?
  Mr. Morrison: This Question relates to the Northland Ward of the Royal Borough of Kensington. I understand that Dolphin Square is in the City of Westminster. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will put that down.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (WHITE PAPER)
  Mr. Ness Edwardsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the White Paper on Workmen's Compensation is yet completed; and if he can make any statement as to the date of its publication.
  Mr. H. Morrison: I am unable at the moment to say when this White Paper will be published.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: In view of the widespread feeling about this matter, and the anomalies arising out of recent legislation, can we have an assurance that there is no delay on the part of the Minister's Department?
  Mr. Morrison: There will be no undue or improper delay about it. I cannot agree about the anomalies under the last Act, which I think was a very good Act and a very great advance. I wish my hon. Friend could claim credit for its passage.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Can the Minister say what procedure the Government will follow? Will there be a Debate on a White Paper before the proposals are introduced, or will the White Paper represent the final and crystallised conclusions of the Government?
  Mr. Morrison: I should imagine that that question should be put to the Leader of

  2077
  the House, although I should think the White Paper will be of a similar character to the other White Papers of this kind.
  Mr. Nicholson: May I take it from that answer that there will be a Debate, during which the Government's mind will remain open?
  Mr. Morrison: That question should be put to the Leader of the House.

  POLICE FORCE, WEST RIDING (INQUIRY)
  Mr. Hugh Lawsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has considered the Report of the inquiry conducted in October, 1943, by a special sub-committee of the West Riding Standing Joint Committee into certain matters concerning the West Riding constabulary; and if he intends setting up a public inquiry into the matter referred to.
  Mr. H. Morrison: The inquiry to which the hon. Member refers was concerned with matters for which the Standing Joint Committee, as police authority, were primarily responsible. I have, however, seen the Sub-Committee's Report, which was approved by the Standing Joint Committee, and am satisfied that they dealt fully and adequately with the issues referred to them. In these circumstances, I see no reason for any further inquiry or for any further action on my part.
  Mr. Lawson: May I ask the Minister if he is aware that there is a certain amount of concern in the West Riding about this matter; and if he will not institute an inquiry so that public confidence in this force may be restored?
  Mr. Morrison: No, Sir. There is no need for me to intervene and hold an inquiry. I know what the Standing Joint Committee have done about the matter, and, on the whole, I am satisfied with what they did. In the meantime, the West Riding of Yorkshire are running their own show and I do not want to interfere with them.

  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (SHERIFFS)
  Sir H. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department under
  2078
  what authority the Sheriff of the City of Lincoln is sitting as a Justice of the Peace in the city despite the provisions of the Sheriffs Act, 1887.
  Mr. H. Morrison: I have no authority to give a ruling on a question of law, but Lincoln is a county of a city and it would appear that the provisions of the Sheriffs Act, 1887, prohibiting a sheriff from sitting as a Justice of the Peace in his county do not apply to a county of a city.
  Sir H. Williams: Does not the Minister think it very undesirable that a magistrate who may commit a person for trial should subsequently pick the jury to try him; and will he make representations on that, although not in a position to make an Order?
  Mr. Morrison: I will look into that point.

  TREATING (PROHIBITION)
  Mr. Keelingasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what answer he gave to the suggestion of the Brewers' Society that he should make an Order prohibiting treating.
  Mr. H. Morrison: As the suggestion referred to by my hon. Friend has not arrived the question of sending an answer has not arisen.
  Mr. Keeling: I am assured by a brewer who is a much respected Member of this House that the Brewers' Society did make this suggestion some time ago, and may I ask the Minister whether he would agree that the brewers and the managers of their public houses are in a better position than anybody, and also in an impartial position, to judge whether such an Order would be useful?
  Mr. Morrison: I am afraid I cannot speak for the brewers.
  Mr. Thorne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is treating going on not many yards from where the hon. Member is sitting?
  Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister not consider allowing people to brew their own beer, which will get rid of the treating?

  WOMEN'S SERVICES (ALLOWANCES)
  Miss Wardasked the Prime Minister if the differences in allowances to women officers in the services, compared with men, particularly ration and domestic service allowances, are included among the anomalies being discussed by the Service Departments as a result of the informal committee.
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I am not aware that reference was made to ration and servant allowances for women officers in the discussions with hon. Members. The rates of ration and provision allowances in the women's forces are, however, under consideration.

  UNDER-SECRETARIES OF STATE (INCOME TAX)
  Sir William Davisonasked the Prime Minister whether he will give further consideration to the hardship now suffered by Under-Secretaries of State in not being allowed to deduct for Income Tax the necessary expenses allowed to other Members of Parliament, and if he will make a statement on the subject.
  Mr. Attlee: I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies given on 6th July and 23rd September last to my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), to which I have nothing to add at this juncture.
  Sir W. Davison: May I ask the Minister to understand that no Under-Secretary has suggested this Question, and may I further ask him why what is perhaps the hardest worked section of the House are denied something which is considered just in the case of all other Members of Parliament, so that their promotion often leaves them poorer than before; and will my right hon. Friend inform the House what there is to justify such a procedure?
  Mr. Attlee: The matter was very fully considered by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, in consultation with the Under-Secretaries, and a decision was made that the matter had better be left where it is.
  Sir H. Williams: Arising out of that, by what authority does the Departmental Inspector of Taxes deny to Under-Secretaries something which is their right by
  2080
  Statute—the necessary expenses incurred?
  Mr. Attlee: The position is not exactly as stated by the hon. Member, but, under the rules and regulations—I am not familiar with the details—it is not open to them, when they are Ministers, to claim these expenses as Members of Parliament.
  Sir H. Williams: What is the authority for that statement?
  Mr. Attlee: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that Question down.
  Sir Irving Albery: Is the Minister not aware that Under-Secretaries are, in fact, grossly underpaid?
  Mr. Attlee: The salaries of Under-Secretaries were settled by—[Interruption]—1 will, however, look further into this matter.
  Colonel Arthur Evans: On what grounds do His Majesty's Government assume that the expenses of a Member of Parliament cease to have effect immediately he takes office as an Under-Secretary?
  Sir W. Davison: On a point of Order. I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter again on the Motion for the Adjournment.
  Mr. Gallacher: May I ask if there is any shortage of applicants for the jobs?

  AGRICULTURE

    Willow Cultivation.
    Captain Pluggeasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can make any statement as to the revised by-law of the Essex River and Catchment Board which, if approved by his Department, may affect the cultivation of cricket bat willows.
    The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The object of the revised bylaws of the Essex Rivers Catchment Board is so to regulate the future planting of willows that the Board's excavators will be able to operate along the banks of the rivers. Under the Land Drainage Act, 1930, a by-law is not valid until it has been confirmed by me. The Catchment Board gave the usual notice on the 13th April that on the expiration of one month from the date of the notice, during which period objections may he addressed to me, they intend to apply to me for confirma-

    2081
    tion of the by-laws. I have already received a number of objections and I will carefully consider them, together with any others that may reach me before the notice expires, if I receive the Board's request to confirm the by-laws
    Captain Plugge: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he will bear in mind that cricket, though a slow game, is still played in this country?
    Mr. Driberg: Will the Minister consider holding a public inquiry into this matter?
    Mr. Hudson: Yes, Sir. I will certainly bear that suggestion in mind. I think I would like to wait until I have received all the objections, but I will certainly consider that.

    Farm Workers (Holidays with Pay)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Agriculture if he has any statement to make on the subject of Holidays with Pay for farm workers.
    Mr. Hudson: The Agricultural Wages Board has now given statutory notice of its proposal to bring the Holidays with Pay for farm workers up to six per annum in every county, with an extra day for workers employed regularly on Sundays.

    Crops (Acreage)
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will instruct the war agricultural committees to modify their policy of alloting a fixed acreage for certain crops, such as potatoes, quite irrespective of the suitability of local conditions and to impress on them that it is yield, not acreage, that counts?
    Mr. Hudson: No Committee has received instructions of the kind mentioned. The prime reason for the appointment of War Agricultural Committees consisting of local farmers is in order that they shall interpret policy in the light of local circumstances.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many local farmers of long experience know perfectly well that to carry out an order to grow a certain crop in a certain area must be a failure and a waste of public money; and will he please ask agricultural committees to be guided by the men on the spot more than they are at present?
    Mr. Hudson: No, Sir; the experience of the last four years has demonstrated beyond all doubt that a great number of people who thought they could not grow certain crops were wrong.

  NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CITY COUNCIL (INQUIRY, REPORT)
  Sir Alexander Russellasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to take further action following the publication of the Newcastle-upon-Tyne inquiry Report.
  Mr. R. J. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now prepared to make a statement on the inquiry into Civil Defence and other matters at Newcastle.
  Mr. H. Morrison: I propose, with permission, to answer these Questions at the end of Questions.
  Later:
  Mr. H. Morrison: Parliament will, I am sure, join with me in thanking Mr. Roland Burrows for the public service which he has rendered in carrying out so painstaking and thorough an inquiry and in preparing such an admirable report. The report deals with a variety of matters, including certain general issues which affect local government as a whole and the practice and procedure of local authorities. These matters fall within the province of different Departments of State, and I have no doubt that each of my right hon. Friends will consider the recommendations so far as they concern him. I am in consultation with my right hon. Friends, the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland, as regards certain of the Tribunal's suggestions which relate particularly to the administration of the Civil Defence Services.
  As regards the general recommendations at the end of the report, the repeal of Section to of the Local Government Staffs (War Service) Act, 1939, would have consequences additional to those contemplated in the report, but, in order to prevent the possibility of abuse of the provisions of this section, I hope shortly to indicate to local authorities arrangements which, in my view, are generally undesirable. For instance, a member of a local authority should not be at the same time a member of the Civil Defence or emergency corn-

  2083
  mittee and A.R.P. controller; nor should a member of such a committee occupy a responsible position, whether paid or unpaid, in the Civil Defence organisation. Similar considerations apply to the Fire Guard and other Services.
  As regards the defects in the administration of certain services at Newcastle-upon-Tyne to which the report calls attention, it is for the council and its appropriate committees in the first instance to consider the recommendations made by the tribunal and the criticism made of certain of their officers, and I am glad to observe that certain action has already been taken at Newcastle. I understand that Mr. Embleton has resigned from the city council, and, as regards the chief constable, nave requested the watch committee to consider as a matter of urgency, in the light of the report, the question of his fitness for retention. As regards certain transactions investigated by the tribunal, the question arises whether there is evidence on which to base proceedings for infringements of the criminal law, and these matters have been brought to the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
  Mr. Thorne: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if that report will be available to all the local authorities, so that they may have the information he has just given us?
  Mr. Morrison: I am proposing to communicate generally with the local authorities so that they will have my views. It will be understood that I have made certain qualifying and restrictive statements, and no universal implications should be drawn from them.
  Sir A. Russell: May I ask my right hon. Friend who will be responsible for the cost of this inquiry?
  Mr. Morrison: I am not sure about that. I think I had better have notice of that question. The inquiry was instituted at the request of the Corporation, and I think the Corporation will be well within the matter of the costs, which they will either have to bear or share.
  Mr. Nunn: As one of the Members for Newcastle, may I take this opportunity of joining in the thanks of the Home Secretary to Mr. Burrows for the excellent way in which he conducted the
  2084
  tribunal? It would be improper for me to comment on the findings, and I merely wish to take this opportunity of joining in the thanks of the Home Secretary and saying—
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may ask a question but he may not make a speech.
  Mr. R. J. Taylor: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that a member of a council will not in future be A.R.P. Controller in Civil Defence? If that is so, I hope he will make it clear, and thank the large number of men in this capacity who have rendered yeoman service and have not been paid for it.
  Mr. Morrison: What I said was that a member of a local authority should not be, at the same time, a member of the Civil Defence or emergency committee and A.R.P. Controller. I think that is perfectly clear, because the duty of the committee is to supervise the controller and, if the controller is a member, it creates a rather bad situation.
  Sir W. Smithers: Will the Home Secretary also consider the position not only of members of councils, but of their officials?

  NORTHERN IRELAND (TRAVEL PERMITS)
  Mr. John Beattieasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what regulation Sir Basil Brooke, M.P., was enabled to travel from Belfast to London on 2nd May, 1944, accompanied by his wife; whether he will grant the same facilities to Members of this House who represent the six counties of Northern Ireland, also trade union representatives in the six counties of Northern Ireland.
  Professor Savory: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether this Question is in Order? Ought not the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in the Question to be described as "Prime Minister of Northern Ireland"?
  Mr. Speaker: I think the Question makes it perfectly plain who the individual was, whether Prime Minister or not.
  Professor Savory: Is it not a question of courtesy?
  Mr. H. Morrison: The Prime Minister of Northern Ireland and Lady Brooke were invited by the Prime Minister to meet the Prime Ministers of the Dominions assembled in London, and in the view of His Majesty's Government such a journey was clearly in the national interest and could not be postponed. That is the rule we follow.
  Mr. Beattie: Does the right hon. Gentleman now stand for the privilege of the few and the disadvantage of the many in Northern Ireland? Is he aware that on this gentleman's own statement he travelled to London with his wife for the purpose of renewing old acquaintances; and is it not a fact that many hundreds of people in Belfast and Northern Ireland are denied the right to follow their legitimate business by the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. Morrison: I cannot follow my hon. Friend's point. I have given the facts about it, and, in my judgment, if I had refused permission, and had made difficulties about the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland and his wife coming on such an occasion, I should have been open to a charge of gross discourtesy.
  Mr. Gallacher: In view of the original answer, if I send an invitation to the Belfast organisers of the Communist Party will the right hon. Gentleman allow them to come?
  Dr. Littleasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will ease the situation of the present travel ban between Great Britain and Northern Ireland by issuing a statement setting forth the special circumstance under which exit permits will be granted to applicants for the same.
  Mr. H. Morrison: As stated in the public announcement which was made on 13th March, and with the terms of which my hon. Friend will be familiar, permits or visas for travel between Great Britain on the one hand and Northern Ireland and Eire on the other, can be granted, for the time being, only for business or work of urgent national importance, or on compassionate grounds of the most urgent and compelling character. Each individual case must be considered on its own merits and circumstances vary very widely. I regret, therefore, that it is not
  2086
  possible to comply with my hon. Friend's request, but I can assure him that, consistently with my duty to enforce strictly the temporary suspension of travel between the two Islands which is dictated by military considerations, I am prepared to consider as sympathetically as possible individual applications which it is claimed are covered by the terms of the public announcement.
  Dr. Little: Will the right hon. Gentleman not recognise, as he thinks over the matter, that, in the interests of all, the Home Office should issue a statement stating the conditions under which those who apply for permits will receive the same during the continuance of the bar?
  Mr. Morrison: No, Sir, I do not think that I could go into further details than have been given in the public statement I have already issued.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    National Defence Bonds (Redemption)
    Mr. Graham Whiteasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements are being made for the redemption of 22 per cent. National Defence Bonds.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): I have been asked to reply. In accordance with the Prospectus of 27th April, 1937, the Bonds will be redeemed at par by means of annual drawings, and the first drawing will be that for the Bonds to be redeemed on 15th September, 1944. The amount of Bonds to be drawn at the first drawing will be 20 per cent. of the nominal amount of Bonds created. The amounts to be drawn in future years will be prescribed before each drawing, and, in accordance with the Prospectus, will be such amounts as may be thought expedient, provided that the amount to be drawn in any year will not be less than 20 per cent. of the nominal amount of Bonds created. Each drawing will take place in accordance with Regulations made by His Majesty's Treasury and the arrangements will be duly advertised in the "London Gazette."
    Sir W. Davison: Will not my right hon. Friend consider whether this is something of a lottery and encouraging gambling?

    Government Stock (Interest Payments)
    Mr. Graham Whiteasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if consideration has been given to the desirability of saving labour and paper by making arrangements for the payment of interest on 2½ per cent. Consols and other Trustee Securities by half-yearly instead of quarterly payments.
    Mr. Assheton: Yes, Sir. As regards Government stocks on which dividends are paid quarterly, it has been established that in view of the limited amount of debt involved, no appreciable saving of labour or paper would be achieved by the suggested alteration. The arrangement has definite advantages, for certain classes of investors. A change of practice would require amendment of the law, and I do not think that a case has been made for it.

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

    Regional Schemes
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister without Portfolio if his attention has been directed to the success of the planning carried out in the Tennessee Valley; and if plans are being prepared for several similar miniature schemes to be operated in areas like North Staffordshire and Lancashire.
    The Minister Without Portfolio (Sir William Jowitt): I am aware of the American scheme to which my hon. Friend refers, but the conditions are not the same as those in the industrial areas in this country which he mentions. The Government will, of course, always keep under review the possibility of framing schemes for the improvement of the resources of these areas and of other parts of the country.
    Mr. Smith: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give the House some indication of where the conditions differ in industrial centres in this country from the position in the Tennessee Valley?
    Sir W. Jowitt: I would recommend my hon. Friend to read the account of the Tennessee Valley experiment, which is quite a different community.
    Mr. Smith: I have read that very closely, and is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that President Roosevelt ex-
    2088
    hibited great courage when he insisted that this planning should be carried out around a Government building; and will he give an undertaking that it is the policy of the Government that similar planning, based upon social ownership, shall be carried out around the Government factories in this country after the war?
    Sir W. Jowitt: Certainly, it is the policy of this Government to do all they can to promote effective and useful schemes.
    Mr. Wakefield: Is it not a fact that there are many fine schemes in the British Empire which have been developed by private enterprise without going to the United States of America for them?

    Industrial Centres (Improvement Schemes)
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister without Portfolio what steps are being taken, or are plans being prepared to widen and deepen our rivers and waterways to avoid floods, where practicable to harness the water for hydro-electric power production, to eliminate pit and slag heaps by utilising the material in many forms, tidying up all industrial centres as a contribution to post-war efficiency.
    Sir W. Jowitt: Responsibility for the improvement of waterways and for land drainage at present rests upon catchment boards and other drainage authorities to which Government grants are available. It is proposed, as my hon. Friend is aware, to constitute River Boards, one of whose primary duties will be to attend to such matters. In regard to the second part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given him by the Minister of Fuel and Power on 2nd instant. The other matters are kept under review by the Departments concerned.
    Mr. Smith: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that all people who visit this country greatly admire Britain as a whole but are very critical of industrial centres; and can he state that the Government are conscious that the tidying up of industrial centres is a matter of urgency as a contribution to post-war reconstruction?
    Sir W. Jowitt: That is one of the matters receiving the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning.
    Mr. Smith: Has not the time arrived when, instead of only answering that this is being given consideration, the House should be assured that, in regard to planning, this matter can be put into operation immediately hostilities terminate?
    Sir W. Jowitt: That question should be addressed to my right hon. and learned Friend.

  CIVIL AVIATION (FLYING BOATS)
  Captain Pluggeasked the Secretary of State for Air what steps are being taken to design and produce large multiengined flying boats for post-war civil aviation.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): Design and production of military aircraft must have first call on the resources of the aircraft industry at the present time but a large multi-engined flying boat, the Shetland, is being developed and is due to make its first flight in a few weeks. It is hoped that trials will show whether or not it can be adapted to meet the requirements of post-war civil air transport.
  Mr. Edgar Granville: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind that heavy flying boats with a low pay load are obsolescent for trans-Atlantic work, and much less efficient than land-.based aircraft for the purpose?
  Captain Balfour: But this is not necessarily for trans-Atlantic work, or necessarily a question of a large flying boat with a small pay load. It may be a big flying boat with a big pay load.
  Captain Plugge: Is it not a fact that, since the British Empire provides so many beautiful harbours and waterways, ft should study closely the use of the large flying boat?
  Captain Balfour: I suggest that my hon. and gallant Friend should discuss that technical matter with my hon. Friend the Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) and endeavour to reconcile their views.

  R.A.F. (OVERSEAS SERVICE, LEAVE)
  Mr. R. C. Morrisonasked the Secretary of State for Air what period
  2090
  of leave is granted to R.A.F. personnel upon their return to the United Kingdom after serving four years overseas.
  Captain Balfour: Personnel with four years' or more continuous service overseas are eligible for 28 days' disembarkation leave on return to the United Kingdom, provided they are remaining in the Service. Disembarkation leave is, of course, subject to the exigencies of the Service, but where it is not possible for the full period to be taken immediately the balance will be allowed as soon as circumstances permit.
  Mr. Morrison: In the case of those who are being sent on short leave after four years' overseas service, are they informed that the remainder of their leave is being held in abeyance, or are they just being sent off under the impression that that is all the leave they are to have?
  Captain Balfour: I cannot say whether the men are being specifically informed. I hope my reply will draw attention to that fact, and. I will make a note of the hon. Member's suggestion. I realise it is very hard on these men, but we have brought back squadrons and other formations from overseas which we need for operations, and we cannot spare these men.
  Mr. Bowles: What leave is granted to R.A.F. personnel after two years abroad?
  Captain Balfour: Those with less than two years' service overseas receive 14 days, and those with over two years, but less than four years, service overseas are given 21 days.

  EX-SERVICE MEN (RETAIL LICENCES)
  Miss Wardasked the Minister of Food whether he will give an assurance that when ex-Service men under licence open a retail shop which had been closed owing to service with His Majesty's Forces, they will receive a share of all rationed or controlled goods which they had previously been in the habit of selling.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): Yes, Sir.

  AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION (MESSRS. SHORT BROS.)
  Captain Pluggeasked the Minister of Aircraft Production whether the output of Messrs. Short Brothers has shown an increase over the preceding 12 months of 69 per cent., based on financial returns or on aircraft produced.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): The calculation of the increase was based upon numbers of aircraft delivered.
  Captain Plugge: May I ask my hon. Friend if, since the change of directors at Short Bros., a change has also taken place in the type of aircraft produced, namely, from mass production of ships to prototype machines or vice versa?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir, that would not be a fair description.
  Mr. Wakefield: Is it not a fact that Messrs. Short were experts in specialist design and construction of flying boats?
  Mr. Speaker: That is a different question.

  SURVEYING STAFFS (RECRUITMENT, EIRE)
  Dr. Littleasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works why, when for security reasons a ban has been placed on travel between Great Britain and Ireland, an official from his Ministry was recently sent to Eire to obtain assistants for surveying work in England; whether the Institute of Chartered Surveyors was consulted before this step was taken as to the provision of suitable men in Britain; and whether he is satisfied in the interests of security at this stage of the war with the bringing of men from a neutral State which gives sanctuary to representatives of enemy countries.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hicks): It is the recognised procedure that Government Departments requiring technical staff should obtain it through the Central Register of the Ministry of Labour and National Service. A number of assistant land surveyors and assistant civil engineers are wanted for the expanded opencast coal programme. Owing to the urgent demands of the Forces and other Depart-
  2092
  ments the Central Register was unable to fill these vacancies from candidates in this country, and on the suggestion of the Ministry of Labour and National Service officers of the Ministry of Works visited Eire to assist in the recruitment of suitable candidates there. I am informed that the Central Register are in close collaboration with the Institution of Chartered Surveyors and other professional bodies. The credentials of the men selected are checked in advance by the security authorities.
  Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Is the hon. Gentleman's organisation so gigantic, that the whole world has to be swept to get ready for it?
  Mr. Hicks: It is a very important contribution.
  Dr. Little: Does not my hon. Friend consider that in the interest of public security, at this state of the war, these men should not be brought from Eire?

  MERCANTILE MARINE (CLERICAL DUTIES)
  Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueterasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether his attention has been called to the recent Annual Report of the Mercantile Marine Association, stating that many ships' masters have gone down under the strain of having to cope with the increase in clerical work; and what steps are being taken to create a body of trained officers who can assist the captain in his clerical and crew welfare duties.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): Yes, Sir, my attention has been called to the annual report of the Mercantile Marine Service Association, and to the statements there made about the strain imposed on masters of merchant ships by the increase of clerical work which results from war conditions. The report also recognises that the shortage of man-power makes it impossible to appoint a writer or clerk to every foreign-going ship. In many ships, however, masters do have officers or writers on board to help them, while many companies send down staff to help the master when a ship arrives in port. The problem was examined in 1941 by a joint committee of representatives of Govern-

  2093
  ment Departments, and of the shipping industry. All the recommendations made by the committee were adopted.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he will state the Business of the House for next week; and whether, at the same time, he can make a statcdient with regard to the course of Business to-day on the Education Bill, in view of the progress already made on Report?
The Deputy Prime Minister: We anticipated that three days would be required for the Report and Third Reading of the Education Bill, but rapid progress was made on Tuesday and I am advised that it may be possible for the Third Reading of the Bill to be moved at an early hour to-day, and concluded.. In this event, it is not proposed to sit to-morrow but to adjourn to-day until Tuesday next. I understand that it is inconvenient for Members to proceed with some of the Bills they now have, as these have been in their hands only a short time.
The Business for next week will be as follows:
Tuesday, 16th May—Committee stage of a Supplementary Vote of Credit for War Expenditure. Second Reading of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Wednesday, 17th May—Report stage of the Supplementary Vote of Credit. Afterwards there will be an opportunity to consider the Motion standing on the Paper in the names of the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) and many other hon. Members relating to Statutory Rules and Orders.
That this House would welcome the setting up of a Select Committee, without power to send for persons, papers or records, whose duty it should be to carry on a continuous examination of all Statutory Rules and Orders and other instruments of delegated legislation presented to Parliament; and to report from week to week whether in the opinion of the Committee any such instrument is obscure or contains matter of a controversial nature or should for any other reason be brought to the special attention of the House.]
Thursday, 28th May—Second Reading of the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Bill and Committee stage of -the necessary Money Resolution.
Friday, i9th May—It will be necessary for us to ask the House to pass a special Consolidated Fund Bill for the Vote of Credit through all its stages Afterwards the Second Reading of the Food and Drugs (Milk and Dairies) Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution will be taken.
It may be for the convenience of Members if I state that we hope that the promised Debate on Foreign Affairs will take place the week after next.
Mr. Stokes: In view of the fact that the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Bill was obviously printed before the recent White Paper had been issued, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that some consideration will be given to what is said on the Second Reading of this Bill?
Mr. Attlee: I do not quite get my hon. Friend's point. This Bill deals with a short-term policy and the White Paper proposals dealt with a long-term policy.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) was not asking a question on Business; he was really making a Second Reading point.
Mr. Levy: Do I understand that it is proposed to take the Second Reading of the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Bill plus the Committee stage and Money Resolution on one day, or is a whole day to be given for the Second Reading?
Mr. Attlee: I said, "Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution."
Mr. Bowles: Apparently there is no Business for to-morrow. Surely it is still possible for the House of Commons to meet and for Private Members to be allowed to raise matters which they consider important?
Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the House itself to decide.
Sir Edward Grigg: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any information on whether a statement is likely to be made about the meeting of Prime Ministers before the Debate on Forign Affairs takes place?
Mr. Attlee: I could not say.
Mr. Edgar Granville: In view of the fact that there has been a Debate in another place on Civil Aviation this week, and that the conference between the Lord Privy Seal and Dr. Berle has concluded, will an opportunity be provided, if not on this side of the Whitsun Recess then afterwards, for a Debate on Civil Aviation in this House?
Mr. Attlee: I would like to consider that; it is impossible to look so far ahead.
Mr. Bowles: May I move now, Mr. Speaker, that the House meet to-morrow to discuss the future of civil aviation?
Mr. Speaker: No, the hon. Member must at this stage put questions on Business.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: Could the right hon. Gentleman possibly give any indication of whether the Government intend to put forward any proposals dealing with the whole problem of delegated legislation? I do not want to ask what the proposals are, but if some such indication could be given, it might assist the House. If the Government do intend to put forward proposals, could those proposals be communicated to the House, so that we shall have an opportunity of considering them before the Debate on Statutory Rules and Orders?
Mr. Attlee: The Government want to hear the views of the House in that Debate, in the course of which a Member of the Government will make a statement on the problem, and give the Government's attitude to the question.
Mr. Bowles: On Business, Mr. Speaker, may I now move that the House meet to-morrow to discuss the future of civil aviation?
Mr. Speaker: If the House is not meeting to-morrow, a Motion to adjourn until Tuesday next must be moved to-day and the hon. Member will then have his opportunity.
Mr. W. J. Brown: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an approximate date for a discussion on the Motion on Equal Pay?
[That this House is in favour of the immediate application of the principle of equal pay as between men and women employed in those classes of the Civil
2096
Service where recruitment is open to men and women alike through the same examination, and/or where the men and women members of the class are liable for identical duties.]
Mr. Attlee: I do not know whether a Debate will be necessary, seeing that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has announced the appointment of a Royal Commission.
Mr. Brown: But is not the Deputy Prime Minister aware that a definite promise was made by the Prime Minister that we should have an opportunity of a Debate? Many of us do not want a Royal Commission.
Mr. Attlee: I gather that it was not so much a definite promise; I think the Prime Minister said that it might be a very proper subject for discussion.
Mr. Greenwood: It is some weeks now since I asked the Prime Minister whether there could be a Debate on this matter, and whether there could be some form of inquiry. The House has definitely been led to believe that the Government gave an undertaking with regard to such a Debate, quite irrespective of any inquiry. Therefore, would it not be desirable, in the circumstances, on an issue of such great principle, for the House to discuss the matter?
Mr. Attlee: I will take up with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House what my right hon. Friend opposite has just said. I have not before me exactly what was said by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It is, of course, always our desire to meet the wishes of the House.
Captain Cobb: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Debate on Foreign Affairs will last two days, in view of the fact that a great many Members wish to take part?
Mr. Attlee: I think it will need two days.
Mr. Gallaeher: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the statement made by the Secretary of State for Scotland that a ramp on the part of a contractor was preventing Scottish housing from going ahead, we could not have a discussion on this very urgent and very important question next week?
Mr. Attlee: That is a matter which might very well be raised on the Adjournment.
Mr. Gallacher: No.
Major Lloyd: In view of the fact that we have a free day to-morrow, and that several Motions on Regulation 18B have been on the Order Paper for some time, would not the Government give consideration to letting the House discuss this Regulation to-morrow?
Mr. Attlee: We have to finish the Education Bill.
Mr. Driberg: With regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles), may I draw the attention of the Deputy Prime Minister to the fact that a number of Members have given notice to raise matters of considerable interest on the Adjournment—including, to-day, the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison)—and as hon. Members were expecting to be sitting to-morrow, and many will be in London in any case, would it not be possible to treat to-morrow as an Adjournment Debate day like the Easter Adjournment?
Mr. Attlee: It is a matter entirely for the House.
Sir Waldron Smithers: In view of the vital importance of the question of an International Monetary Fund, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether another day will be given for discussion of such a project before the Government come to any decision?
Mr. Attlee: I do not think that arises at this stage.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered:
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Attlee.]
Mr. Shinwell: Off a point of Order. Is a Motion for the Adjournment of the House until Tuesday not to be moved? Apparently the Patronage Secretary has just declined to move now, in a full House, a Motion which the Government had intended to move. I am not certain whether this is a point of Order, but may I put it to the Government, or to you, Mr. Speaker, or to both, that if we are to have a Motion of that kind it ought to be submitted to the House at an opportune time and not on an occasion when most hon. Members may, perhaps, have gone.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. James Stuart): I had not intended to move the Motion now, for the very good reason that we have not yet concluded the Report stage of the Education Bill. If I were to move that we should adjourn until Tuesday before we got the Education Bill, we might find ourselves having to deal with the Education Bill next week.
Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, who is leading the House, whether he will agree, in all the circumstances and in view of the representations made by hon. Members, not to move the Motion to which I refer but to proceed with the Education Bill to-morrow if it is necessary, and if it is concluded let us take to-morrow as an Adjournment Day?
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): It is largely a matter of what is the general feeling of the House. If a substantial number of Members want to meet, no doubt we could meet. I was not quite sure whether that was the general wish of the House.
Mr. Bowles: Surely the position is this, that the right hon. Gentleman is obviously holding out as a bait to the House a free day to-morrow, if they get rid of the Education Bill to-day. Supposing the Education Bill is finished within the next five or six hours, will the Patronage Secretary then rush into the House and move that we adjourn until Tuesday next?
Mr. Attlee: There will be plenty of time for consideration of that point before it arises. That would be the normal thing, but it is obvious that the Patronage Secretary cannot decide until we know what progress we make with the Bill.
Sir Percy Harris: Is it not a substantial reason for sitting to-morrow that a number of Members want a Debate on the Adjournment, and I cannot see that anyone would be inconvenienced except, perhaps, one or two Ministers?
Mr. Attlee: It is only right that my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary should not move the Motion now.
Mr. Stokes: Let me put it to the Deputy Prime Minister that, quite clearly, the length of speeches to-day, and the number of Amendments on the Education Bill which we talk upon, will depend upon whether it is the Government's intention to let the House sit tomorrow. If the Government want a speedy passage for the Education Bill, they ought to let us sit to-morrow. Otherwise, I shall speak on every Amendment. Why should we not have an assurance from the Government now, that if the Education Bill is finished to-day we shall sit to-morrow and treat to-morrow as an Adjournment Day? What is the difficulty?
Mr. Attlee: There is no difficulty. It is only a question of meeting the convenience of Members, who have been fairly heavily pressed. If the House wants to sit to-morrow, by all means let it sit.
Mr. Bowles: Will the Deputy Prime Minister ask or instruct his right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary when he comes in to move the Adjournment of the House till Tuesday, to tell some of us that he proposes to do so?
Mr. Attlee: If we sit to-morrow, the Motion will be moved to-morrow.
Mr. Keeling: May I suggest this solution, that the Patronage Secretary should move now, that if the proceedings on the Education Bill are completed by a certain hour to-day, we shall adjourn until Tuesday, and let the House now decide whether we shall do that or not?

EDUCATION BILL
As amended (in Committee and on recommittal), further considered.
EDUCATION BILL

  CLAUSE 99.—(Contributions between local education authorities.)
  Mr. John Wilmot: I beg to move, in page 73, line 9, at the end, to insert:
  "(4) Where, in accordance with the provisions of the Education (Institution Children) Act, 1923, a local education authority or a former authority have, before the commencement of this Part of this Act, accepted liability to pay contributions under that Act in respect of a child or young person, that authority, or in the case of a former authority being the council of a county district the local education authority to whom the liabilities of that council are transferred under this Act, shall, notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, remain liable to pay contributions in respect of that child or young person."
  The object of this Amendment is to avoid the necessity which will otherwise arise of reviewing all the cases which now exist in which liability has already been accepted by an education authority under the present Education (Institution Children) Act, 1923. Under that Act the liability of a local authority was based upon the child's residence immediately before admission to the institution or upon the child's Poor Law settlement. Under the Clause as it now stands the liability will be based upon a different qualification, that of the guardian's present residence. If the Clause is allowed to stand as it is it will be necessary for education authorities to make inquiries as to the residence of the guardians in all these old cases. In the case of large authorities that would be a very formidable task.
  I am a member of the London County Council and I have inquired how this Clause would affect them. I am told that there are about 2,400 children in respect of whom the London County Council have accepted liability to other authorities, and in addition another 750 children in London in respect of whom the Council makes claims upon other authorities. Unless this Amendment is accepted it will be necessary in all these 3,000 cases for the London County Council to institute further inquiries as to the children's legal guardians and as to the present residence of those guardians. It

  2115
  is a difficult task where a child has been in an institution for many years and no contact has been made with the guardians during that time. It would be a formidable task in normal times, and it has been rendered immensely more difficult by the circumstances of the war, with evacuation and wholesale changes of address. It would be doubtful, I submit, whether the results would justify the trouble and the expense which would be caused, and it would be very much appreciated by the London County Council, and I am sure by other large education authorities who would have the same difficulties confronting them, if this Amendment could be accepted.
  Dr. Haden Guest: I beg to second the Amendment.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Ede): Undoubtedly there is a difficulty in regard to the working of the Act of 1923, which has always entailed a considerable number of inquiries, and the last thing we would desire would be to do anything which would result in unnecessary inquiries, but I would point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Kennington (Mr. Wilmot) that the effect of his Amendment would be that even if a child ceased to be a liability under that Act on account of the guardian or other person resuming liability, the paying authority would remain under a liability to continue to pay. This matter was raised on the Committee stage. If my hon. Friend would see me we might find some form of words that would do what he wants without imposing a continuing liability after the real liability has been discharged, and we would try to meet his wishes in another place.
  Mr. Wilmot: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend, and in the circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLAUSE 105.—(Interpretation.)
  Amendments made:
  In page 78, line 24, leave out from the beginning to "all," in line 26, and insert:
  "(a) the duty of a local education authority to maintain a school or young people's college shall include the duty of defraying."
  In line 31, after "school," insert:
  "and the expression 'maintain' shall be construed accordingly."
  In line 41, leave out Sub-section (3).—[Mr. Ede.]

  CLAUSE 111.—(Amendment of enactments.)
  The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): I beg to move, in page 82, line 12, to leave out from "Minister," to "there," in line 13, and to insert "of Education."
  This Clause deals with the loss by Part III authorities of their functions under the Children and Young Persons Act. The provisions of Clause 90 and of Clause 92 (3) apply to such cases. As the Children and Young Persons Act is administered by the Home Office it is necessary to substitute the Secretary of State for the Home Department for the references to the Minister of Education in Clauses 90 and 92 (3).
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 112.—(Repeal of enactments.)
  Mr. Butler: I beg to move, in page 82, line 26, to leave out "and."
  This Amendment is to be read in conjunction with the next Amendment, on which I shall have something to say when I move it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Butler: I beg to move, in page 82, line 26, after "1899," to insert:
  "and Sections one and two of the Education Act, 1921."
  The object of this Amendment is to repeal Sections 1 and 2 of the Education Act directly the appointment of the new Minister of Education takes place. This is necessary in view of the relevance of Section 1 of the 1921 Act and the drafting of our Bill as passed by the House. The matter was overlooked at an earlier stage.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 82, line 28, leave out from "a," to the second "of," in line 29, and insert "Minister."—[Mr. Butler.]

  FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Local administration.)
  Mr. Cove: On a point of Order. I understand that my Amendment on Schedule 1, page 85, line 30, is not being called. Would it be possible to have an explanatory statement on the

  2117
  general issues involved. It is rather difficult to follow the legal technicalities.
  Mr. Speaker: I would suggest that the hon. Member should formally move his Amendment.
  Mr. Cove: I beg to move, in page 85, line 3o, at the end, to insert:
  "A person shall not be disqualified for being a member of an education committee or subcommittee by reason only of his being a teacher in a school or college which is aided, assisted, established or maintained by the local education authority."
  Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I want to explain the difficulties which arise under the law as amended by the Bill. There is a subsequent Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove). This Amendment however is in wider terms than the later one and perhaps it is better to discuss the difficulties at this stage.
  Mr. Speaker: I understood that the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Aberavon was completely covered by the Eighth Schedule. I thought the Minister would say so when he moved.
  Mr. Hughes: On further consideration, my submission is that it is not, in fact, covered, and I think the House should be made aware of the difficulties that arise now, in respect of teachers on local authorities under the provisions of the Bill. The position at present is that under the terms of the Local Government Act, 1933, Section 59 (1), a teacher is disqualified from being a member of a local authority, in that he holds a paid office which is in the gift, or at the disposal, of the local authority. There is, therefore, no possibility under that provision of a teacher being a member of the local authority which employs him, but that provision does not prevent him from being a member of another local authority. For instance, there are teachers employed in elementary schools under Part III authorities, who are members of the county council responsible for appointments to the secondary schools in that area and, similarly, there are secondary school teachers who live within the area of Part III authorities, who are employed by the county and who sit upon the county district committee of the area in which they live.
  2118
  Under Section 94 of the Local Government Act, 1933, which it is proposed by the subsequent Amendment to alter, there is a provision which saves the teacher from being disqualified from being a member of an education committee and of certain other committees. The reason for that is that these exempted committees in respect of teachers are committees which have co-opted members. Therefore, under the provision of Section 94 there is nothing to prevent a teacher being co-opted on an education committee, and the subsequent Amendment to the Schedule, to which reference has been made, merely adds "subcommittees" to the word "committee" which is in Section 94. In other words, the teacher may be nominated a member not only of an education committee, but of a sub-committee of an education committee, if the Amendment to the Schedule is carried. The difficulty which arises as regards the situation of teachers under the Bill comes from the setting up of divisional executives, and the first question I want to put is: Can a teacher be a member of a divisional executive? That gives rise at once to the question whether a divisional executive is an education committee.
  Mr. Ede: It might help my hon. and learned Friend if I said that this was the point I was proposing to deal with under the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) on page 88, line 26. I had assumed that the point he is now raising, an answer to which I have prepared, would be raised at that stage, and I do not know whether, if we proceed with it now, it would then be possible to deal with it, at the point where this particular point seems to be more apposite.
  Mr. Cove: What I am specifically concerned about at the moment is that I understand from Mr. Speaker, himself, that my Amendment is covered by a later Amendment. What I want to know, in the first place, is whether we are to be assured by a statement from the Government on how this point is covered.
  Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I think it would suit the convenience of the House if the difficulties which arise were put together. They can, in my view, be more simply dealt with in that way. There are just two questions to which an answer should be given and, if it cannot be given now, to

  2119
  which an answer should be provided in the Bill. The first is whether a teacher can be a member of a divisional executive? That depends, again, on whether a divisional executive is an education committee, and "education committee" is not defined in the Local Government Act of 1933, nor defined in the Bill. Indeed, if hon. Members look at the headings of the Schedule setting up divisional executives they will find the heading to Part II is "Education Committees" and the heading to Part III is "Delegation of Functions of Local Authority to Divisional Executives," from which it would appear that divisional executives are something other than education committees, although, when you examine the Schedule a bit more closely, you will find that, for instance, Part III of the Schedule and Article 8 (3) says that the scope of divisional administration shall define the functions which the divisional executives are thereby authorised to exercise on behalf of the local education authority. It is the educational function. Under that, it would appear that the education committee is transferring its powers, or some of them, as an education committee to the divisional executive. It is quite clear what functions they are authorised to exercise on behalf of the local education authority, and it might well be argued that they do, in fact, function as education committees. That applies to the ordinary executive, but the problem is even more complicated in the case of an excepted district because an excepted district is, automatically, created in a divisional executive and has automatically, therefore, some educational rights given to it under the Bill. If it exercised its educational functions as a right, it may well be contended that it was, in fact, an education committee.
  I mention that to show that it is a matter of doubt whether the protection which is now suggested is extended to a teacher in the case of a divisional executive. That is the first question. The second question is: Can a teacher be a member of a local authority which nominates to a divisional executive? If the power to appoint is delegated to a divisional executive, can he be a member of the county council? I refer my right hon. Friend again to Section 59 (1) of the Local Government Act of 1933:
  2120
  "A person shall be disqualified from being elected or being a member of a local authority if he holds any paid office in the gift or disposal of the local authority if the county council delegate to a Divisional Executive the right to appoint teachers where the appointment is no longer in the gift of the county council."
  It would appear, therefore, on the- face of it, that a teacher can be a member of the county council where he holds a post in the area of a divisional executive to which has been granted the power—delegated power—to appoint teachers.
  The second problem which arises here is, if the nominations to the district executive are from the county council or from a county district, a Part III authority, or one of the other county areas, if nominations come from these other bodies to the divisional executive, is the teacher excluded from membership of all the bodies which nominate? I notice that the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I would remind them that Section 59 (2) of the Act of 1933 provides that
  "a paid officer of a local authority who is employed under the direction of a committee or a sub-committee of the authority, any member of which is appointed on the nomination of some other local authority, shall be disqualified from being elected or being a member of that other local authority."
  How far does that carry us in respect to teachers who may want to be elected to bodies who have the right to nominate to a district executive? It is quite clear that in the case of, say, a guardians committee, which is a sub-committee of a county public assistance committee, they may elect members who are not members of the county council, but members of a county district council and nominated by them and paid officers of a county council serving under such a committee would not, under Section 59, be entitled to be members of the borough or district council.
  Mr. Speaker: I understand that what the hon. and learned Gentleman is now arguing really falls under a later Amendment.
  Mr. Hughes: I will deal with this second doubt when we come to that later Amendment. If the doubts which I have already expressed can be resolved now, it will be much more easy to deal with the second series of doubts which I have to raise on subsequent Amendments.
  Dr. Haden Guest: It is extremely important that a teacher who is an expert on education should not be debarred from taking part in administrative functions and being a member of an elected authority, but I do not intend to make even an effort to follow in the maze of legal technicalities in which my hon. and learned Friend has been educating the House because I found it extremely difficult to follow. I rise to ask, if the Minister is making a statement on the point, whether he will include a reference to the position of a medical officer employed whole time by an education authority. What is his position with regard to being a member of an education authority? For some reason which I have never understood a whole time member of a county council service is debarred from being a Member of Parliament, and I do not know how far that may be extended with regard to local authorities. It seems to me that we should as far as possible so frame our legislation that there is the least possible barring of those with expert knowledge from also taking part in the work of local authorities and of Parliament. It is most important that nothing that we do should restrict the possibility of members of medical, teaching or other expert avocations being members of local authorities or of Parliament.
  Mr. Ede: Clearly, in this Bill we cannot deal with the time-honoured legislative enactment that employees of county councils may not he Members of Parliament. I have never been able to understand why an employee of an urban council may be a Member of Parliament but an employee of a county council may not, but I do not think this Bill is the place to deal with that. This Amendment is a very narrow one and it deals with Section 94 of the Local Government Act, 1933. My right hon. Friend has an Amendment later to amend that Section. At present it reads:
  "Provided that a person shall not be disqualified for being a member of an education committee, or of a committee appointed for the care of the mentally defective, or of a committee appointed under Section 15 of the Public Libraries Act, 1892, by reason only of his being a teacher or holding any other office in a school or college which is aided, provided or maintained by the local authority appointing the committee."
  My right hon. Friend has given notice of an Amendment to insert after "Public Libraries Act" the words:
  2122
  "Or of a sub-committee of any such Committee."
  That is necessary because some rather pedantic clerks of councils have ruled that the proviso to Section 94 allowed a man to be appointed to an education committee, but, because it did not give him the right to sit on a sub-committee, his functions were confined to attending meetings of the main committee. Anyone who has been associated with educational administration knows that the education committee itself is more like a meeting of the main council than a meeting of an ordinary committee, and that the real work is done by sub-committees. When Parliament in 1902 allowed teachers to be co-opted members of education committees, it meant that they were to be capable of discharging all the functions that other members of the committee discharged and that they should be able to serve on sub-committees. I believe most clerks of councils, if they have held the view which I have said is held by some, have in fact closed their eyes to it and assumed that the law meant the common sense arrangement of a man being eligible to serve on a sub-committee. That is the specific point raised by this Amendment. Secondly, owing to the altered nomenclature in the Bill, it has become necessary to alter the words "aided, provided or maintained." The old words "aided and maintained" with regard to secondary schools are now all covered by the one word "maintained," and the word "provided" is also covered, so that, as far as the present Amendment is concerned, the whole point is met by my right hon. Friend's later Amendment.
  Mr. Cove: I have consulted my hon. and learned Friend and we are both satisfied with my hon. Friend's explanation.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir Joseph Lamb: I beg to move, in page 87, line 18, after "with," to insert "the local education authority and."
  Under this Schedule a district which is not exempt by right can make an application for exemption by the Minister, and to exercise functions which would be stated in the scheme put forward. But nothing is said about consultation with the local education authority. There is to be consultation with the council concerned, but it does not say that the local

  2123
  education committee would be the council concerned. I cannot conceive of any case where that would not be so. Probably they would be taking away some of the areas which would otherwise be included in the county operations. We hope it will be made compulsory that the council shall in all cases be consulted.
  Mr. Ede: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I do so because I wish to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Sir Richard Wells: I beg to move, in page 87, line 19, after "councils" to insert "and proprietors of any school."
  I think this Amendment might be helpful, because the Minister is not bound to consult the governors of schools, but there are many schools where the governors have a very great responsibility for education and have considerable knowledge of the area in which they work.
  Sir John Mellor: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. Ede: I am sorry that I cannot accept this Amendment. I cannot see how the views of a governing body are really relevant to the question of whether a local government machinery Bill should enable a particular urban district or borough to become an excepted district. That, I should have thought, was clearly a matter of local government, to be decided between the county council, the county district council and the Ministry of Education. This Amendment would not be helpful in getting the machinery working.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. Cove: I beg to move, in page 88, line 4, at the end, to insert:
  "Provided that such functions shall not include the dismissal of teachers."
  Mr. Parker: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. Ede: I should have been glad to have heard a few words from my hon. Friend in support of his Amendment, because it is a matter which has given us some concern. In Committee we had an industrious group of Members, led by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member
  2124
  for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson), who tried to put into the Schedule all sorts of functions which should of necessity, be delegated to the divisional executive. We resisted them all on the ground that it was undesirable that, with the diverse conditions which would prevail with regard to divisional executives, we should have a general provision of the kind that they required. I think the same argument applies, though not with quite so much force, to this proposal to exclude something from the functions. Let us realise that divisional executives will vary very much in the area they control, the size of the population and the past experience of their members. Take the case of a big, responsible local education authority like the Rhondda urban district council, which at one time employed my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove). The fact that they employed him is some justification for thinking that they do not lightly dismiss people. Rhondda is an old Part III education authority which has exercised jurisdiction for 40 years over an important population, and has shown itself capable in times of great difficulty and poverty of maintaining a high educational standard. I put it in a different category from a divisional executive which may for administrative convenience be constituted for two rural districts and a small urban district, and which has had, perhaps, very little responsibility in this matter in the past.
  It might very well be right in the first case that there should be the power to dismiss a teacher, with, possibly, the right of appeal to the local education authority, who are, in fact, the employers; but I would have some reluctance in approving a scheme which conferred the same power on the second type of divisional executive. It is desirable to leave this matter to the scheme. I share, to some extent, the misgivings of my hon. Friend, because I know how jealously the teachers' organisations have fought for the right of dismissal being only in the power of the local education authority. I hope, therefore, that between now and the discussions in another place, we may have some conversations to see if we can arrive at some form of words which, while not making it impossible for a suitable divisional executive to have this power, subject to the right of appeal, it could be indicated that the Minister

  2125
  would be unlikely to view with favour the inclusion of a general paragraph transferring the functions of dismissal to the smaller divisional executives.
  Mr. Cove: I did not make a speech in moving the Amendment because I knew the Parliamentary Secretary was well aware of the arguments, and because I want to facilitate the Report stage. I thank him for the attitude he has adopted and for his promise to look into the matter again. With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 88, line 18, to leave out from "estimates," to the end of line 21, and to insert:
  "of expenditure intended to be incurred by the executive on behalf of the authority and of accounts of expenditure so incurred; and for requiring such estimates and accounts to be subject to the approval of the authority."
  This is an effort to meet the fear which is expressed in the wording of an Amendment by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb). We desire to make it clear that before a divisional executive incurs expenditure it must submit an estimate, and that, after the expenditure has been incurred, it must submit the accounts to the local education authority; and that in both cases the submission shall be subject to the approval of that authority. The original wording in the Bill was not too happy and we hope that these words will make it clear.
  Sir J. Lamb: This Amendment does not go quite so far as I would have wished, because there is a danger of accounts that have already been paid being submitted for payment. I would have liked to see the accountant himself made the accounting officer. Will the excepted districts have their own accounting officers and pay their own accounts?
  Mr. Ede: That will depend on the scheme, and I have no doubt that the ingenuity of the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants will enable them to arrive at some means for seeing that money is not paid twice. My experience of accountants is that they do not allow that to happen.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Cove: I beg to move, in page 88, line 26, at the end, to insert:
  2126
  "( ) Notwithstanding any other enactment, a person shall not be disqualified for being a member of a divisional executive or committee or sub-committee of such executive, nor for being a member of a county district council which, in pursuance of any scheme of divisional administration made under Part III herein, has the power of nominating or appointing any member of the divisional executive, by reason only of his being a teacher in a school or college which is aided, assisted, established or maintained by the local education authority in the area of such divisional executive."
  I will confine my remarks to a general statement and leave the legal arguments to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Moelwyn Hughes). This matter greatly concerns teachers, who are jealous of their rights to be represented on educational bodies of all kinds, to be co-opted and to have the right to be elected in certain instances. I would remind hon. Members opposite that the classic case of representation of teachers was made by the late Lord Balfour, and his argument has been used in many cases in order to secure it. There is a fear that in the categories mentioned earlier by my hon. and learned Friend, teachers will be in some difficulty and, indeed, may be disqualified from functioning on these bodies. Apart from the divisional executive, there are bodies like the rural district and urban district councils, which are contributory bodies to the divisional executive; and because they take part in the administration of education or have representatives who take part, teachers will not be allowed to stand for election to them. Everybody agrees now that teachers are welcomed because of their experience on all bodies dealing with education. Not only do they serve the education committee, but, as was said by Lord Balfour, there is a reverse action in that it is a good thing for teachers to take part in the wider administration of the community. Some local authorities are extremely good in this respect and some are reactionary. The stiffest of them is the London County Council, which does not seem to appreciate the need for teachers having this wide experience. In Glamorganshire and one or two other counties teachers who are employed by Part III authorities can get elected to the county council. Some of these teachers have written to me and expressed some fear that under the terms of this Bill they will be disqualified. I should be glad if an assurance or explanation can be given on that point.
  Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I may, perhaps, be taken as repeating the doubts I have already expressed on the position of teachers. There is a further doubt which is more directly germane to this Amendment. That is a doubt as to the position of teachers who seek to be members of a local authority which has the right of nomination to a district executive under which they serve. The Parliamentary Secretary referred a moment ago to county councils as the authority which employs teachers under the Bill. Some confusion may arise, because if, as will probably be the case in some instances, the power to appoint and to dismiss is delegated to a district executive, the teacher is holding a paid office at the disposal of the divisional executive. If, therefore, the divisional executive appoints and dismisses, can it be said that the teacher is, in fact, the servant of the county council? That probably gives rise to the difficulty I have mentioned in regard to a teacher's membership of a county district council, which may have the right to nominate to a divisional executive. I have already mentioned the clear case that arises under Sub-section (2) of Section 59 of the Local Government Act, where a person employed by a guardians committee to which nominated members may be sent by a county district council is excluded from membership of that county district council. That is clear, but the position of a teacher is in doubt. The learned editors of the last edition of "Lumley on Public Health" express it in this way:
  "Some doubt has been expressed whether school teachers employed by a county council as a local education committee are by this Sub-section disqualified from membership of a district council, which under arrangements made, nominates members to local sub-committees to act as managers of schools."
  That doubt, according to the learned editors, is resolved by the test whether the nomination is one which the appointing authority is bound to accept. In the case of the divisional executive, they would function under rules laid down by the Minister which would give the power of nomination in certain cases to the district councils. It would be, therefore, a nomination which the divisional executive would be bound to accept. In the view of these learned gentlemen the teacher would be excluded from member-
  2128
  ship of the nominating authorities. I mention this and the other matters with which I dealt before, not in an effort to tell the House what my view is, but to show that there is doubt as to what the position is. The position ought not to be left in doubt. There ought not to be the same kind of doubt as that to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred before, as to whether a teacher can be a member of an education sub-committee.
  That will be cleared up, but here are doubts as to the position of a teacher in relation to divisional executives and bodies which may have the right to nominate on to divisional executives. That no doubt needs to be resolved, because as one hon. Member has said it is desirable that teachers should be able to pull their weight in local government. Indeed the latest declaration on that is found in the McNair Report itself, which says:
  "It is comparatively rare, however, for teachers to engage in forms of public service which may make demands requiring them occasionally to be absent from the school during normal hours of duty. This is a pity. Many teachers acquire in the course of their school experiences a type of qualification which is particularly valuable. We would, for instance, favour a more generalised practice of securing the services of teachers on education committees."
  Here we have a doubt as to whether they can serve on certain of the great elected bodies. For the sake of those bodies and the teachers I ask that the position may be made abundantly clear.
  Sir J. Lamb: I should like to add a few words to what has been said regarding the position of teachers on local authorities. It is quite true that there are teachers who have been elected to serve on county councils who will now, unfortunately, be disqualified, because if they were teachers under a Part III authority and that authority no longer exists and they come into the county council area they will be the servants of the county council. There is in my own area a most admirable man who has been a teacher under a Part III authority. He was elected to the county council and his services have been very valuable in many directions, particularly to the mental deficiency committee, He will now, I am afraid, be disqualified. I think that the principle that the servant of an authority should not be eligible to serve on that authority is sound. I do not know if the

  2129
  Minister would be able to create machinery under which we could obviate that position, but there will be cases, and I know of one, in which the operation of that principle, though it is sound, will be very injurious.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: I had not intended to intervene, but the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) rather surprised me. I will give a case to the Parliamentary Secretary which is within my own knowledge where the mayor of a borough, resident, of course, within the borough, is teaching under a Part III authority. Would what is now proposed debar that teacher from continuing to be mayor?
  Mr. Ede: With regard to the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) has put to me, I am not quite sure what is the occupation of the mayor or his relationship to the Part III authority. If he could enlighten me on that perhaps I could give him an answer.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: All I know is that in my constituency there is a teacher employed by a Part III authority. He lives in a neighbouring borough of which he is the present mayor. Can that continue when this Bill becomes law?
  Mr. Ede: This will not affect him at all unless that borough is a county borough and is a local education authority. Then if he transferred to that borough he would be unable to continue as mayor or as a member of the council. On the facts as my hon. Friend has stated them he is not affected at all by this Measure:
  Mr. Cove: What of the case I mentioned? I will give it in a concrete form. I know a teacher who is now able to stand for election on the county council. Will he be prevented?
  Mr. Ede: That is a different case altogether. That is the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Stone. Undoubtedly where a teacher is a member of the county council because he has been employed, not by the county council, but by a Part III education authority whose powers will now be transferred to the county council, he will cease to be eligible to be a member of the county council. I think that that is a well-established principle of local government law only varied, as far as I know, in the case of the Civil Defence
  2130
  Committees which were dealt with by the Home Secretary to-day. A person employed by a local authority cannot he a member of that local authority. That is a principle from which I do not think we can depart in this Bill. The Bill will undoubtedly create some cases of hardship and a few men whose services have been very valuable to county councils will cease to be members of county councils. May I point out to the hon. Member for Stone that, as far as the gentleman he mentions is concerned and his work on the mental deficiency committee, he will be eligible for co-option on to that committee under the provisions of Section 94 of the Local Government Act, 1933.
  Sir J. Lamb: Unfortunately he is now acting as chairman. As a co-opted member he would not be in a position to act as chairman.
  Mr. Ede: That must be a matter for the standing orders of that particular county council. It is true that my own county council has a standing order, which I think is quite sound, that the chairman of a committee must be a member of the county council, because if he is not, who is to answer for the committee if its decisions should be challenged at the meeting of the authority?
  Mr. Arthur Jenkins: Would this gentleman not also be eligible for co-option on the education committee?
  Mr. Ede: I gather that his particular forte is mental deficiency, not education. When he is away from school he might like to have a holiday. I was dealing with the specific point put by the hon. Member for Stone. Undoubtedly this is a very difficult subject. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes) has put the doubts that exist in certain quarters with regard to it with great clarity, and has been helpful to the House in enabling us to get the thing into focus. I hope that my answers to the various specific points that have been put to me have indicated that a teacher employed in a school maintained by a county council will not be eligible for membership of that county council. If he served under a Part III authority he was then not eligible to serve on the urban district or borough council concerned. He will now become eligible for that form of public service.
  As one who has been both an urban councillor and a county councillor, it is

  2131
  not for me to say which is the more distinguished position. It all depends on the amount of work you put into it. After that, undoubtedly we do get involved in considerable intricacies. The problem of the divisional executive is a new one. My hon. and learned Friend quoted the heading to Part 2 of the First Schedule, which is headed "Education Committees," but all the specific points he raised were, I think, on Part 3. Our view, and we have taken the trouble to be advised on it, is that a divisional executive is not an education committee. That is the view we take and have been advised by counsel learned in the law. I had grave apprehensions myself about this matter but we are assured that that is so. We are also advised that a teacher will not be ineligible for serving on a county district council which appoints members of the divisional executive under which he serves. That is to say, that assuming there is a divisional executive covering the urban district or rural district for which the man serves, and he desires to be a member of the rural or urban council, he will still be eligible for that membership.
  Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: Is the position on which the hon. Member is advised like this: If a county district is made the district of a divisional executive, that is the council itself is made the divisional executive, and that divisional executive has the power to appoint and dismiss teachers as a divisional executive, a teacher is eligible to be a member of that county district council?
  Mr. Ede: I was about to deal with that point specifically. That is, as it were, pushing the point to its furthest extreme. We are advised that the position of the person is that he is still employed by the local education authority. Now that the county district council, as an excepted district, is not an education authority—let us be quite clear on that point, because after all that Was the main bone of contention when we were discussing the First Schedule and Clause 6 of the Bill in the Committee stage—we are advised in that case he is not a servant of the county district council concerned. He is the servant of the county council. We are also advised that a teacher is not eligible for election to the county council if the power of appointment and possible dismissal has been delegated to the divisional
  2132
  executive. In that case we still apply the same rule. The county council are the employer, and the mere fact that they have delegated some of their functions does not render a man eligible for election to the body which employs him.
  Mr. A. Jenkins: Does it make him eligible for the divisional executive which may have delegated to it the power of appointment and dismissal of teachers?
  Mr. Ede: I am trying to make my speech on this very difficult and intricate point. I have that point in mind and I should have come to it in time. Any teacher, no matter by whom he is employed, is eligible for appointment to a divisional executive, either by the district council or by the county council or by any other body which may under the scheme be given the right to nominate members to serve on the divisional executive. Hon. Members will know that in the past in dealing with this kind of appointment, it has been the custom to arrange the membership by having a certain number appointed by the county council, a certain number by various district councils and then, if necessary, certain persons appointed by other bodies who may be interested. A teacher, no matter whether he is employed by the authority or not, or within the area on a divisional executive or not, will be eligible for service on such a divisional executive. I hope that following on the points which my hon. and learned Friend read from the McNair Report, a good many appointing bodies will avail themselves of the opportunity of appointing teachers.
  The Board intend to take an early opportunity of consulting local education authorities about implementing the recommendations of the McNair Report, which read as follows:
  "We recommend that the Board of Education should take steps to secure the relaxation of rules, prescribed or implied, which unduly limit the participation of teachers in public affairs, and to render possible the more generous staffing arrangements which such relaxation might require."
  Clearly, the last part of that recommendation will require attention, and the additional recruitment of teachers. We accept the first part. As far as the second part is concerned, we are doing all that we can, as my right hon. Friend will be saying later, to secure that more generous staffing shall become available.
  Mr. Cove: Will there be a conference?
  Mr. Ede: It will probably be done by the method of circular, which is better than conference in these days. A point of great intricacy and difficulty was raised by my hon. and learned Friend, and I have given him the answers as we at the Board of Education see them. Here, again, we are most anxious that there shall be no doubt. We do not want legalistically-minded clerks of councils discovering reasons why doubts should be imported into the Measure. I am quite sure that the sense of the House is that teachers should be reasonably free to serve on any authority, except the authority that actually employs them. I hope, in the course of the next few days, to have some conversations with my hon. and learned Friend and the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) so that if any doubt should remain we may take steps to see that it is removed.
  Mr. R. Morgan: I would like to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the way in which the Parliamentary Secretary has replied to this very difficult Amendment, but I do not understand now whether he is opposing, or going to accept, the Amendment in any form. I rather gather that it is the intention of the Board to make clear by Regulation or memorandum that they agree at any rate with the substance of the Amendment. Possibly we may expect at a later date some instructions from the Board to the authorities which will bring about the position aimed at in the Amendment.
  Mr. Lipson: I was very glad to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary that it is the wish of the Ministry that the service of teachers in the administration of education and of local government generally should be taken advantage of to the fullest possible extent. If teachers will no longer be eligible for membership of county councils, I am glad to know that they will be eligible for membership of the councils of the Part III authorities. On the whole and on balance perhaps local government administration will gain, because there will be more facilities for teachers to serve on councils in their own areas than there have been to serve on county councils.
  I am not clear about one point. At present, it is possible for teachers to be
  2134
  co-opted on to county education committees. For example, in my own county, we have a teacher representing elementary school teachers and another representing secondary school teachers. They are extremely valuable. Will it be possible under the Bill for teachers to be co-opted on to county education committees in that way?
  Mr. Ede: I would like, by permission of the House, to reply to the questions that have been asked. The reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Mr. R. Morgan) is that I am asking the House not to insert the Amendment now but to leave the matter to the conversations that have been suggested. With regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson), the reply is that a teacher will retain the old statutory right of being co-opted a member of a county education committee. What we did ensure by the earlier Amendment was that a pedantic Clerk of the Peace may not then say: "You can come to the committee meeting, but we are not seeing you at any sub-committee meetings." We ensure that if the teacher is co-opted a member of the education committee, he has as many rights as any other member of the education committee.
  Mr. Cove: I wish to express my appreciation of the clarity with which the Parliamentary Secretary has dealt with these matters, intricate and detailed as they have been. It has been a very efficient reply. Having regard to the fact that he has promised to meet myself and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes), I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir J. Lamb: I beg to move, in page 88, line 29, after "satisfied," to insert:
  "after consultation with the local education authority in cases where the application is made by the council of an excepted district."
  The Amendment applies to the case where an excepted district applies to the Minister to give it power to use the function of further education. If the function is granted to the excepted area, it will naturally be taken away from the local education authority. There is no provision for consultation with the local education authorities before the decision

  2135
  is come to, and I am asking that they shall be consulted before any of the functions which they now operate are taken away and given to other authorities.
  Captain Cobb: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. Ede: On behalf of the Government, I accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 88, line 43, after "as," insert:
  "after consultation with the local education authority."—[Sir J. Lamb.]

  EIGHTH SCHEDULE.—(Amendment of Enactments.)
  Mr. Butler: I beg to move, in page 97, line 20, at the end, to insert:
  "The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Act, 1919.
  Section seven. In Sub-section (2), for the words ' under the Education Act, 1902, stand referred to the education committee,' there shall be substituted the words 'relate to the functions of local education authorities.'"
  The object of the Amendment is to bring the wording of Section 7 (2) of the Act of 1919 into line with the new wording of the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Butler: I beg to move, in page 98, line 47, at the end, to insert:
  "Section twenty-two. After Sub-section (3) there shall be inserted the following Subsection:
  (3A) A licence granted under this Section shall specify the times, if any, during which the child to which the licence relates may he absent from school for the purposes authorised by the licence, and for the purposes of the enactments relating to education a child who is so absent during any times so specified shall be deemed to be absent with leave granted by a person authorised in that behalf by the managers, governors or proprietor of the school."
  This Amendment raises a separate point. It deals with children who are given licences to perform on the stage. The position is that a local education authority, or the Board, may give licences—in fact they do so under very definite supervision and with very great care—to children over the age of 12 to perform on the stage and to undertake similar activities. There is a provision accompanying the licences for such children to receive a certain amount of education
  2136
  during the period for which they are given licences. I only mention this before I actually refer to the Amendment in order to make it clear to the House that these licences given to children are accompanied by very definite provisions for the children's care, welfare and education to continue in the circumstances in which they are employed.
  It turned out that, under Clause 37, relating to the regular attendance at school of registered pupils, a child may be prevented from taking part in a matinee, for example, for which the child had been given a licence, and that there was a conflict between two provisions. This Amendment does not enlarge to any marked extent the general situation under which children are employed, but I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite are interested in the matter, and I can tell them that it brings the two Sections into relationship with each other.
  The last word I want to say on this subject is that the employment of children in this manner will form part of the general inquiry which was referred to by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department in the course of one of our recent Debates. Therefore, this matter is covered in every way. For those who are anxious about the employment of children at all, there is still the opportunity of the matter being looked into by the Home Office inquiry. Those who are anxious about the exactitude of the Statute which we are engaged in drawing should feel satisfied that the different parts of the Statute are brought into relationship one with the other.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: I was very glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman said in his last few sentences, which was to the effect that the inquiry the Home Office has promised to make into the problem of employment of school children will cover also the conditions under which children perform on the stage. That is all to the good. The point which I want to put to the House is not quite the same. Under the Bill as it stands, any child under 13 years of age will be prevented from being employed at all when the school-leaving age is raised to 15. I suppose that hon. Members will be aware that at the moment no child under 12 can be employed and that between 12 and 14 they can be employed only under certain bye-laws. I understand that, while the age is raised

  2137
  from 12 to 13 for one category of employment after the school-leaving age is raised from 14 to 15, similar provisions do not apply to school children engaged in stage performances. I do not know whether that is an oversight or not. I can hardly think that is so, in a Board of Education, but as this is a Coalition Government I must not be surprised at anything being left out. I would therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to be good enough to clear that point up, that is to say, how does it come about that children engaged in stage performances do not benefit in the same way as children engaged in other occupations?
  Mr. Butler: I can only reply with the leave of the House. I deliberately mentioned the age of 12 in order to indicate that there was a difference here. It is due to differences in the circumstances under which these children are employed. Under the licences granted, the whole circumstances are examined. In the view of the public, these children perform a valuable part in these performances. The fact that these children, when they are released by these licences for this work, get a form of supervision and continuing education, means that they not entirely outside our purview.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: line 23, at the end, insert:
  "Section ninety-four. After the words 'Public Libraries Act, 5892,' there shall be inserted the words 'or of a sub-committee of any such committee;' the words 'aided, provided or' shall be omitted; and at the end of the Section there shall be inserted the words 'or sub-committee.'"—[M. Butler.]
  Mr. Butler: I beg to move, in page 100, line 10, to leave out "President of the Board," and to insert "Minister."
  This and the following two Amendments are consequential upon our previous decision to alter the name of the office.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 100, line 25, leave out "President of the Board," and insert "Minister."—[Mr. Butler.]
  Mr. Butler: I beg to move, in page 100, line 30, to leave out "President of the Board," and to insert "Minister."—[Mr. Butler.]
  Mr. Rhys Davies: May I ask what is going to happen to the members of the Board when we take out the words "President of the Board," and insert "Minister"?
  Mr. Butler: The Board will live hallowed and revered in the memory of all educationists.
  Mr. R. C. Morrison: Will the Minister be known as "the Minister of Education" or as "the Minister of the Board of Education"?
  Mr. Butler: The Minister of Education.
  Amendment agreed to.

  NINTH SCHEDULE.—(Enactments Repealed.)
  Mr. Butler: I beg to move, in page 101, line 32, at the end, to insert:

  9 & 10 Geo. 5, C. 91.

  The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Act, 1919.

  Proviso (i) to sub-section (2) of section seven.

  The effect of this Amendment is to repeal Proviso 1 of Section 72 of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Act, 1919. This proviso enables the Ministry, on the application of the county council, and after consultation with the Board, to direct that any particular matter relating to agricultural education should be referred to the agricultural committee, instead of to the education committee. This proviso is no longer necessary. It has been decided, between my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and myself, that in future local education committees shall be the local administrators of agricultural education—a matter which appears to have given universal satisfaction, and one in which I take particular interest.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Ede: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  It is my privilege, and I esteem it a very high honour, to move this Motion. My right hon. Friend and I have almost reached the end, so far as this House is concerned, of the pilgrimage on which we jointly started nearly three years ago, when he came to the Board of Education. We have been part of a band of pilgrims who have been pursuing this journey. We have had with us our spiritual advisers, we have had with us the

  2139
  administrators, we have had members of local education authorities, we have had representatives of the teachers; in fact, we have had nearly everybody but the children themselves, and perhaps the journey has been rather too long for them to have followed it with any ease. There were times, when we were over some of the precipices, when I thought some of our spiritual advisers, in turning over their service books, had reached the burial service; but I gathered, when I looked over their shoulders, that they were hoping for our conversion, and were studying the "Form of Baptism for such as are of Riper Years." I hope that the Bill will have as happy a future in its administration as we have had happiness in our association with those who have been our companions on this journey and who will be our partners in the future administration of the Measure.
  The keynote of this Bill is unity, not uniformity. We desire that the education service of this country shall be a unity, and we recognise that, in this great free and tolerant country, there will have to be a wide diversity if unity is to be possible. The great Amendments to Education Acts have always been moved by people who have four syllables to their names. There was the great right hon. Mr. Cowper-Temple, who left his mark on education by his Amendment to the Act of 1870. In 1902, there was Colonel Kenyon-Slaney. I looked round the House to find who would be the person to move the Amendment that would always be associated with this Measure. I am bound to say that I overlooked my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mrs. Cazalet Keir), who has the essential qualification. At an early stage in our proceedings she gave me cause for great jealousy. She said, in the Debate on the White Paper:
  "I congratulate the President of the Board of Education on having made a serious attempt to reach agreement on a problem which has been the subject of controversy since the time of the Lollards 500 years ago."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1943; col. 1922, Vol. 391.]
  I confess that I had made arrangements to say the very same thing in my speech replying to that Debate, but, to parody an American quotation:
  "Thrice armed is he who hath his reference just,
  But six times she who slips it over fast."
  2140
  While that is not what my hon. Friend will be remembered for on this Bill, it shows that she realised the essential triumph of my right hon. Friend. Who could ever have thought, remembering the past, that we should have a day to spare on the discussions on an Education Bill? Our fathers—
  "Have in these parts from morn till even fought,
  And sheathed their swords "—
  not for lack of argument, but from the operation of the Eleven o'clock rule, or from the most remorseless application of the Guillotine. It is the mark and sign of the triumph of my right hon. Friend that we should have had these Debates, conducted in an atmosphere not charged at all with the animosities of the past, and should have found ourselves with time to spare at the end of our discussions. This unity and reconciliation which we are attempting is one of the great historic events in the history of education in this country. There have been in the past, and there still are, two very diverse schools of thought with regard to education, which in the past have fought over Education Bills for their mutual exclusion. Mr. Forster wrote to Charles Kingsley during the Debates on the Act of 1870:
  "I wish parsons, Church and other, would all remember as much as you that children are growing into savages while they are trying to prevent one another from helping them."
  There has on this occasion been no spirit of that kind. While principles have been fought over vehemently, and with full presentation of the case, there has been recognition that the interests of the child and the nation must prevail over any sectional interests. The two principles that we have striven to unite in this Bill are best illustrated, curiously enough, by what happened across the Atlantic, where these two forces were kept separate. Massachussets, in 1647, laid down, in the terrific language of the Puritans, that:
  "The universal education of youth is essential to the well-being of the State; the obligation to furnish this education rests primarily on the parents; the State has the right to enforce this obligation; the State may fix a standard which shall determine the kind of education and the minimum amount; a general tax may be levied, although school attendance is not general, to be used in providing such education as the State requires; education higher than the rudiments may be supplied by the State, and opportunity must

  2141
  be provided at the public expense for youths who wish to be fitted for the university."
  It was not until 1852 that they carried that out; and we, for the first time, are enshrining the principles in this Bill. I do not see my Noble Friend the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) here, but Virginia, which had, not the Puritan, but the Cavalier, tradition, had a different view on education.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): I must remind the House that this is the Third Reading, and that there are very strict Rules that we should keep to what is in the Bill.
  Mr. Ede: I was very anxious to make clear to the House the two principles that we have tried to unite in this Bill, and I was hoping to be able, by a quotation, to illustrate the second.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is what I thought the hon. Gentleman wanted, but I venture to remind the House that on the Third Reading, if we have a wide series of illustrations, we shall have a very wide Debate.
  Mr. Ede: I promise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, not to alarm you further. The London Commissioners of the Plantations wrote to Berkeley, the Governor of Virginia, in 1671, asking the course he was taking
  "in instructing the people within your Government in the Christian religion."
  His reply was:
  "The same course that is taken in England out of towns, every man according to his ability instructing his children. I thank God that there are no free schools, and I hope that we shall not have them these too years, for learning has brought disobedience and heresy and sects into the world."
  In the past few months, in remote parts of the country, I have heard rumblings of those views still. We endeavour, in this Bill, to unite the authoritarian and libertarian views of education. We endeavour to secure that for every child there shall be education according to the wishes of the parents, so far as religion is concerned, and we impose on the parent, for the first time, the duty of seeing that the child is educated according to his age, ability and aptitudes. We have destroyed the old conception of elementary education being sufficient for nine-tenths of the population of this country, and we have said, what I regard as
  2142
  an even more unifying principle, that it is the duty of the local education authority to attend to the individual needs of the pupil, and to see that these God-given aptitudes, which, after all, are the most priceless wealth the nation possesses, shall be developed in such a way that, no matter what the aptitude may be, the child, in developing it, shall not feel inferior to any child of equal ability which is developing another aptitude.
  This great industrial nation cannot afford any longer to regard the education of the clerkly classes as representing the highest ideal in education. I hope we shall avoid the second and equally great danger of saying that the education of the manual worker is more important than the education of the clerk. The appropriate education of both, as far as possible and for as long as possible in a common school, will, I hope, be the endeavour we shall make in our efforts to implement this Measure. We hope, and we have taken legislative steps to secure, that the benefits of education shall be as readily available to the child in the village as to the child in the city. In the past, too often, the rural child has suffered from neglect in this matter. In fact, the Scott Report—if I may mention it, now that the Minister without Portfolio has come in—alludes to the fear of mothers that their children suffer educational deprivation because they reside in a village as one of the causes that have led independent working people to leave the villages and seek employment in the towns.
  We desire that the environment of the rural child, as well as the environment of the town child, shall be the concern of our education authorities. What is more, we hope that the lessons of evacuation will be learned and that it will be realised that there are many children who go from town environment who will find their lives' best fulfilment in the crafts and callings that are carried on in the villages. We are educating children, after all, not for localities. We use the great machinery of local government in this country to administer this, and our other educational Measures, but we desire that the people of this country shall realise that their children are being educated so that they shall be fitted to fill their appropriate place in our society, no matter where the accident of birth may have started them on their life's career. I hope

  2143
  there will be some children who will go from the country to the towns, and that there will be others who will go from the towns to the country, if that is the course for which nature designed them.
  We have laid down in the commencement of this Bill, for the first time, that there is to be a national policy in education. No longer, we hope, shall we be under the reproach that in some parts of this country it is eight or ten times easier to get through to the highest forms of appropriate education than it is in others. The child, no matter where he is born, is equally an asset to the State, and this Bill lays it down that he is to be considered in relation to national policy, and that efforts are to be made to ensure that he gets that education which his particular aptitude makes desirable, and that he is to be carried through by the education service as far as possible. We hope, also, that we may be able, in this Measure, to retain the young person in the educational field up to 18 years of age. Surely, the greatest disaster of the last 25 years of education was the failure of the country to implement the continuation classes of Mr. Fisher's Bill. We have taken steps to revise these proposals. We believe we have brought them more into line with the needs of the moment, and we hope that, with the active co-operation of industry, we shall be able to bring them to fruition, even in areas where there was very strong opposition when the attempt was made under Mr. Fisher's Act.
  I think, here again, we are discerning the working of a spirit of unity which has not always been present in the past. Certainly, as far as the great essential trades of the country are concerned, we have had the most hopeful conversations with those responsible on both the employers' and the employed sides for the inauguration of a system of further education, and we very sincerely hope that that spirit will continue after the Bill has been brought into operation
  We have endeavoured also in this Bill to bring thoroughly up to date the social services associated with the schools Here, again, it has been discovered during the last four or five years that the school inside an area is very often the most unifying cause at work. Newspaper correspondents were surprised to discover the way in which, inside these great amorphous cities which have grown up during
  2144
  the last 100 years, there was a locality which looked to the school as its centre, and, when, the school was selected for use as a rest centre or for some similar service, it was recognised as being the appropriate place in which the district could find its temporary home In the East End of London, and in the great cities of the Midlands, which suffered heavily from the devastation of bombing, that was proved time and time again We believe that, with the improvement in the medical services, the great expansion that has already taken place in the school meals service, the school, as a unifying social factor, will continue to increase in influence
  We hope, above all, that, under this Measure, there will be for every child a feeling that, from the time he enters the school, he is a part of the community, that, in the school, he is for the first time entering into the corporate life of the nation, of which he will ultimately become an active citizen We believe that, with the provisions that we are making for the reduction in the size of classes, for the widening of the curriculum and for the opportunities for every child to participate in games and other social activities of the school, we shall be able indeed to make the school what Sanderson, of Oundle, said it ought to be—
  "A microcosm of the world we would like to have."
  Few of us can be satisfied with the world we have, which is, very largely, a reproduction of the schools we used to have, with very large regimented classes and the feeling that a very large number of children were being educated, not because it was a duty, but because it was a sort of protection for the body politic. We believe that, if we can make the school a corporate whole, we shall be doing a very great deal towards preparing, in the life of this country, for the fuller democracy which we hope will emerge in the years to come.
  For the first time, in this Measure, we are making it statutory that religious instruction shall be given inside the schools. We are making it statutory that the day shall open with an act of corporate worship. We are preserving the historic rights of conscience, which enable parents who dissent, either from the form of religion in general or from its particular denominational or undenominational tinge, to withdraw their children, but we

  2145
  have made wider and better provision for enabling children to receive instruction according to the faith of their parents than we have made in any previous Act of Parliament. That, in itself, in the atmosphere in which the Bill has been conducted is, I hope, an indication that we are beginning to realise that, in these things of the spirit, we shall do a great deal better by trying to accommodate one another than by trying to prevent each other from doing what we do not like the other fellow to do. We are applying, even in spiritual life, the doctrine of "live and let live," and we have endeavoured to arrange that this Measure shall enable each denomination, if it desires to do so, to live in the schools, and, where the denomination desires, as some of the great historic denominations do, that their faith shall be taught in the Sunday school of the Church and that the school shall confine itself to less controversial matters than some of the more intricate and difficult dogmas of the faith, that other people shall be allowed to have their way, within reason in the State service.
  If we can keep that spirit alive, I believe the accommodation which has now been reached is the beginning of an understanding which, in the years to come, may make the removal of some of the final barriers to complete religious unity acceptable to the House and to the country, but I believe that, if anybody, either on the one side or the other, attempts to wreck what we have done in this Bill, he is not likely to find any great measure of support in this country. I believe that the Minister's efforts to understand everybody else's point of view, and to give, as far as possible, a spirit of co-operation to this Bill, has been welcomed by the country, which desires to see how this greater measure of liberty can, in fact, be worked in this country.
  I hope I may be allowed one personal word in conclusion. I have been associated in the preparation of this Bill with a very great man indeed. None of us knows what the future holds, but no man in the past, in this difficult and controversial matter, has ever striven so whole-heartedly and sincerely to understand the point of view of people to whom, temperamentally, he was most opposed, and this great Measure will remain as a monument to the work that he has done. There is just one final measure
  2146
  of unification with which I want to deal. My right hon. Friend represents one tradition of the educational life of our country—the tradition that passes from the public schools into the university—although I understand from private conversations with him that he is, at least, unique in this, since he chose his public school against the traditional wishes of his family and managed to impose his will on them. That only shows that he started on this job very early in life. I come from the other tradition—from the elementary school, through the secondary school to the university.
  Under the provisions of this Bill, these two systems, if the matter is approached with goodwill from both sides, have a better chance of intertwining and understanding one another than they have ever had in the past, and, when this Measure comes to be worked out, I am quite certain that there will be many boys who will pass from one system to the other without any real strain or feeling of strangeness, who would not have found it possible to enjoy that under any previous legislation that we have had.
  I believe, therefore, that this Measure is one that ought to proceed from a Government which represents national unity. It will give us a generation of young people who will step forward into the future to face the appalling tasks that our generation is going to leave to them,
  "With flame of freedom in their souls
  And light of knowledge in their eyes."
  Mrs. Cazalet keir: I would like to congratulate the President of the Board of Education and Minister-designate very warmly indeed upon this great Bill, with all its profound social implications. I feel very proud to think that, without any collusion at all, I should happen to have thought of the same historical reference in my speech on the White Paper as the Parliamentary Secretary. I agree with what he said, that this Bill is an honest attempt to hasten the levelling up of the whole of our education and to give the best to the most. This is the first of the post-war reconstruction Measures, and we all know that, to be successful, social reforms must be advanced together as far as possible. It is very little use children attending a school that looks like a palace by day and then having to return to a house that looks like a hovel at night. Housing,

  2147
  health and education must march forward together.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will remain in his present office long enough to see the main provisions of this Bill implemented. It will require all his great powers of persuasion, for which he is rightly famed, to secure the necessary priorities for both teachers and buildings. The success of this Bill really depends, first, upon the teachers, their quantity and quality, and next, upon buildings. I wonder whether the President of the Board, when he comes to reply, could tell us a little more about his short-term emergency scheme for recruiting teachers. I was not quite certain, in the reply that he gave me the other day, what steps are being taken to encourage men and women in the Services to-day actually to enrol for the teaching profession. Until there are some actual figures as to the way that recruits are forthcoming, it will be impossible to implement the new Bill at the rate suggested and hoped.
  I, like other hon. Members, was very glad indeed that the McNair Committee managed to get their Report published just before the Third Reading of this Bill. I think, as a whole, it suggests the only possible things that are likely to attract from 50,000 to 100,000 young men and women of the right type and character to enter the teaching profession, and I was very glad to hear the President say in his speech on Tuesday, that the Board hoped to accept most of those recommendations. One of the best recommendations is that there should be one grade of teacher, the qualified teacher, and one basic scale of pay, which, naturally, I hope will be the same for both men and women.
  There are two other matters to which I would like to draw the attention of the House. On the Committee stage I moved, unsuccessfully, an Amendment to get an appointed day inserted for raising the age to 16. I only wish that on that occasion I had thought of the argument that is put forward in Paragraph 73 of the McNair Report. As hon. Members know, the recruiting ground at present for the teachers is only the State-aided secondary schools where children stay till at least 16. I think that it is correct to say that only 10 per cent. of the child population attend these school. The other nine-tenths leave school at present at 14, and under this
  2148
  Bill we are only assured that they will remain until 15 in possibly three years' time. It is obvious that the 14 and 15 year-olds are too young to be recruited for the teaching profession, and if the age could be raised to 16 the recruitment possibilities would be increased accordingly. I would like to read one paragraph from the McNair Report on this question. They say:
  "It is true that raising the age to 16 will require still more teachers. We agree, however, with those who say that the problem may prove to be not so much one of finding the teachers to raise the age as of raising the age to find the teachers. The provision of full-time education up to 16 years of age will greatly stimulate recruitment to the profession, both qualitatively and quantitatively."
  I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree that this is an extra and an unanswerable reason for raising the age to 16 at the earliest possible moment, and I hope it may snake him reconsider his decision and perhaps get an Amendment inserted in another place. The other matter to which I would like to refer is the size of classes. We had a very long Debate on this matter during the Committee stage—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is drawing attention to a Debate in Committee and it is not in Order on the Third Reading to make suggestions of provisions she would like to have seen inserted in an earlier part of the Bill.
  Mrs. Cazalet Keir: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he could perhaps give an answer in his reply to this question? I understood that the Parliamentary Secretary said in a previous speech that the size of classes would be dealt with under regulations by the Board. In the draft building regulations which the President will send out to local authorities, before they send in their development plans under the Bill, will he lay down an actual figure for the size of classes, and will such a figure be the same for both primary and secondary schools? There is one final word I would like to say about building. We all welcome the White Paper which has just been published, but I hope, in addition, the President will be able to get promises from the Minister of Labour and also from the Minister of Aircraft Production in order to have a first priority on the war hostels at the end of hostilities. They will certainly be ready-made emergency training

  2149
  centres for teachers and very good boarding schools with which to start in certain areas, and useful for a great many other educational activities as well. I feel very deeply that many men and women who are rendering distinguished service to-day, in this country and abroad in positions of danger and responsibility, have lacked educational opportunities to which they were entitled, and I also believe that, it we have failed as a nation in our duty to them, this Bill can and will ensure that we do not fail their children.
  Mr. Tinker: I join with the hon. Lady the Member for East Islington (Mrs. Cazalet Keir) in giving a welcome to the Third Reading of this Bill after all the controversy we have had with regard to it. The point that impressed itself upon me was that the Parliamentary Secretary said that the idea behind the Bill was to give every child in the land equal opportunities. That means that educationally the child in the working class home will have the same opportunity as the child in the rich man's home. Every child with ability will have equal opportunity and up to the present no one can say that has been the case. Ability has not had an opportunity; it has been a question of wealth, of taking up certain children and giving them greater opportunities than have been given to others. This Bill will smooth that out, and if there is ability in the working class home there will be an opportunity of getting it brought out. If that is what the Bill means, then everybody will welcome it. Every child born into the world is an asset to the State.
  Another point in my hon. Friend's speech which I specially appreciated was that with regard to the size of classes. He made a statement that, as time went on, there would be a reduction in the size of classes. I understand that that will be difficult for a time, but the intention behind the Bill is to do something on those lines. I had the experience in my very early days of being one of a class of 30 or 40 children whom it was almost impossible for the teacher to control, and, naturally, children take advantage. I had no desire to go to school. I wanted a free and open life, and the irksomeness of school life made it even worse. If I could have got interested in subjects and could have received the particular attention of the teacher, I would probably
  2150
  have had a greater liking for school than I had. There are other things which I remember and which I hope will gradually be removed. I remember on very hot summer days longing for a drink of water, and there was no chance of getting anything. It was a question of drudging through several hours, hoping for the time when I would be finished and could get away. Education has proceeded with the object of removing all these things and giving a desire to go to school. That is what is meant by this Bill, as I see it.
  The next point I want to touch upon is the question of working for an accommodation. The Parliamentary Secretary said there was a feeling in the House and in the country for an accommodation to meet all the various views. When we started upon this Measure, I wondered how the House was going to take it, and whether the conflict of religious opinions would prevail. I could foresee that before the long and acrimonious Debate was finished strong feelings would be displayed, with the possibility of a Division. Thanks to the President, however, much was smoothed over, and I think there is a common feeling among us that he has made a genuine attempt to meet the views of all classes and to get a Bill that would work. Unless the feeling prevails that a genuine attempt has been made to meet the views of all the people concerned, bitterness is left behind and the Measure is not worked as it ought to be worked.
  In this case, an attempt has been made, and the views of most have been met. I would like to put one or two points to the President. He will remember, I think, quite vividly that when we were dealing with Clause 95 on 4th April there was a very tense moment in the Committee. I think we had had the longest discussion on any Amendment in the whole Bill. The discussion lasted some three hours, and the Committee was wondering whether the issue would come to a Division, and whether there would be any vote of confidence or not. The matter did not go as far as that, and I think that was largely due to what the President said in his reply. I will quote one or two points from his reply, because it is important to remind him and the House of what he said. He said:
  "And I think I can say that the position of those who speak with authority for the Roman Catholic communities is somewhat as fol-

  2151
  lows. They stand and have consistently stood, for the principle that all expenses of Roman Catholic Schools, no less than of county schools, should fall on public funds."
  That is a true statement of the Roman Catholic position. That is how we feel about this matter. He then went on to say:
  "That still remains their claim, and I feel sure that they would be entirely behind hon. Members in the Amendment they have on the Order Paper, but I am informed that the measure of assistance to Roman Catholic schools for which the Bill provides, including the new Clause, would go a considerable way to meeting many of their representations. Thus we have every reason to hope that, if the Government have their way and the Amendment is not carried, the Bill has a chance of operating in a better atmosphere than would have been possible before."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th April, 1944; col. 1917, Vol. 398.]
  On those words, and on the assurance of the Minister of Education, my friends and I decided, in that very tense moment in the Committee, not to press the matter to a Division. I had confidence in the President—who is now to be a Minister—that he would carry out his promise that the loans which would be given to the Catholic schools or to the denominational schools would be such that the burden would not be too heavy. I tried to get him, at that moment, to agree to a ceiling. I knew his difficulty. The ceiling I had in mind was that the cost should not exceed 35 per cent. over the 1939 basis. He could not give that assurance direct, but he implied that, so far as he was able, it would be kept within that figure.
  That takes us to this. Where the cost would have been, apart from the loan benefit, £590,000 a year, under the loans agreement, with a ceiling of 35 per cent., it will now be about £430,000 a year. We have accepted that in the right spirit in the hope that whoever sits on the Government Bench—it may not be my right hon. Friend, it may be another—the representations made by us on that day will be carried out. Many of us have had to "go through it" since for withdrawing the Amendment. It is not an easy matter to be in charge of an Amendment and have it left to you and a few others to say whether the matter shall go to a Division or not. It would be more spectacular to take it to a Division, but the more sensible person asks himself the question, "Shall I improve the position by doing that, or can I trust the Presi-
  2152
  dent to carry out his pledge"? On that occasion I had every confidence in the President.
  Mr. R. C. Morrison: Is the hon. Member suggesting to the House that if he had taken his Amendment to a Division it would have been carried?
  Mr. Tinker: I am not saying that, but it would have caused a lot of heart-burning and there would have been an awkward situation. I do not want it to be thought for one moment that we wanted to put anybody in a difficulty. We accepted the President's word that our suggestion would, as far as possible, be carried out. On the Third Reading we want an assurance from the President that he will, as far as he can, re-emphasise what he said about that particular Clause. It would give reassurance to the Roman Catholic population if that were done.
  In regard to the Amendment which was carried the other day, in which it was decided that certain members of the community who were bombed out should have a new school built to accommodate them—300 children, 150 of whom were bombed out or displaced children—it was said that the Board of Education or the Government would, out of public funds, meet a certain amount of the cost. Although we have not time to discuss it to-day, I am putting the following to the Minister as a suggestion. Supposing there were 200 places to be filled by these children and a school had got to be built for 300, will he give consideration to the point that the other 100 places ought to come in with the 200? To my mind it would be a reasonable suggestion to make, and I hope he will consider it from that aspect. If he would do that I think he would carry us even still further with him in his endeavours for the successful operation of the Bill. I believe this Bill will be of great benefit to the country and I think much credit is due to the President and to his able colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary, for producing it. They have handled every phase of the situation with tolerance and good will, and have been able to carry the House with them. I think that when the time comes to review it in the future this Bill will rank as one of the greatest Measures ever placed on the Statute Book.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I would like to add my thanks to those of

  2153
  other hon. Members who have congratulated the Minister-designate and the Parliamentary Secretary on approaching the winning post. I only want to raise one point, with regard to Clause 101, which deals with the Regulations under the Bill and provides for their annulment by a negative Resolution. I would like to congratulate the Minister-designate on having gone further than his predecessors in providing a satisfactory check and control over such legislative powers. I myself had hoped, in respect of those powers, that the checks might have been greater, and I hope I shall not be out of Order in saying that there was an Amendment on the Order Paper in regard to that. But in view of the statement made to-day by the Deputy Prime Minister, indicating that some proposition was being put forward to deal with the whole of that matter, it became unnecessary to raise that point in any detail. I hope, however, that the Minister-designate, in replying to this Debate, will be able to say that, whatever proposals are put forward in the course of the Debate by the Government, they will apply retrospectively and apply to the exercise of the legislative powers conferred upon him by the various Clauses of this Bill. In final conclusion, may I also say how much I know this Bill will be welcomed throughout the country and regarded as a real foundation stone for that progress which we all want to see.
  Mr. Speaker: By general agreement, it has been decided that we should suspend the Sitting of the House now, and I think I had better indicate the Member whom I intend to call when we resume—the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd).
  Sitting suspended.
  On resuming—
  Professor Gruffydd: I cannot help thinking that the feelings of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary must be like the jubilation of the farmer at harvest home, and as a good neighbour I wish for a short time to join in their junketings. They have brought home a very abundant harvest after a long stretch of sunshine, unbroken by storms except on one occasion, when even Jupiter himself came down with all his thunderbolts. Now comes the most
  2154
  important season of all, when the husbandry must be garnered and the sheaves will have to be threshed and milled to provide food for the nation. To drop the metaphor, I wish to remind the House that this Bill, with its great profusion of new provisions, is only the raw material of education and that the finished product can only be made available for our sons and daughters by the colossal tasks of the Ministry in making appropriate Regulations and by the wisdom, good will and honesty of the local education authorities in carrying them out, especially in the matters of staffing and size of classes. I cannot help quoting from a letter I had from an Army education officer who was trying to teach 200 British soldiers to read and w rite. They put their inability to read and write down to the fact that they had sat on the back benches of primary schools in classes of 50 and 60 and had been promoted to higher classes on the score of age and nothing else.
  I shall content myself with naming only one part of the Bill, that is, the new provisions for educating that residue of the school population which will, in many cases, fail to qualify for what has hitherto been most coveted by the common people, namely, the grammar school type of education. Those boys and girls will be the main problem in the future as they have been in the past. I am aware of many excellent senior schools which have been successful in the past, because those in charge of them had deliberately turned their backs on the old conceptions and dead methods and had courageously experimented with new ideas. I do not imagine that this Bill will bring about much change in the quality of primary education, because my experience in primary schools, certainly in the rural areas, is that the teaching has been, on the whole, excellent, in spite of poor buildings and poor equipment. Generally speaking, children over 11 who have failed to enter a secondary school—using the term in the old sense and not in the sense given to the phrase in this Bill—have been woefully neglected. The whole technique of teaching after the age of 11 in the upper classes had to conform to the limitations of teachers whose background and knowledge were insufficient to deal with adolescents and often with adolescents who were regarded as unteachable—in fact, with pupils who were looked upon as

  2155
  "duds," because the particular quality of their minds and sometimes of their environment unfitted them for the conventionally accepted type of education. I hope that one of the results of the Bill will be that no normal child in future will be regarded as a dud by the teacher or by anyone else; and also that no child in the country will be subjected to dud teaching—because there are duds among teachers as well as among pupils.
  If, then, the new system envisaged in the Bill of a secondary education for all children, irrespective of the particular bent and configuration of their minds, is to be realised, it will require an infinite amount of work by the Ministry and its officials, in guiding the curricula of training colleges and in advising teachers, and an infinite amount of care by the local authorities in the selection and the appointment of teachers. That is only one aspect of the Bill, but perhaps it is the most important. If all concerned with education will be willing to forgo selfish and sectional advantages in carrying out the provisions of the Bill, and if we in this House, by our control over expenditure, will not be niggardly in our encouragement, I see something much greater in the future for the common people of Britain than anything that they have even dared to hope for in the past.
  Mr. Gallacher: I desire to offer my tribute to the Minister for bringing forward and carrying through, in such a careful and delicate manner, this Bill, with the many difficult problems which it involved. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Bill was a monument to the work of the President of the Board of Education—I mean the Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is still the President."] Well, the President of the Board of Education. The Bill provides an opportunity which has never been provided before for all the children of the country to become well-educated, valuable citizens of the country, and I say that the citizens of to-morrow will pay high tribute to the work which the President of the Board of Education has carried through to-day. But not only the children will pay that tribute. I want to draw attention to the service the Minister has given not only to the children but to the teachers of this country. There is nothing that is more desirable, or does
  2156
  greater credit to any man or woman, than the ability to give service, particularly service in such a good cause as education. During the discussion of the Bill, attention was directed to the fact that our education had developed along lines of utilitarianism, and that this was the first time that we had got away from it, and were treating education as part of the makeup of every citizen.
  What does that mean for the teacher? One of the greatest services the Minister has done is to translate the teachers from being manufacturers of spare parts for our industrial machine into very valuable public servants who have the onerous task of training, guiding and developing the citizens of this country. That is a very important change and, as a result of the work that the Minister has put into the Bill, he has a standing in the country that should enable him to go very much further even than he has gone. He should cap the edifice. He should go another stage. The Minister has carried through difficult negotiations in connection with the denominational schools, religious instruction and the rest of it with very great care; I suggest that he should take into account the discussion that took place on the Clauses affecting this question and should decide—he is strong enough to do so with the support he has in this House and the country, and in the various institutions—to take over the 4,000 single-area schools, so that the State and the local authorities can assume full financial responsibility for all education in all schools.
  While we were discussing the Clauses dealing with the difficult problem of religion, many different sects put in their word here and there. To-day I have received a communication from another sect who want to protest against certain features of the Bill. It is the Gospel Standard Strict and Particular Baptists. I have no prejudices in these matters, and I think this one should be put on the records with the others. In my opinion, the Minister has carried through a remarkable job. Every stage of the conduct of the negotiations or of the discussion of the Bill has brought new credit to the Minister, and I am certain that the citizens of the future and the teaching profession will pay him tribute for the work that he has put in on this Measure.
  Major Nield: At the outset of his speech, in moving the Third Read-

  2157
  ing of the Bill, the Parliamentary Secretary informed the House that it was three years ago that he and the President set out upon their pilgrimage. I congratulate the pilgrims upon their progress and say that they have indeed achieved a great result. Those who have listened to the speeches made on the Bill, in this House and outside, must have been struck by the fact that the basic principles contained in this Measure have attracted almost universal approval. Although there have been controversies, particularly upon two subjects which I shall mention in a moment, even the protagonists in those controversies have been in full agreement that a great contribution to a national system of education has been made by this Measure. I feel that the ancient city which I have the honour to represent and its surroundings would wish to join, as I join, in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Minister-designate, the Parliamentary Secretary and those who have assisted them, upon a signal service to social progress.
  I wish to touch upon five specific points arising in this Bill. They vary very much in importance and in substance but I hope they wil be thought to be worthy of some attention. I propose to deal with them in the order in which they appear in the Bill itself. The first arises under Clause 14. On that Clause I would make a point which is, I confess, a somewhat academic legal point, in relation to the legal liability of the managers and governors of what used to be called non-provided schools. During the Committee stage I put forward a proposal that these managers should be required to insure against third party risks, so that in the event of some injury to persons coming upon or near their school premises they should be in a position to meet any judgment for damages. The Parliamentary Secretary appeared to receive that suggestion favourably, but, since then, he has been good enough to see me, and I think difficulties have been placed in the way of incorporating such a Clause in the Bill. I still hope there may be a recommendation from the Board of Education, as it is now, or the Ministry, as it will be, to the effect that these managers should be required to insure.
  I can make this point less academic by telling the House the reason why I offer the suggestion. In 1934 a school
  2158
  function wag held in a non-provided school in the city of Liverpool, and during an entertainment, the floor of the room, in which a great number of pupils, teachers and their parents and friends were gathered, collapsed, with the result that all were precipitated below. One at least was killed and many were seriously injured. It was an accident which, in the ordinary course, would have resulted in the payment of many thousands of pounds in damages. The plaintiffs in all action were in a difficulty, by reason of the existing state of the law on the question of where the responsibility lay. They sued the headmaster, the managers, the local education authority and the trustees under the trust deed. The litigation went on for six years, and eventually it was held that the managers alone were responsible. They were insured up to a sum of £500. The result was, of course, that no plaintiff recovered that to which he was entitled, or a fraction of it. Having myself been involved in the litigation, I felt it right to try to guard in the future against so disastrous a state of affairs. I still hope that my right hon. Friend will consider my suggestion that some direction as to compulsory insurance should be considered.
  The second point to which I desire to call attention arises under Clause 16 of the Bill. That Clause, it will be remembered, refers to the instrument of articles of government of a school. Representations were made to me during the passage of the Bill that it might be desirable if model articles of government were included as a Schedule to the Bill. If I remember aright, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay), during our discussions, rather supported that suggestion in order that there might be guidance for the government of schools. All I desire to say is that I think much guidance will be secured from Cmd. 6523 as to the principles of government in maintained secondary schools.
  My third point arises under Clause 66 and Part III of the Bill dealing with independent schools. I welcome the fact that the Bill maintains the position of independent schools and the freedom of choice of the parent. As to one type of independent school, I think nothing has so far been said. I refer to the choir schools, and I do so because in my own division there is a cathedral choir school which

  2159
  serves a most useful purpose and is a most valuable institution. I believe that there are some 20 cathedral choir schools up and down the country and a number of collegiate and parochial choir schools. I am informed that in such schools for voice-training purposes it is necessary for the pupils to arrive not later than the age of seven, and leave not earlier than the age of 14. That means that in the second stage of education the pupils will have to be received at a rather later age than is normal. There is no difficulty in my own Division in this matter, but I hope that the Ministry, as it will be, will encourage the county schools to receive these special pupils at the age of 14.
  Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: Is the hon. and gallant Member in Order on Third Reading, in suggesting matters that he considers should have been introduced in the Bill, but are not?
  Mr. Speaker: I am afraid I was not listening closely, but it is perfectly true that on Third Reading speeches are confined to what is in the Bill and must not deal with what hon. Members would like to see in the Bill. That is a Second Reading point.
  Major Nield: I apologise for having transgressed, and I will endeavour to confine myself within the terms you have stated, Mr. Speaker. In my own defence may I say that my remarks were intended to be an illustration regarding the position of independent schools under the Bill.
  My fourth point arises under Clause 96 of the Bill. Under that Clause we had to consider the question of financial aid to Church schools. I think the attitude of the Government was quite plain. They recognised the great contribution of the Church schools in the past firstly by retaining them, and secondly by offering them financial assistance. The real dispute was as to the amount of that financial assistance. Personally, I welcome the decision of my right hon. Friend to allow loans at favourable rates, for new schools and building operations and so on, undertaken by the Churches.
  My fifth and last point arises under the First Schedule and under Clause 6. Here I wish to say a word for the smaller county borough councils. It was felt that there was some danger of the rights given
  2160
  to such authorities under Clause 6 being so qualified as to be almost removed by the First Schedule, and that there were considerable objections to the joint boards proposed to be set up under the Bill. The objections were that the larger authority would lose its identity, that the smaller authorities would be swamped, and that the final body, the joint board, would not, as such, be responsible to the electors. I hope that the identity of well-conducted county borough councils or local education authorities will not be lightly removed.
  In my view, which is very sincerely expressed, this Bill lays the foundation of a great new edifice of public education in this country. The superstructure cannot be completed by any Act of Parliament; it must depend upon the effort of men and women in the teaching profession. The recommendations of the Committee presided over by Sir Arnold McNair are now available, and I hope that the Ministry will take full note of the recommendation that teachers must be offered proper remuneration and adequate conditions to encourage them to follow a very great calling.
  Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I join in the chorus of congratulation to my right hon. Friend. I hope it is not going to become a habit of mine. I have given more congratulations to my right hon. Friend than to any other Minister who ever sat on that bench. Now that we have come to the concluding stage of the Education Bill, it is right to say that the right hon. Gentleman has done a very good piece of work. I am not saying that it satisfies me: my right hon. Friend would be surprised if I were to suggest that. But, at least, we are now within measurable distance of seeing on the Statute Book the greatest Education Act since the Act of 1902. I think I have already said, either in the Debate oh the White Paper or on the Second Reading, that I regard the Fisher Act of 1918 as being nothing but the most miserable fiasco. I hope that my right hon. Friend's Bill, when it goes on the Statute Book, will not become a fiasco.
  We have pressed on every occasion when we could the question of the raising of the school-leaving age. My right hon. Friend has resisted us in a way that suggested that his spirit was good; he was not quite so stonewalling as when he was

  2161
  Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. He has tried to meet us, but it is unfortunate that he has not met us so much as I think the national interest demands with regard to the school-leaving age. I admit, as I did before, that there are problems involved. I do not regard buildings as the major problem: I regard teaching personnel as the major problem. My right hon. Friend has not gone nearly so far as I think he ought to have done. I do not for a moment doubt my right hon. Friend's intentions, but, now that we have the McNair Report before us, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister—as I hope he will be very shortly, and no more President of a non-existent Board of Education—will give his urgent attention to this question of the training of teachers. Whether he can implement certain of the Clauses in the Bill depends on whether he can get adequate teaching personnel, properly trained and remunerated for their responsible work. I would throw out the suggestion that perhaps, before long, we might have a discussion on the McNair Report. We have not impeded the progress of the Bill—never has so great a Bill gone through with such speed—and if my right hon. Friend will bear that in mind, perhaps, when we have had a little more time to consider the McNair Report, he will find a day for us to discuss these problems of the training of teachers, their remuneration, and their status. That would be all to the good.
  I and some of my hon. Friends are a little disappointed with the right hon. Gentleman's attitude towards the payment of fees. I admit that he has gone a considerable way, but we are not likely to get another Education Bill for a long time, and it is a great pity that he did not take the boldest possible course. There has been a good deal of feeling displayed in the House about Part III authorities. I have not shared that feeling. I believe that my right hon. Friend has done the right thing, and that, in fact, through the divisional executives, there will be more local autonomy and possibility of initiative, over the whole field of education, than the Part III authorities ever enjoyed. I hope that the Part III authorities—if my words can reach them—will play their part handsomely in the new structure. My right hon. Friend has been very sketchy about the young people's colleges. He has not been too definite about adult education. Adult edu-
  2162
  cation will go on, but whether the young people's colleges become effective, in a reasonably short space of time, depends on my right hon. Friend. We have now accepted the principle that young people, up to the age of 18 anyhow, ought to be in some kind of educational atmosphere for some time in the week,, and it is important that my right hon. Friend should begin to think out in more detail how he is going to establish these young people's colleges, and how they are going to work.
  Most of my hon. Friends accept the dual system as a fact. My right hon. Friend has had to do the same, and I believe that, in the present state of public opinion, whoever occupied his position would have to recognise it as a fact. The view I expressed on Second Reading—which was a considered view, supported by the vast majority of my hon. Friends—was that the proposals of the Government have shown a measure of generosity. Their financial resources have been improved on the Committee stage. For that I am sure my hon. Friends are grateful. The discussions on this aspect of the Bill have been carried out with great moderation. More moderation has been shown than has been meted out to me by members of certain Churches in this country, and by one in particular. I think it is to the credit of this House that my hon. Friends, whose faith I do not share, have accepted in a spirit of compromise the majority views of this House.
  One further point to which I would refer concerns the question of grants and finance under the Bill. I will not get out of Order, I hope. I have sat under more than one Speaker and have always done my best to avoid the lash falling upon me. The grants are now established under the Bill. There are new financial obligations imposed upon local education authorities, and this does raise a very great issue, the issue of the relations between national and local finance, which becomes more complicated when one thinks of the White Paper on health which was before the House a few weeks ago. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will consult his colleagues in order that they can discuss the finance of this Bill in relation to the finance of all proposals which may fall heavily upon local authorities.
  I will not go into my deplorable lack of education, which I confessed to this House on one occasion—I think on the

  2163
  White Paper Debate—but I believe in education. I believe it has been the Cinderella of the public services far too long. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has done his best to give it a status and importance, which our system of public education has never hitherto enjoyed. But I will put it to Members of all parties in the House, that, when this war is over, the one real asset that we shall have will be the quality of the growing generation. It is on them, and them alone, not on our natural resources, not on our overseas investments, not on any international trade agreements, that our future depends. Our future depends on what we can make of the spirit of the youth of this generation, and if my right hon. Friend can assist in that work, we shall be very grateful.
  In the discussion of this Bill we have had in the President of the Board and his Parliamentary Secretary an admirable combination of persons of different political faiths but with unity of purpose in the achievement of this great Measure. I hope that, out of this Bill, will come a new appreciation of the value of our own young and growing life. The greatest crime of Hitler is that he prostituted the whole youth of this generation in his country. We shall have an opportunity, when this war is over, when the blood has been shed and the cause of freedom has been won, to train our growing generation in ways which will mean that they can, in future, tread the path of freedom, the path of peace and the path of prosperity.
  Mr. Lipson: In his excellent speech the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) referred to the position of Part III authorities under this Bill. As one who has tried on occasion to put the case of these authorities I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education for the compromise solution of these difficulties which he has found. I think the position of these authorities illustrates the position of a great many interests affected by this Bill. I think that the Bill is now a better Bill than when it was introduced, and this is because the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary have been extremely generous in their efforts to try to meet the difficulties of those who saw in it cer-
  2164
  tain aspects which caused them very grave concern. For that I am grateful to them, and I think, indeed, the whole House is grateful to them, for their generous conduct during the various stages through which the Bill has passed. It has been a remarkable combination of Minister and Parliamentary Secretary, and I would express the hope that, as we have seen a combination of Members of different parties, producing a Bill of this kind, which is practically an agreed Bill, we may look forward to the time when education will be taken out of party politics. Perhaps, in that way, we may have Ministers of Education, as they will then be called, retaining office longer than has been the experience of the past.
  I also hope that the Ministers themselves have been pleased at the reception which the Bill has met with both in the House and in the country. It has aroused much greater interest than the subject of education has ever been able to evoke in the past; I think it is true to say that the country, at this moment, is more education-conscious than it has ever been, and that is a matter for very great satisfaction. It is particularly satisfactory, because this is the first great Measure of reconstruction which the Government have been able to introduce, and, to my mind, the Bill itself goes a long way to justify an all-party Government. It shows that, in a matter of real vital interest to the nation—a matter which has aroused in the past the greatest possible controversy—you can bring down to the House a Bill which, on its Third Reading, receives only the mildest kind of criticism, and no criticism at all of an obstructive kind. There has been no criticism from those who thought that the Bill goes too far; the only criticism has arisen from regret that it does not go further. I am one of those who voted for the abolition of all fees, and in favour of inserting a date for raising the school-leaving age to 16. Though the Minister did not put a date in the Bill, it was not because he is not in favour of operating a school-leaving age of 16, but because he is not yet convinced that it is practical politics to put such a date in the Bill. On that matter, where no principle is involved, there is room for an honest difference of opinion.
  This Bill has yet to be implemented. The reference to the Fisher Act reminded us that it is one thing to get a Bill on

  2165
  the Statute Book, and another to get it implemented in the country, and there are certain snags in this Bill which give some of us concern. One is that the Bill itself is unable to provide practical steps to make effective the greatest single reform required in education—reduction of the size of classes. Another factor which causes me concern is with regard to the great principle of the Bill that there shall be equality of educational opportunity throughout the length and breadth of the land. No child should be hampered by the fact that he is born in one area rather than another. I am not satisfied that the financial proposals envisaged in the Bill will bring that about, but the Minister has declared his faith in the principle. That principle has been endorsed by this House and if the means for endorsing it are not satisfactory I hope we shall see that later on steps are taken to make sure it is carried into effect. We all hope, now that the Bill has reached its Third Reading, with almost complete unanimity and with such great approval, that the high hopes it has aroused both in this House and outside will be realised. We congratulate the Minister on what he has done, but we shall congratulate him still more when we see the Bill fully implemented.
  Mr. Edmund Harvey: Every speaker so far in this Debate has joined in a tribute to the President of the Board of Education for his great ability, his consideration and sympathetic understanding of difficulties, the patience with which he has tried to meet every point of view, and the ability, humour and great knowledge of the Parliamentary Secretary. Yet I cannot help feeling that the President of the Board and his colleague must be rather like weary travellers in India who, after a long journey, receive an immense number of garlands, which sometimes are overpowering to the recipients. The garlands of roses that come to them to-day, perhaps, are not wholly without thorns. I remember in 1918, when the Fisher Act was passed, how from every side of the House there were tributes to the great ability of Mr. Fisher and to the magnificence of his achievement, and I hope most earnestly that no fate such as befell Mr. Fisher's noble endeavour, will befall the efforts of the present President of the Board. We can, if we compare those days with the present, take some hope
  2166
  from the change in public interest. The Bill of 1918 was passed in the midst of a great war. It was passed after frequent Divisions in Committee, and with less appreciation on the part of Members of this House of the objects of the Bill than has been given, on all sides, to the President of the Board on this occasion.
  Public opinion in the country at that time had not risen in support of Mr. Fisher's great proposals, in the way in which it has done on this occasion in regard to the present Bill. One reason for this, is the very careful way in which the ground has been prepared by conference and consultation with all interests, the efforts which have been made by the President of the Board and his colleague to arouse public interest among responsible people all over the country, and the very great value of the White Paper. As has been said, the White Paper and the Bill have given us a vision, a plan, legislative machinery, but it will depend upon the work which is done in the coming years and upon the support which public opinion gives to the President of the Board, whether or not this great Bill can achieve the success that we all desire. Unless there is the continuous support of public opinion, there may come another Geddes axe and there will come another Parliament less interested in this cause perhaps than Members are to-day. Every one of us who cares for the success of this Measure must see to it that public opinion keeps on supporting the President of the Board in the great effort which will be needed to carry into effect the proposals that he has made. We have already had it mentioned how, on the vitally important points, power is in his hands; it will rest with him especially to see that these great reforms are carried out. The two most essential ingredients for this are, an adequate supply of qualified teachers, and classes small enough to give the pupils the opportunity of benefiting from the teaching. That depends upon the action taken by the Board of Education, and I hope that the President of the Board will reassure us that he is already taking measures to get in the new supply of teaechers needed, and that he will go on taking measures to secure a reduction in the size of classes.
  There is a third question of great importance to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. A.

  2167
  Greenwood) made a passing allusion in his speech, and in regard to, which the President and the Board can act immediately under the powers that this Bill gives. That is the question of adult education. The bulk of the provisions in the Bill refer to the future, to the children who are not yet coming into school, and to children who are not yet born. But in the powers that the Bill gives to the President of the Board, and to local education authorities, there is a new opportunity for an expansion of adult education for the whole mass of our fellow citizens. I urge that the need in that respect will be greater than ever when the moment comes to demobilise the Forces. There will be thousands of men and' thousands of women who have acquired new interests during that period of service; many of them, in discussions in the Army or the Air Force, through A.B.C.A. and in other ways, have suddenly awakened to interests that they had not had before, and they will want to go on pursuing those interests. They will need the help of more resources than have been available to them hitherto.
  I beg of the President to assure the country that he will do his utmost to help local education authorities in providing new centres for adult education which will assist the work already being done by the Workers' Educational Association and other voluntary organisations, and in providing civic educational centres where members of the Forces and other can enjoy study and discussion together, in a spirit of comradeship and fellowship. There will be an opportunity for the President to get a new set of teachers for these classes, apart from those whom he is recruiting for the schools. A great number of young officers and others in the Services who have taken part in adult education there, will, many of them, be glad to go on with similar work. There are others who have had experience of this kind and who have qualifications for it who will be glad to volunteer, and who would not be equally qualified for teaching children. We have to remember, that, for the adult, there is an element present which is not present in school. Every member of an adult education class comes because he wants to learn. There is no question of discipline involved. There are no unwilling pupils who attend only because they have to be there. Those who attend do so because they want to attend, and that gives an
  2168
  opportunity to the teacher that is not found elsewhere.
  Therefore, I hope that because teachers are urgently needed, as they are, for the extension of our school system and for the young people's colleges, and because the right hon. Gentleman must get as many as possible trained for that, he will not neglect the supply of further help for adult education, or the encouragement of men and women to take up this great service. I hope that when he comes to speak he may be able to give an assurance on this point, and that, if possible, he may also say that he will do his best to bring into being some pioneer centres of adult education—residential colleges like those in Denmark and Sweden and Norway, and possibly others of a different kind. It would be the greatest encouragement, not only to those interested in this work in this country but to many thousands overseas who are looking forward, when they come back at the end of the war, to the opportunity of study and comradeship, and to have opened up for them the great heritage of the culture of the past, and all the opportunities that true education gives. I think all of us are thankful that we have at the Board men like the President and Parliamentary Secretary, whose hearts are in this great cause. We all join in wishing the utmost success to their efforts in implementing this Bill.
  Colonel Sir John Shute: I have not intervened in the general Debates on the Bill since I was privileged to speak for a short time on the White Paper, but I have attended the proceedings on the Bill throughout and have also taken part in the negotiations which have been going on for some time concerning it. While I wish to add my testimony to that of previous speakers, to the great courtesy, ability, and kindly manner in which the President and his able lieutenant have carried through the proceedings on this Bill, I regret that I cannot quite agree with the statement that the Bill has gone through without any protests at all. I regret very greatly, on behalf of those for whom I speak—that is the members of the Catholic faith, of whom I am one—that the financial provisions in this Bill are quite unsatisfactory so far as they are concerned.
  One had hoped, after the publication of the White Paper, that as a result of the

  2169
  prolonged negotiations which have been going on to my knowledge now for over a year, the right hon. Gentleman might have seen his way—to use modern phraseology—to "step up" the offer contained in his original recommendations. Throughout these last months I have been led to believe that if we could—I will not say weaken, but reduce what we considered to be our legitimate claims to equal justice, with those of other religious faiths, that we would probably be able to bring the right hon. Gentleman along with us. What has happened? I would say—if I am not mixing metaphors—that the mountain of laborious negotiation has brought forth a mouse. We have been promised a loan at some unspecified rate of interest, and we find ourselves, as a body, committed to the fact that we shall have to find, throughout the coming years, a minimum sum of about £10,000,000, which may be very much increased. That is the only thing we have to report.
  Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: On a point of Order, Sir. Is not the tenor of the hon. and gallant Member's remarks directed to the deficiencies of the Bill and not to its contents?
  Mr. Speaker: I thought that the hon. and gallant Member was referring to something contained in the Bill.
  Sir Patrick Hannon: Surely my hon. and gallant Friend is entitled to speak on the substance of the Bill. He is doing precisely what one is supposed to do on the Third Reading of a Bill in this House.
  Sir J. Shute: The great majority of our children are born in poor circumstances—
  Mr. Gallacher: You want to keep them poor.
  Sir J. Shute: —and we welcome wholeheartedly, without any reservation of any kind, the splendid vision held out to us by this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) said on Tuesday that when it came to the problem of putting forward the reduced claims whch we thought would be accepted, we did not force the question to a Division. The circumstances in which that Division was not forced are well known. I was left with two other members of our body to decide what we should do, after we
  2170
  had heard the speech of my right hon. Friend. We came to the conclusion that, owing to the circumstances which had arisen some 24 hours previously, it was not wise to strain the loyalties of those of our Anglican and Jewish friends in the House who were prepared to support us.
  I would ask hon. Members to study the speeches made from all quarters of the House and from representatives of every party. The hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mr. Barr) made an extraordinary speech backing us up, and in a speech of sheer logic the hon. and gallant Member for West Leeds (Major Vyvyan Adams) saw no reason why the claims put forward should not be granted. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Preston (Captain Cobb) and the hon. Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster) also supported us, and I would particularly like to draw attention to the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Central Bradford (Mr. Leach) and Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson). Although these hon. Members spoke from different angles of the Christian or Jewish faiths, they felt the claim we had put forward was a just one. I see no reason why we should not receive exactly the same support as others of different beliefs receive in the matter of the education of children.
  A Front Opposition Bench Member twitted us with the fact that we have to go round collecting money for the building and maintenance of our schools and suggested that it is rather a piece of undue sentimentality. But what we said is absolutely true. Year in and year out appeals are made by our clergy, by means of bazaars and in other ways, to produce the education which is demanded by the State. After that Debate, in which we did not force the House to a Division, for reasons I have stated, one of our daily papers came out with the striking headline, "Catholics Have Given Up The Fight." I say at once that nothing could be further from the truth. I do not like to use the word "fight" in this relationship, but we are asking simply for ordinary justice. We do not require generosity or charity. I am certain that some day, somehow, a solution to this problem will be found, that where there is a sufficient number of children of any particular faith, Christian, Jewish or, perhaps, no faith whatever, the State will have to build and maintain schools and

  2171
  allow to be put into them teachers of the faith of the majority of children who have to go to them. We ask for nothing for ourselves that we do not desire for any other branch of the Christian religion. I have a sincere and high regard for the President of the Board of Education, but I must say to him that this question of the treatment of denominational schools is not settled by this Bill. It will go on; it will be a running sore and I can only hope that it will be the voice of my right hon. Friend, who has shown such brilliance in his office up to now, which will, some day, give us the justice we have always claimed and to which we are entitled.
  Mr. Hubert Beaumont: I do not propose to follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Sir J. Shute) in reopening the question of religious education. Rather would I join in the angelic chorus which preceded his speech in offering congratulations both to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary. I believe that they have shown considerable tact in their negotiations and have ingratiated themselves with all those with whom they came into contact. They have proved to be the best type of diplomats, and not the type about which a small boy wrote when he said, "Diplomats are gentlemen who keep nations apart." The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have been diplomatic in bringing people together. One of their great achievements lies in the fact that these Debates, spread over many days and weeks, have been conducted without any bitterness or strife on the part of the religious and educational interests concerned. Those interests have voiced their views, they have been heard with consideration and, so far as is possible, they have been met. I hope that this Bill means that we shall have an educational system in the future which will secure that religious strife in our schools will depart, never to return, and that an opportunity will be given to all those who desire their particular faith to be expressed for that faith to be taught to them.
  I have one regret. I am one of those who deplore the passing of the Part III authorities. In my constituency there are three such authorities which have done extremely well, and I regret that it has
  2172
  not been deemed possible to incorporate the machinery of Part III authorities into the Bill. I also feel sufficient tribute has not been paid to the thousands of men and women who have done such excellent work on behalf of the Part III authorities. There have been committees composed of men and women convinced of the need for education and who desired to secure the best education for the children of their districts. This House should express its thanks to all those who, in the past, have done so much good work against hampering restrictions, meanness and pettifogging regulations. I hope the Minister will see that, so far as is humanly possible, all this valuable social effort, and all the people who have been engaged in this education ii work, will be incorporated in the new scheme. The great majority of those who have shown intelligence and keenness in their desire to participate in the educational life of their district should be included in the committees which are to be set up under the new authority.
  Further, I hope we shall never divorce education from direct contact with the people; it is most important that parents should be able to have contact with those associated with the management of schools. In that way the smaller Part III authorities have been able effectively to carry out their work, I hope that in whatever arrangements are made those Part III authorities who, by their past record, have shown that they have ability, knowledge and enterprise, will be granted, if possible, the great privilege of being the authority for their district. I know they will come under the county authority with regard to the preparation of a scheme, but I hope the widest powers will be given to them so that they can carry on the excellent work which they are doing at We present.
  With regard to the area based on population and numbers of school children I hope as far as possible the Minister will view not the exact requirements in relation to population and the number of scholars but rather as to the past record of the schools, because it does not necessarily follow that because an authority is a large authority it is going to be more efficient than a small one. That has been proved in the past. I represent an authority, Batley, which has the highest standard in the country in the matter of school feeding, 61 per cent. of the children

  2173
  receiving it. An authority which is so good in a matter of that kind is one which should be chosen to control education. The other two authorities in my constituency, Morley and Ossett, are equally good. In fact there would hardly be need for an Education Bill provided they got more money to carry on the education. I hope that we shall regard the young people's colleges on the same lines as they used to be regarded in Denmark, where they proved to be a most fruitful basis for citizenship. I hope these colleges will be made so attractive, both in the type and the nature of the instruction offered and the quality of the accommodation given, that there will be a far larger number of people desiring to go to them even than can be catered for.
  With regard to the teaching difficulty, it has been mentioned already that there are in the Army, the Navy and the Air Force numbers of people who have been engaged in educational training. May it not be possible that at least some of the requirements for teachers can be filled from that source? It is, of course, conceivable that they will themselves have to have some special training in teaching methods. I submit that, for the young people's colleges, those who are doing the teaching in the Forces will be, if anything, more suitable than the average teacher. There have gone into the Forces a number of men and women who desire to enter the teaching profession. In fact some had already embarked on their studies. I trust that the Minister will bring all the pressure he can to bear upon the authorities who will be responsible for demobilisation when the time comes to see to it that those young men and women who have already expressed a desire to enter the teaching profession, and who in many cases have shown their ability in this direction should be among the first to be demobbed. We shall have to wait a very long time before we can get all the teachers required and for the scheme to be fully put into operation. Because of the shortage of teachers, we shall be justified in making those who have already some teaching experience and aptitude available so that the scheme can go on as quickly as possible.
  In wishing the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary well in their enterprise and in congratulating them on what they have achieved, may I remind them that
  2174
  they now have a piece of machinery which we believe can revolutionise education. It is the manner in which the legislation is implemented and the machinery run which will determine the future of education. I wish them well in their work and I feel sure that, if they need any further impetus, they have only to come to the House and it will readily grant them anything they require. The Bill can be a landmark in the history of the country, that in the time of cur greatest danger and trial and stress we can think of the future, and we think first of all in terms of the children, realising that they are the greatest asset of the nation and that the greatest asset a child can have is education.
  Mr. Jewson (Gt. Yarmouth): It seems to me that the President and the Parliamentary Secretary are in some danger of incurring the fate said to lie in store for those of whom all men speak well. If they are in any such danger, I can do nothing to remove it, because I want to add my word of congratulation to those that have already been uttered. Looking back and remembering, as I do so vividly, the troubles which unfortunately existed 40 years ago, I am surprised that the Bill has had so smooth a passage. It is true that at one point the ship was in danger, but she was soon refloated, and great credit must be given my right hon. Friend for the fact that amid all the difficulties, he has been able to navigate it with such success. It is due, I think, to two things, his accessibility to Members of all shades of opinion and to his hard work, for he has worked very hard to find a way out of the difficulties that existed. This is a compromise Bill, but I am not finding fault with it on that account. In my view that is just what it should be in a democratic country where different views are held. I listened with considerable surprise to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Sir J. Shute), who appeared to expect to get everything his own way. Certainly I do not expect that.
  There was one thing in the admirable speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to which I am inclined to take a little exception. He indicated that the schools must not be regarded as existing for the protection of the body politic. Those of us who have come in close contact with what is

  2175
  unbeautitully described as "juvenile delinquency," hold that the body politic needs some protection, and while the hon. Gentleman is quite right in suggesting that that protection is not to be obtained by confining boys and girls within the four walls of a school, we look to find that protection in the improved education which we hope will be the outcome of the Bill. Having been engaged to some extent in education all my life, I know the great value of atmosphere. That is one of the things, I believe, that this Bill will give us in our schools. We, therefore, hope that the boys and girls who have been giving some trouble in the past, will be given teaching in the schools which come into existence under this Bill, which will be constructive instead of destructive as it has often been hitherto. The outcome of the various compromises we have seen arrived at and the Amendments which have been incorporated in the Bill make it a Measure which can be described as typically English and the embodiment of unexampled good will. The Bill goes into circulation, therefore, with every opportunity of making good, and I can only add my small word of hope that it will.
  Mr. Sorensen: I understand that to-day has been devoted to giving us an opportunity to express a few kind words of appreciation of the work of the Minister and his assistant. My words will be very few but, I hope, not unkind. I only hope that the Minister and his able Parliamentary Secretary will not become dyspeptic with the excessive eulogies they have imbibed to-day. We all appreciate the work that has been done on the Committee stage, and we recognise that the proposals in the Bill are promising in the extreme. On the other hand, I cannot help feeling that there is a note of tragedy even in the appreciation we express. The Bill is 25 years overdue. It should and could have been ours after the last war. If it had been passed after the last war, and if by now we had had real secondary education for all, possibly this war would never have occurred; and, in any case, the prospects of this country would have been better than they are now. [Laughter.] Some Members scoff at that suggestion, but I would point out that the greatest defect of the Western world is that the democracy is only half-educated. If we had had a fully educated democracy,
  2176
  fully informed and inspired, it is quite likely—and I put it no higher than that—that in the pre-war years it might have pursued other policies than those that have led us to this war.
  That brings me to another point, that while in Germany they had a system of education which was very exacting and comprehensive, the one thing they lacked was a proper purpose for education. In other words, they have taken advantage of the children under their command, not only to equip them with a certain amount of technical information, but to pervert their minds and to leave them to give whatever talents they possess to an entirely false purpose. In all discussions that have taken place in this House about the place of religion in education, and the relationship of sincere religious convictions to our educational structure, it has not always been emphasised, as I think it should have been, that what is wanted in our schools is- a definite ethical purpose, not merely taught pedantically and didactically, but suffusing the very atmosphere in which the children live.
  Sir P. Hannon: What is the difference, in the atmosphere of the school, between religious purpose and ethical purpose? Where do they collide, and where do they coalesce?
  Mr. Sorensen: They need not collide, but sometimes they do. When there is over-emphasis on purely doctrinal and theological matters, the ethical factor may disappear. That is why, though I say they should not collide, they have on occasion done so. There have been some expert theologians in Christian history who have been abominable scoundrels.
  Sir P. Hannon: Have there not also been some ethical scoundrels?
  Mr. Sorensen: If a man is truly ethical, he cannot also be a scoundrel. What I am trying to emphasise is that in this House, as in the country, there are various schools of thought in the matter. There are our Catholic, Anglican and Jewish friends. All of them, in one way or another, want to transmit their theological ideas. I do not say that they should not do so; but the great mass of parents are not attached to any particular denomination. I am particularly concerned with those parents. There are some who believe that we should eradicate from the schools, not only any kind of religious

  2177
  instruction, but any kind of ethical direction. I disagree with that. I believe that merely to leave the child's mind a vacuum is to leave it open to all kinds of rubbish and false ideas, and, therefore, to leave the child bewildered as to what is the right ethical pathway to follow. I plead that we should try to get denominations in this country, the new bodies which are to draw up the agreed syllabus, and all those who are not attached to denominations, to appreciate that it is all very well for us to improve our educational structure and to raise the school leaving age, but that all this will count for nothing if at tie same time we do not suffuse the new educational life with right principles, right ideals and right values.
  In pleading for that, I suggest that, unless we do try to suffuse the whole of our educational life with an appreciation of fundamental democratic values, and unless we try to inspire the coming generation with the right means by which evil can be overcome, and the errors of the world can be corrected, we may get a clever but an uninspired generation. Unfortunately, as I say, this Bill is 25 years overdue, and, still more unfortunately, it falls far short of what we desire. Secondary education was being talked about by Professor Tawney and others a quarter of a century ago, and still we have not got it. It may take another ten years before we even get the raising of the school age to 16. Indeed, there are those who are telling us that we must cut our coat according to our cloth and that, although this Bill promises a great deal, we shall have to wait for the post-war days to see whether we can afford what it promises. That being so, it is possible that when the war is ended and we hope to see the implementation of this Bill, we shall see only a few small instalments.
  That is all I meant when I said that the Bill is, in some ways, a tragic Bill. It reminds us how slowly great reforms come into operation, and how pitifully slowly we achieve the very things that all decent-minded people say are urgently necessary. I have only to look across the water to America, to appreciate that they have a higher school-leaving age than we have, or to look in the other direction to realise that Russia also has a higher leaving age. I do not blindly worship either of those lands or their scholastic systems. We have only to remember that, and then
  2178
  turn to our own country, to realise that, in this wealthy land, we are still only talking about raising the school-leaving age to 15. That, in itself, should limit in some measure the congratulations that we pour upon the authors of this Bill.
  I will not end on an unfortunate note, but will express my appreciation of the zeal and persistence of the Minister-designate and the Parliamentary Secretary in the last two or three years. They have put in a tremendous amount of good work. Others have, too, for behind the scenes there have been many, who have considered for many months proposals that could be embodied in this valuable piece of legislation. They should all be congratulated, but in congratulating them let us not blind ourselves to the fact that this is, at the very best, merely an instalment after 25 years' delay of what we should have had after the last war. I only hope that the Bill will, nevertheless, help to create an inspired and informed democracy, because without such qualities, democracy will disappear.
  Ordered:
  "That the Debate be now adjourned."— [Captain McEwen.]
  Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

  GAS (SPECIAL ORDERS)
  Resolved:
  "That the Draft of the Special Order proposed to be made by the Minister of Fuel and Power under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Pontypool Gas and Water Company, which Draft was presented on 6th April and published, be approved."—[Mr. Tom Smith.]

  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE
  Ordered:
  "That Mr. Butcher be discharged from the Select Committee on National Expenditure and that Dr. Russell Thomas be added to the Committee."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

MINERS, ARMED FORCES (RELEASE)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain McEwen.]
Mr. Tinker: I wish to raise a matter relating to miners in the Armed Forces. We cannot get a full explana-

2179
tion in such cases by way of Question and answer. I am not criticising the Ministry of Fuel and Power, but I am raising this subject in order to get a fuller explanation of the present position and to see whether any improvement can be made. Mining Members are constantly being asked to get release for miners in the Forces. We have done our best, but there is a certain amount of looseness, and nobody is able to answer our inquiries in the matter. The present position, as outlined on 16th December in reply to a Question by the Minister of Fuel and Power, is as follows:
"It is essential that my Ministry should have an offer of underground employment from a particular colliery before the War Office is approached."
That is to say, anybody wanting to get release from the War Office should have had the offer of work. The Minister went on to say:
"Any man not barred by the age limitations who wishes to be considered should ask his commanding officer whether there are any military reasons to prevent his release and, if not, approach the colliery at which he wishes to work underground."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1943; col. 1718, Vol. 395.]
That is where the trouble arose. Let us try to follow what happens to a man in the Forces who has worked in the mines previously but before joining the Forces had gone to some other job. In his desire to get away from the Forces because he thinks he can do better service in the mines he has to approach his commanding officer first of all, to see whether he can be released. The commanding officer says: "Yes, I think we can spare you." Then it is the man's task to approach some colliery manager to see whether the manager can get release for him. Because the man was not working in the mines immediately before he joined the Forces, no colliery manager seems anxious to have him, and so the man comes to a dead end. He cannot get the consent of any colliery official to take him on, although the Army is willing to release him. Because there is no offer of work for him the Ministry cannot allow this potential coal worker, of great value to the State, to go. Many hon. Members have experienced that kind of difficulty. We have done all we can. I have wandered from Department to Department and have had letter after letter, and
2180
finally the matter has come back to the point that as there is no work for the man he cannot be released.
We want to clear the matter up and we want the Minister to do something more definite. It is necessary that we should get into the mines all the available men who can be of any use at all. I put a Question down the other day in regard to the "Bevin boys" to see whether we were getting all the labour we needed. We require 720,000 persons in the mines. We are many thousands short, and the "Bevin boys" can hardly meet requirements at the present time. Even if the numbers are obtained they have to be trained. You cannot make a miner in a short time. It requires almost a lifelong experience to be an accomplished miner. Therefore, we say to ourselves, "If you have accomplished miners in the Forces who are willing to go back, and can be released, why should there be any difficulty?" Why should there not be some greater authority to say to the mineowners, "Here is a man from the Forces for you. You must take him on." So far as I am aware we have not arrived at that position at the moment. I am asking that this power should be given to the Regional Controller of every area.
Parliament is determined during the war not to let private enterprise have all its own way. A White Paper was submitted to the House that there should be reasonable control, and a voice in the management of the mines. I do not see any reason why we should not go a little further and say to the mineowners, "It is not for you to decide whom you shall take on. We want the mineworkers. Therefore, if you do not find work for a particular man released from the Forces the power should be vested in the Regional Controller to examine the whole position." If, say, in the case of Lancashire, there are 20 men who can be released from the Forces, and there is no one prepared to take them on, I want the Regional Controller to be able to say, "I shall allocate them to where I think they ought to go." This is the point I want cleared up. I ask that the Regional Controller shall have the power to allocate these men to the mines to which he thinks they ought to go, if possible as near to the men's homes as he can get them. If he does that it will save the men having to move about unduly.

2181
The only reason why I am bringing this up is for the purpose of getting the position cleared up. It is very hard at the present time for mining Members. We are agitating for more mineworkers, and we get word that someone wants to come back from the Forces and we cannot get him a job, and when we appeal to what we think is the appropriate quarter they cannot do anything. Another point I wish to make is that it has been brought to my notice that certain people in different units have been told that they can be released from their units, even though they are under the age specified here. If that is so it is queering the position for these other people, because we have told them that they must be a certain age before they can be released. I may have no authority on this, but definitely we get word that some units have told certain of their men, "If you can get a job in the mines we can release you." When we get word to that effect we say, "Something is wrong. No one can be released before a certain age." We are told, "The commanding officer said that if we can get work we can be released"—that is, men who have had no previous mining experience. There is a mix-up somewhere, and I want it cleared up.
I want a definite lead to the whole country now, especially the mining areas, on what can be done regarding persons in the Armed Forces. If we can get a satisfactory answer on this it will go a long way towards alleviating the difficulty. There are many men in the Forces who would be serving the country better in the mines than where they are at the moment. I wish to make it clear that I do not advocate taking everybody out. There are key men, experienced men, in the Army whom it would be wrong to take away, because the job they are doing is the more essential one. But there are other men, with mining experience, who could be well spared from the Forces, and who could render greater service in the pits than in the Army. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to clear up 'the whole matter to-day. I ask, also, that whatever ruling he gives to-day should be communicated, as an order, to the Services, so that commanding officers may know exactly what powers they have.
It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for
2182
the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pym.]
Mr. Tinker: Let there be one definition, showing what the man can do and what should be done by the commanding officer. If we get this matter cleared up, we shall have done service to the miners, to the community, and to the Forces.
Mr. Tom Brown: I want to support the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) in his efforts to secure some clarification of the position regarding the release of mineworkers from the Army. I will go a bit further back and quote from HANSARD, which, after all, is the authority. The hon. Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring), on 19th October last, submitted a Question to the Minister of Fuel and Power, and the Minister, in a written reply, explained the method by which miners could get release from the Army. I will read the Question and the answer:
"Mr. MAINWARING asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what procedure is to be followed by mineowners, and/or ex-miners, to make application for release from the Armed Forces of those who had previously been in their employ?
Major LLOYD GEORGE: Only men with previous underground experience serving in the Army at home who were born on or before 6th October, 1907 (6th October, 1913 in the case of the Pioneer Corps) will be considered for release. The War Office will supply my Ministry with particulars of such men who are not barred for military reasons and who are shown in War Office records as ex-underground workers. When it has been established that immediate underground work is available the War Office will be asked to authorise release. Within the limits indicated and subject to certain military provisos, the War Office are also prepared to consider applications for the release of men with previous underground experience who were not working in the coal-mining industry at the time of enlistment. Any such man who wishes to be considered should apply to the colliery at which he desires to work giving full particulars of his previous underground experience. The colliery will then apply to my Ministry and if it is clear that the applicant satisfies the age condition the War Office will be asked to consider the case."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th October, 1943; cols. 1221–2, Vol. 392.].
The concluding part of that answer caused a great deal of trouble and discontent. The statement was issued to the Press on 19th October. On 20th October the Ministry of Fuel and Power

2183
sent a circular to all mine managers or colliery companies within the British coalfields asking them to send word to the Ministry—I presume the Labour Bureau—making application for those men whom they thought it was advisable should be released for the purpose of the production of coal. My complaint is this. There is too long a delay—and the Parliamentary Secretary has already had intimation of this—between the application being made by the mine manager and the man's case being considered by the Ministry of Fuel and Power plus the War Office.
I have been inundated with letters from members of the Forces and also with letters from colliery companies, stating the difficulty they have in getting men released for mine work. I have not the time at my disposal now to read them, but I will mention one case. Immediately that circular was issued, the mine managers set to work to find out what number they required and what class of worker they required, and to send word to the Ministry of Fuel and Power, according to the instructions contained in the answer to the Question on 19th October. I have here a copy of a letter sent to the Department on 23rd November last, giving the date of birth and other particulars, the man's experience and what he was wanted for, and calling the attention of the Ministry of Fuel and Power to the importance of his being released, as he was a key man. Here is my complaint.
It was not until 1st March of this year that the colliery company got a reply from the Ministry that this man could not be released. I think that, by no stretch of imagination, should three months be taken to find out whether a man can be returned to the industry or not. Not only that, but this man, due to some confusion either at the Ministry or the War Office, had to suffer the unfortunate experience of having his pay stopped. When I got the letter stating that his pay had been stopped, simply because he had made application to be released for work in the mines, I took the matter up.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not take it as a personal attack upon him, but I think there is a lack of co-ordination, co-operation and collaboration between the two Departments; it ought
2184
not to take so long to get that information. Here is a mine manager who makes application for the release of a particular man because of his adaptability and experience. He cannot make application for another man until he has received information from the War Office or the Ministry of Fuel and Power that that man can be released. Therefore, for three months, he is held up, waiting for a reply from one of these two Departments. We have a phrase in the pits—I do not know whether I should use it in the House, but I will do so—and it is "passing the can, "or" passing the buck."
This man wrote me several letters, and he has in his possession a copy of the letter given to him by his commanding officer, who said: "Yes, we can spare you, and you are in duty bound now to get back to the pit." I wrote to the Minister of Fuel and Power, and he replied that the matter was under consideration, but that it was in the hands of the War Office. I wrote to the War Office—in point of fact, I went down to the War Office with the particulars—and the War Office told me "It is in the hands of the Ministry of Fuel and Power."
Where are we? Talk about Dickens' "Circumlocution Office." It is not in it. There ought to be co-operation and collaboration between the two Departments. If a man comes into the category to be released there is at least three months' work lost due to delay. There is another point I want to raise in connection with the statement, "Colliery managers should apply." Colliery managers ought not to be given the power to apply for any men they want; it is wrong. We have been examining the figures in Lancashire. A statement was made in this House about the number of men released and we made a comparison last Monday. The figures in Lancashire for March, 1943, as compared with March, 1944, show that 136 more men were employed in the collieries of Lancashire and Cheshire in 1944. I beg of the Parliamentary Secretary and his Department that, if they intend to release the men, they should speed up the machinery so that they can get back to work when they are anxious to work in the pits.
Mr. Foster: I would like to lend support to the plea put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh

2185
(Mr. Tinker) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) for clarification of this matter. The scheme for the release of miners is badly conceived. It puts the obligation for release in the hands of the colliery manager, and there are any number of cases where a colliery manager, when approached by a member of the Forces, has refused to make application for his release. That sort of thing lends itself to a form of victimisation of men who, perhaps, have not been altogether satisfactory to a particular colliery manager when previously employed. Further, the scheme has not been properly carried out either by the Ministry of Fuel and Power or by the military and other authorities. It is a singular thing but true that, if a colliery manager makes an effort to secure the release of a member of the Forces, he can generally succeed.
The charge I make against the Ministry of Fuel and Power is that there are men who have been released who do not conform to all the conditions laid down under the scheme. They are too young to start with, and I do not know whether they conform to the medical category or other conditions that are laid down. My other charge against the War Office or other Service Department is that, in many cases, members of the Armed Forces have been approached by their commanding officers when they have been under age. I have sent a case to the Ministry of Fuel and Power of a member of the Air Force who is not yet 22 years of age. He was approached by his commanding officer and asked if he would volunteer for the mines. He volunteered. His medical category was all right and he satisfied the other conditions. He approached the colliery manager and made application for his release, and after all the machinery had been gone through, his release was refused, and yet in other cases release has been granted. I know that there are explanations for that from the Departments, and probably the Parliamentary Secretary will have an effective explanation in reply to the charge that I make against the Ministry of Fuel and Power. I honestly believe that a lot of the confusion has arisen from the fact that the original scheme has not been carried out in its entirety.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to clear up this matter, and to lay
2186
down a definite procedure to be taken to obtain release. We, as mining Members in particular, are inundated with letters from ex-miners in the Armed Forces who think they would be rendering the nation a better service by being in the pits getting coal instead of brushing out some shed or hanging about some camp, or not doing what they consider to be work of national importance. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can clear up the matter.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Tom Smith): I am sure nobody will complain at any time of the tone and temper of my hon. Friends from Lancashire with regard to this and other matters, and I think I can say that generally they can take it for granted that we in the Ministry of Fuel and Power will do all we possibly can to get men into the pits in order to get coal. Evidently there is a little confusion. That is why I think the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) asked for clarification. It is true that on 19th October last the outline of a scheme was given in answer to a Question. There were two age limits laid down: one was 36 years of age in the Home Forces generally, and the other was 30 years in the case of the Pioneer Corps. There was also a proviso that the War Office had the final say as to whether any individual would be released or not. I am sure my hon. Friends will agree with me that it is not my particular "pigeon" at the moment. Later on—and this may account for the confusion of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker)—it was agreed that men of any age who were in medical category C. could be considered. There are many units from which release is impossible and the War Office, as I say, reserve the right to refuse.
Mr. Foster: Have they not had to have previous underground experience?
Mr. Smith: I am coming in a minute to the different methods. There are two procedures. There were men known to the War Office as ex-underground workers. In their case the War Office supplied particulars of men, not barred for medical reasons, who were shown in their records as ex-underground workers. We offered these men to the collieries at which they wished to work, and if they were accepted, release applications were made. If they were refused, we then asked our regions

2187
to try and find employment unless the colliery reasons for rejection were sound. It may be that in individual cases work has not been found, but I can assure my hon. Friends that a good many men have been found employment by our regional officers. It is only fair to say that.
Then comes another case. It will be realised that there are many men in the Army with previous underground experience who were not shown in the War Office records as colliery workers. For instance, a man may have had many years' experience in the pits but owing to some cause had to leave the colliery and go into another occupation before going into the Army. In that case he would not be classified as an ex-miner underground worker. When the War Office agreed to consider applications for the release of such men, all collieries were advised to make the necessary application for release. Now there was considerable publicity and the men were advised to apply to the collieries at which they wished to work. All applications made by the collieries, excluding a few which related to men clearly inadmissible as regards their age condition, were sent to the War Office and there is still a steady flow of applications.
There has been another alternative, that is with regard to men in the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines and the Royal Air Force. Hon. Members will recall that in February the Minister announced that certain men with previous underground experience, serving in these branches of the Forces, would be considered for release. This is the procedure: information as to the conditions governing eligibility for release was issued to units by the Admiralty and the Air Ministry, and all men who qualified for consideration have an opportunity to see the conditions. All applications had to be made to commanding officers, in the first instance, and their decision as to eligibility for consideration is final. If the conditions are satisfied, forms are completed, giving full particulars of the men, and are sent by commanding officers to the Admiralty or Air Ministry. The Service Departments send us forms for men they are prepared to release and we offer them to the collieries at which they wish to work. If the men are accepted we make release applications to the Service Departments. If they are not we ask our
2188
regional officers to try to find employment unless the colliery's reason for rejection is sound.
Mr. Tinker: Can the Regional Controller insist on work being found for a man, if he is satisfied that he is eligible?
Mr. Smith: We have power of direction over civilians through the Ministry of Labour and National Service, but up to now no compulsion has been used the case of ex-miners available for release for the Forces, and I do not think we have power to compel. But in some regions we have disagreed strongly with some of the managers' reasons and we have got men back to work, although, in the first instance, the collieries did not want them back. But, as I say, we have not exercised compulsion, and I doubt whether in these cases we have it.
Mr. Bernard Taylor: Is there an age qualification for naval personnel?
Mr. Smith: I am not quite sure, but I am inclined to think there is not. Last Tuesday we gave, in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh, a very full answer on this subject. Let me now try to break down a few of the figures that were then given, in order to show the difficulties with which our officers have to contend. Out of 1,848 men, the Ministry of Fuel and Power returned to the War Office, as not being required, 136. Obviously, we were trying to get underground workers, particularly skilled men, back to the mines and of that 136 there were 55 who were either surface workers or unwilling to return to underground work. The medically unfit numbered 33. Here I want to say that some men have been released from the Forces to work in the pits whose physical condition was such that it would have been wrong to send them down the pits.
Dr. Morgan: Yet they were fit for the Services.
Mr. Smith: That is another matter. In one case I know very well it would have been wrong to have insisted on the man going below ground. Of the 1,848 men, 22 came in the category of unsatisfactory and persistent absentees. I have handled some of the individual cases with the regions concerns, and some have been pretty difficult. We have managed to get some back, but there were 22 that we could not.

2189
We have had men released who have been out of coal mining for so long that obviously they were not fitted for the work they were expected to do, and there are others who said they had had certain experience but we found on checking up that they had not had the requisite experience. There have also been men who were fit for by-work but were not fit for coal face work, and at some of the collieries we have not been able to absorb them simply because there were not vacancies for that particular type. I am talking generally now and not particularly with regard to Lancashire.
We have said that, if there is any individual case which anyone thinks has been treated unfairly, we are quite prepared to go into it. I anticipated that my hon. Friend the Member for Ince would charge us with delay. In listening to him, if I had not known the facts, I should have thought he had a good case, but he has not. There was such a large number of legitimate cases coming in that colliery managers were told not to send applications for any man who did not come within the scheme and, naturally, cases obviously outside the scheme were delayed and attention was paid to men who wanted to get back. But the colliery manager ought not to have sent that case in. I sent my hon. Friend a letter which I think quite disposed of that. One could apologise for undue delay if need be, but this was a case that ought not to have been sent in. I have had letters from my hon. Friends and I do not think any of them could complain of lack of attention on the part of the Ministry, but this is not one of those things that you can go straight away and get into. There must be checking and records must be looked up. There are bound to be applications to colliery companies and in some cases colliery managers had to be reminded more than once to send in these applications. Some of them have told me they have had so many forms to
2190
fill in that they admitted they had not sent the applications in as quickly as they ought.
On the whole, looking at the scheme, imperfect though it may be, with all its limitations with regard to the C.O. having the final say, I do not think the Ministry of Fuel and Power need be ashamed of the way they have handled the scheme. We recognise that a man who has had some years' experience in the pits usually knows the craft of the game, and as we are particularly anxious to maintain manpower in order to secure the highest production, I can therefore assure the douse that we shall do all we possibly can to get that manpower and, if there are any individual cases which hon. Members think have not been treated adequately or fairly, if they will let us know we will do all we can to put the matter right.
Mr. Arthur Jenkins: What is the number who have been returned from all the Services since November to the mines?
Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend will find very full information in the reply that we gave on Tuesday. With regard to the Navy, the Royal Marines and the Air Force, we are not at the moment in a position to give much statistical data. If my hon. Friend looks at the answer he will find that we have given all the information on the point that we have.
Mr. Bernard Taylor: Will it include inexperienced miners as well as experienced?
Mr. Smith: It is very difficult to classify, but I will have a look at the matter again, and if there is any further information to give, I will give it.
It being the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

  ASSISTANCE BOARD (STAFF REDUCTIONS)
  ASSISTANCE BOARD (STAFF REDUCTIONS)
  RENT RESTRICTIONS ACTS (DAMAGED HOUSES)
  RENT RESTRICTIONS ACTS (DAMAGED HOUSES)
  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  NUFFIELD TRUST HOSPITALS SPECIAL COMMITTEE
  NUFFIELD TRUST HOSPITALS SPECIAL COMMITTEE
  ROAD TRANSPORT ACCOMMODATION (SANITARY ARRANGEMENTS)
  ROAD TRANSPORT ACCOMMODATION (SANITARY ARRANGEMENTS)
  NATIONAL PARKS
  NATIONAL PARKS
  INDIA (DRUG SUPPLIES)
  INDIA (DRUG SUPPLIES)
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE (SERVICE REGISTER)
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE (SERVICE REGISTER)
  POLICE (CLOTHING COUPONS)
  POLICE (CLOTHING COUPONS)
  AUSTRIAN PRISONERS OF WAR
  AUSTRIAN PRISONERS OF WAR
BRITISH ARMY
  Soldiers' Wives (Supplementary Allowances)
  Soldiers' Wives (Supplementary Allowances)
  A.T.S. Comforts Fund
  A.T.S. Comforts Fund
  British Officers (India, Messing Charge)
  British Officers (India, Messing Charge)
  Record Offices
  Record Offices
SOUTHERN RHODESIA
  Trade Union Facilities
  Trade Union Facilities
  Native Passes Act
  Native Passes Act
PALESTINE
  Constabulary (Pay and Allowances)
  Constabulary (Pay and Allowances)
  Arabs and Jews (Emergency Regulations)
  Arabs and Jews (Emergency Regulations)
  MINERS' DISEASES (WEST WALES)
  MINERS' DISEASES (WEST WALES)
  DEFENCE REGULATION 93B (SEIZED PAMPHLETS)
  DEFENCE REGULATION 93B (SEIZED PAMPHLETS)
  CAPITAL SENTENCES (ROYAL PREROGATIVE)
  CAPITAL SENTENCES (ROYAL PREROGATIVE)
  INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND (JOINT STATEMENT)
  INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND (JOINT STATEMENT)
  INCOME TAX (PAY-AS-YOU-EARN DEDUCTIONS)
  INCOME TAX (PAY-AS-YOU-EARN DEDUCTIONS)
  SCOTTISH SEED POTATOES SCHEME
  SCOTTISH SEED POTATOES SCHEME
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (DIRECTOR-GENERAL, A.T.C.)
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (DIRECTOR-GENERAL, A.T.C.)
  SERVICE VEHICLES (ACCIDENTS, UNITED KINGDOM)
  SERVICE VEHICLES (ACCIDENTS, UNITED KINGDOM)
  FARMERS (CARTRIDGE SUPPLIES)
  FARMERS (CARTRIDGE SUPPLIES)
  PENSIONS AND GRANTS
  PENSIONS AND GRANTS
  ONIONS (IMPORTS, CONTROL)
  ONIONS (IMPORTS, CONTROL)
  PORTUGAL (COAL SUPPLIES)
  PORTUGAL (COAL SUPPLIES)
Preamble
The House met, THE LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

  CIVIL AIR TRANSPORT.
  Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion, moved yesterday by the Marquess of Londonderry, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers relating to the policy which His Majesty's Government propose to adopt for the development of British civil air transport upon the following matters of importance:

  (1) Ministerial responsibility for civil air transport in His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom;

  (2) The international regulation of civil air transport;

  (3) Internal, Inter-Commonwealth and Empire air lines;

  (4) Chosen instruments and subsidies;

  (5) Types of aircraft;

  (6) The scope and powers of air line operating companies.

  THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords, the main point in the debate today seems to be, are we any further forward as regards civil aviation after the war than we were when we heard the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, some time ago? My own view is that we are not very much further forward. Apparently nothing can be done or settled until this international conference takes place, and what we have to ask ourselves is whether, if any of us were in the shoes of Lord Beaverbrook, we should be able to hurry things on any more than he has done. I cannot help thinking that the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, with all his energy and drive, is the man to represent civil aviation for us. He is undoubtedly in a difficult position. He has a hard row to hoe because he has to satisfy everybody. He has not only to satisfy England and Scotland, but he has to satisfy the British Empire, he has to
  724
  agree with the United States of America, and possibly with Russia. He has to bring everybody along together in a happy frame of mind. He has to avoid any future ill feeling on the part of any of the Dominions, the United States or any other country, and yet to see that the Mother Country gets her fair share of air transport after the war. He has to do all those things and I think it would be very difficult for any of us, if we were in his position, to move any faster than he has. A more difficult job was never set before any man, and I have no doubt that Lord Beaverbrook was chosen by the Prime Minister to tackle this problem because of his energy, drive, tact and his Colonial and international experience. It may be a well-nigh insoluble problem to satisfy everybody, but I think that the majority of members in this House and most of the British public outside, both in this country and in the Empire, are united in the view that they are in favour of private initiative and private enterprise in regard to aviation all over the world and they are opposed to the spirit of the monopoly system, as it was practised before the war. That, I think, is generally agreed.
  But there is another and perhaps not less important branch of civil flying. It has had far less consideration either from the Government or from their critics—I refer to private flying. I have heard it said and seen it written that there will be no room for the private flyer after the war because the air will be filled with transport aircraft. I do not subscribe to that view. It will take more than a few years for any nation to get enough transport to fill the air. If you can pack a thousand bombers over one German city in one hour in the dark, you can find room in the air over this country—not to mention the Empire—for all the aircraft you are likely to get. It is true that increasing speeds tend to crowd the air, but as speeds increase so do radio and other navigational aids improve, so that the air, although containing more aircraft, is probably less dangerously crowded today than it was twenty-five years ago. The view that the air is too crowded for the private flyer does not bear examination. In any case, we shall be compelled to find room for the private flyer. There are two good reasons. The first is that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of men and women will expect

  725
  to do some flying after the war. The second is that the safety and prosperity of the Empire demand that they should.
  Who are the people who want to fly? First of all, they are the pilots who are flying to-day: they will want to go on flying. Some may be glad to give it up for a time after the war, but many will want to continue. Then there are the other members of air crews, men who are flying as navigators, bomb aimers and so on, but are not pilots. Some of them will want to learn to be pilots and take up aviation. Among the ground staff of the R.A.F. there are thousands who took on ground jobs as second best because they were not medically fit for war flying. But they may be fit enough for peace flying, and will expect their share of light aircraft. There are thousands of other young men and older men and women whom the war has brought into contact with aviation—men and women in the factories and workshops attached to our flying services. Many of these have been inspired with the desire to fly; they have become air-minded. And behind all these stand the younger generation, the lads now in the Air Training Corps, the Air Scouts and the Women's junior Air Corps. They, too, will demand the right to fly. And whoever tries to prevent them from flying will not only be denying them their rights, but will also be jeopardizing the safety of the country and of the Empire. You cannot have an Empire strong in the air unless the young men and women of that Empire are so keen to fly that they will give of their time and money to fly Whenever possible, not merely as units in a military machine or as passengers in transport machines, but as free men and women enjoying the freedom of the air.
  The same is true of the aircraft industry. You cannot have a healthy aircraft manufacturing industry that depends solely on peace-time orders for military aircraft and on orders for a few hundreds of transport machines. If our aircraft industry is to flourish as our motor-car industry has done, it will have to cater for the masses. The prospect of thousands of aircraft lying over our countryside may not appear pleasing to some people; I confess that I do not find it altogether pleasing myself, but I am afraid it is in-evitable. If we prohibit private flying to our own countrymen, then one day
  726
  the air over England will be filled by the private aircraft of alien countries. Fortunately it will not be necessary for all our private flyers to do all their flying over this country. We have a vast Empire, with great distances. In that Empire the need for private flying is not merely a military one. On the contrary, in the wide territories of the Dominions and Colonies it is a social and commercial necessity. Indeed, proper development of the Empire demands the private aeroplane. There are no adequate alternatives. The private aeroplane will mitigate loneliness and isolation of the settler, and I can foresee that many of our young men will be attracted to the Dominions and Colonies because they offer better opportunities for flying. An Imperial policy for private flying is therefore an urgent social, commercial, and military necessity.
  We want an Empire of flyers, not a mere collection of queues of air-line passengers. America is well aware of this. In our admiration for American air transport production and organization, we are inclined to overlook the fact that America also leads the world in private flying. Before the war America had the greatest number of private flyers and a well-organized Bureau of Air Commerce to regulate their activities. American firms now famous for their war planes were well known in America before the war for their private aircraft and racers. Private flying is still permitted, even now, in parts of America, and small aircraft such as Taylorcraft, Pipers, Stinsons, and others are being turned out in large quantities for use in the Services. Plans are being made for more flying clubs and for new designs of light aircraft, cheap to build and cheap to operate.
  I do not suggest for a moment that the American industry is engaged in any campaign to capture the world's light aircraft market. But they are turning out light aircraft of such quality and in such numbers that the mere momentum of their war effort will enable them to fulfil the world's needs for the first few years of peace. Britain and her Empire cannot be left behind. I suggest, therefore, that the Government should interest themselves in the design of light aircraft suitable for use in the Empire; that they should make up their mind about supporting flying clubs and reserving for

  727
  sporting flying some of the war-time aerodromes not required for military purposes in peace. I realize that little practical work can be done now but I should like an assurance that the Government, with their plans for civil air transport, still intend to reserve a place in the air for the man in the street, and that it is favourable to the idea of an Imperial policy for private flying.
  LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I hope my noble friend the Duke of Sutherland will forgive me if I touch upon a different aspect of this matter and do not follow him in the lines he introduced so brilliantly in his speech. The debate yesterday, to every word of which I listened, ranged over a very wide series of subjects. We heard about cabotage—a word new to me until then—and chosen instruments. We heard about Empire routes and many other things all highly technical. We also had a very important announcement from the noble Lord, the Lord Privy Seal, who I am glad to think is going to speak again at the end of today's debate. There was one person who was never mentioned at all in yesterday's debate, and that person was the man in the street, the ordinary traveller, the man who, after the war is over, is going to use some of these civil aircraft. If I may, I should like to say a few words on his behalf, being a very keen traveller myself.
  We heard two admirable speeches yesterday, one from the noble Lord, Lord Essendon, who spoke with vast knowledge of shipping matters for the shipping companies, and another from the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who, being a railway director, spoke not only with great knowledge and experience, but spoke also for all the railway groups. I shall say a word or two about these speeches in a minute. I myself, as I said, am a keen traveller, and I want to put forward the point of view of the ordinary traveller. I am not associated with any of the railway groups or shipping companies. I merely want to talk for the man in the street or (shall I say?) the man who will be in the mind after the war to take an aeroplane. Therefore, being free and unassociated with any company, I can speak with greater freedom. If I were to ask the Lord Privy Seal, who is a brilliantly clever man, a brilliantly clever and difficult
  728
  question, I am sure, when he came to reply, he would give me a brilliantly clever and difficult answer, but I propose to do no such thing.
  What I want to do is to ask one very simple, frank question, and I shall hope in due course to get a simple, frank answer. Are the railway companies going to be allowed to compete, or are they going to be shut out when civil aviation plans are put into effect after the war? That is a very simple question, and of course it affects the shipping companies too. Lord Essendon yesterday told your Lordships about the wonderful services that the shipping companies have been able to perform in the war for the country's war effort. He was followed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who talked in a similar strain about the railways. It was not until last week, when I read in Hansard the report of the debate on war transport which occurred in another place last Friday, that I realized the great contribution which the railways have made to the country's war effort. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport, Mr. Noel-Baker, used one very striking sentence in his speech. He said this:
  "Transport remains the very blood-stream of civil production and of the nation's social life."
  There are only fourteen words in that sentence and I should like to repeat them:
  "Transport remains the very blood-stream of civil production and of the nation's social life."
  Mr. Noel-Baker went on to pay a great tribute to the railways, and gave all sorts of facts and figures as to what the railways had done.
  Four of these figures stand out in my mind. He said, first of all, that journeys of over 200 miles constitute 80 per cent. of the travelling which is done to-day. Secondly, as compared with 1938, the traffic in light merchandise had gone up by 86 per cent. whereas heavy merchandise and minerals had increased by 68 per cent. He then proceeded to tell the House that 7,000 extra trains a week are being run for war workers—that is 1,000 extra trains a day. Lastly, he said that passengers in 1943 were more by 106,000,000 than in the previous year, 1942. These are very striking figures, and your Lordships will appreciate what these figures mean when I remind you,

  729
  as Mr. Noel-Baker reminded another place, that this has been done in spite of the fact that scores of locomotives have been sent abroad to the various theatres of war, and 120,000 railway workers have been called to the Fighting Services.
  Can it really be argued that the railways and the shipping companies should be excluded from the plans of the Government for civil aviation after the war? I cannot believe it. I cannot believe that the wealth of experience which the railways have gained in all transportation matters will be discarded. When I think, too, of the comfort with which they have transported millions of men and women over the sea and over the land in the years that have passed, I ask myself, why is it that the third element, the air, should be excluded from them? In my view all the different forms of transportation should be complementary. The noble Lord, Lord Essendon, made that a feature of the speech which he delivered yesterday and the railways have long seemed to take that view, hence their interest not only in railways but also in shipping, in road transport, in harbours, in docks and in hotels. Hence also in the year 1929, as my noble friend Lord Kennet reminded the House yesterday, the railways came to Parliament and asked for powers to run air transport as well and those powers were accorded to the railways with suitable limitations and provisos.
  I was much struck with the speech of my noble friend Lord Rennet. He seemed to me to make five or six points which are worth stressing. In the first place he said railways are engaged now in all forms of transportation. He stressed the vast experience they have had in continental traffic, and urged that the great booking agencies which are run by them and the shipping companies, with all the travel expedients which they put at the disposal of the public, are easily adaptable to travel in the air. Then the noble Lord went on to make a very striking statement. He said that air transport was regarded by the railways as likely to become the primary method of transport after the war. That, as I say, is a very striking statement from a railway director. He also said that while the railways meant to keep up all other forms of transport they were very anxious to engage in air transport as well. Then he offered to co-operate with the shipping companies,
  730
  and any noble Lord who was present during Lord Essendon's speech heard the noble Lord welcome competition with the railway companies. Lord Kennet made perhaps the most striking statement of all when he said that what the railways were asking for would not cost the taxpayers anything at all. How joyously different that is from the usual talk of planners who come either to another place or this House and, in advocating schemes for social reform, for agriculture, for better health and housing and hospitals and medical services and the like, are joyfully prepared, it scorns to me, to mortgage millions of the taxpayers' money in advance or their schemes cannot come to fruition. That is not so with the railway companies. They ask for no subsidy and they make one proviso that the competition is fair all round.
  Lastly, my noble friend Lord Kennet talked about the co-ordination of all methods of transport. This would mean for instance the inter-availability of tickets. Let me give your Lordships a short example. Supposing after the war I had an important business date in Paris and it became very urgent for me to go there quickly, naturally I should take an aeroplane; but, having done my business in Paris and being in the mood perhaps to loiter a little, how charming for me, especially if I looked up at the sky and thought the weather was not too favourable, if instead of being forced to go back by air I could take the train and the ship and land in my own time in my own way in London. That inter-availability of tickets seems to me to be a boon which the travelling public would welcome tremendously. If it is true that transport is the blood stream of civilian production and of the social life of the people, then I cannot see how the Government can leave the railways out and I am pretty sure that the public will not let them. In my view, if the railways and the shipping companies are brought in without fear or favour, they will quickly earn the confidence and the gratitude of the air-minded public, just as they have already earned it from those millions whom they have transported so safely over land and sea.
  VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: My Lords, the questions I am raising this afternoon and asking the noble Lord, Lord Beaver-brook, to answer have to do with the future and not with the present or the

  731
  past. The noble Viscount, Lord Rother-mere, pointed out that we had really not heard very much from the noble Lord yesterday with regard to the future. He told us of the present B.O.A.C. subsidy, that that was the only company that had it and other things like that, but what we want to know is what is the Government's policy with regard to some of these questions. It would be much better if the noble Lord could answer some of them, but if there are some that cannot be answered to-day let the noble Lord say so and not confuse us by talking about things of the present. There are one or two points that are very important which I want to clear up. This is a big subject and I am only going to refer to certain of the points in regard to which one may say without exaggeration there seems to be complete confusion in the minds of your Lordships and I think even in the mind of the noble Lord himself. I will not go back into past history, as the noble Lord did in the debates that were held in this House in October, 1943. He then criticized Lord Rothermere's action in 1935. I am referring to what has happened in the noble Lord's own time.
  My first point is that Lord Beaverbrook, in the debate on the 19th January, said:
  "The chosen instrument is not a monopoly; there is no monopoly at all. It has a monopoly of subsidies for overseas air traffic, but nothing else."
  He went on to say that other companies, shipping companies or concerns may be carried on without subsidies. The noble Marquess who raised this Motion yesterday also referred to the confusion in his mind about what Lord Beaverbrook meant. Well, if the B.O.A.C. is the only company to have a monopoly of subsidies for overseas air traffic, and if that is not a monopoly, then there is no sense in words. Of course it is a monopoly. And I gather that the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, did admit yesterday that it was a monopoly. The noble Lord yesterday talked about the Government being keen to move to the day when there were no subsidies. I think we all agree that that is advisable provided the Governments of foreign countries do not subsidize their lines. He said that the Imperial Airways received aggregate contributions of £900,000 a year and that the B.O.A.C. was its successor. Then he said he had made the briefest and clearest explanation
  732
  he could make of the position of the B.O.A.C. but that it is a position not easy to grasp. In fact he said he had some difficulty in grasping it himself. I do not think any of your Lordships have any difficulty in knowing the position of the B.O.A.C.—namely, that it is the only company that has a subsidy for overseas air traffic. That therefore puts the company in the position of a company with a monopoly.
  Then when the noble Marquess interjected yesterday and asked whether it was a decision to maintain the Act of 1939 in being, he was answered by the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, in these words:
  "The question of the Act of 1939 rests with Parliament. The decision must depend on Parliament. What decision Parliament will take I cannot anticipate."
  What I think the noble Marquess was asking is what all of us are asking—namely, whether it is the policy of the Government to recommend Parliament to maintain that Act or not. Do the Government recommend it or not, or have they not made up their minds? Are they going to subsidize only one overseas company, or more than one overseas company? I hope my questions are plain and will not add to the confusion.
  Now I come to my next point, on the question of the freedom of the air. In January again Lord Beaverbrook stated that Mr. Burden, speaking in Washington on January 5, had said:
  "Complete freedom of the air in the present state of the world might result in commercial anarchy."
  Lord Beaverbrook added: "I share Mr. Burden's views." Yesterday the noble Lord referred to bases and cabotage. There were many people who asked for a definition of cabotage. I could not find the word in the Oxford Dictionary, but I did find it in a French dictionary where it is defined as "coasting or coast trade." Lord Beaverbrook explained it yesterday as "the right of a nation to carry its own traffic within its own territory," and he said cabotage does involve traffic between Great Britain and the Colonies. In other words we look upon the Colonies as our own country, absolutely our own. We claim the right to carry our own traffic, say between Bath and London, and that nobody else has that right. I think that is what the noble Lord meant.
  Then I asked a very simple question—I think I put the question three times—

  733
  whether we could fly over anybody's country in a straight line from one point in the British Empire to another. The noble Lord replied in an amusing way that I knew whether an aeroplane goes straight or not. Anyhow, I know a straight answer. The noble Lord said:
  "Flying ever the territory of another nation will necessarily involve the authority of such nation for such a flight. The foreign country would have to give permission for such a flight, but there is a way round. We have not had to fly over France for our journeys to the Mediterranean of late. We can always find a way round."
  That is the point to which I want to draw particular attention. Did the noble Lord really mean that? Did he really mean that if we want to fly from here to Aden, for instance, we have got to fly round the Cape, or if we want to fly to India we have got to fly round the Cape?
  He also spoke about agreement with nations. Have we got to ask leave each time a machine goes, or make a separate agreement for a series of flights with all the countries concerned? That is one of the points that cropped up after the last war. Therefore I ask the definite question whether, if cabotage means flying between this country and the Colonies, that means that we can fly over other countries without landing, or whether it means that we must make an agreement for each flight or arrange an omnibus agreement. This seems contradictory to the statement of the President of the United States on October 1 last, when he is reported to have said:
  "The objectives [of post-war aviation] were rather simple. Freedom of the air, which meant freedom to use airports—with one limitation."
  Is that correct? Does the noble Lord understand what I am really asking about when I speak about flying straight? I hope I lave made the question quite clear to-day because it was not clear, apparently, in the various questions and answers yesterday.
  Now I come to another question which really is part of the same question. In his definition of cabotage, Lord Beaverbrook said it means "the reservation to a nation of all traffic within its territory." That is simple and understandable. But does this mean the reservation of all traffic to and from England within the Empire, including the Colonies, but not including the Dominions—not between England and the Dominions? When he was asked this
  734
  question by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, I was not quite certain what it did mean. Then what is the Government policy towards another country, such as Spain? Can any British company fly from England to Spain with passengers and freight, unload, and pick up more passengers and freight and return to England? That is not cabotage. Is that allowed or not? Perhaps this is the hardest question I am asking to-day. Can we be told what the Government are recommending on this subject? Is a bargain to be made with each individual country throughout the world on that sort of point, or will it be the policy of the Government to recommend to the international conference that every country shall have the right to fly to another country? Is that what is called "innocent passage"? In carrying out this policy, will companies be limited in number, or can any number of companies get a licence? It might be that mushroom companies would spring up and it would be impossible for any country to agree to an unlimited number. This is the hardest question I am putting to the noble Lord, and if he is not able to answer to-day I shall not complain.
  To go back to cabotage, the noble Lord referred to the British Commonwealth of Nations and the meaning of cabotage in the Empire. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, asked if he referred to the British Empire excluding the Dominions, and Lord Beaverbrook said:
  "Yes … the Dominions would claim cabotage for themselves just as we would."
  The noble Viscount then asked:
  "That does not apply to traffic between the United Kingdom and Australia?"
  The noble Lord's answer was that "Australia would come to the conference under her own steam." When asked again by the noble Viscount if that did not apply to the British Empire as a whole, Lord Beaverbrook said:
  "I specifically mentioned the Dominions included in the Commonwealth. India comes into the Commonwealth and India also would come to the international conference, and would make her claim to cabotage."
  With regard to international authority, on which we were told that there was an American plan for an authority on a non-executive basis with no power or means of enforcing its regulations, we were told that the United Kingdom put forward a Canadian Draft Convention and that the

  735
  Canadian proposal was considered too rigid. Then Lord Beaverbrook told us that we could go forward on the basis of proposals for international handling of civil aviation, agreed to at the Commonwealth conversations some six months ago. It is apparently on these proposals that the international conference is going to meet, but could we have them explained a little more clearly? Could he amplify that at all? An explanation would, I feel sure, assist the noble Marquess whose Motion we are discussing, for he asked especially about it. Another point, my Lords, what about mandated territories? Are they Dominions, foreign countries or Colonies? Do they come into the cabotage scheme? We should, I am sure, be very glad if Lord Beaverbrook could give us an answer to these questions.
  I have detained your Lordships rather longer than I thought I should, but I am one of those who still believe that there are certain points on this very complicated and difficult matter which should be dealt with now; that there is no need to delay dealing with them any longer. In this connexion there is a point to which I should like to refer, and for the purpose I will go back to what the President is reported to have said:
  "Freedom of the air, which means freedom to use airports—with one limitation."
  I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Kennet and Lord Essendon thoroughly; I am all for freedom, for shipping companies, railway companies, aviation companies and other organizations being put on an equal basis. In the words of Lord Kennet: "A fair field and no favour." But I take the view that it is not a case of a fair field and no favour. I think that all these companies ought to be licensed by the Government so as not to risk a lot of mushroom companies growing up. The big organizations capable of working the different routes efficiently, limited to a certain number, should be granted a licence by each Government.
  I know the Labour Party do not agree, and think that all aviation should be run by the Government. I and most of the people who travel by air, railways or ships, are perfectly certain that the one way to get inefficiency is to have transportation run by Government-owned companies. There is no doubt whatever on this point in the minds of those who
  736
  travel, quite apart from other reasons which have been put forward. With regard to the international authorities that Lord Beaverbrook mentioned, we know that there is going to be an international authority set up. That is something definite. I hope, however, that authority will not have too much power but that it will have what was outlined yesterday by some of the speakers.
  There is another matter I wish to refer to with regard to B.O.A.C. being at present under control of the Air Transport Command to which Lord Rennel referred yesterday. From my own experience—and I have travelled all over the world—I have found, and I think it is true, that the B.O.A.C. and Transport Command work together very much, not one under the other, and whatever machines are available in the two organizations, take whatever passengers there are; whether they are in uniform or not—and no passenger can travel without official permission now. If I may say so, I think it was rather unnecessary to laugh at the abbreviation of Air Transport Command as A.R.D.U. It may be that it is purely a matter of taste, but I do not know that the abbreviation B.O.A.C. is much better. I consider that both these organizations, working as they are under war-time conditions with a shortage of machines, do an extraordinarily fine job of work. I would ask that some of the questions I have mentioned might be answered this afternoon.
  LORD BEAVERBROOK: My Lords, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned during pleasure.
  Moved, That the debate be now adjourned during pleasure.—(Lord Beaverbrook.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.
  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed.

  CIVIL AIR TRANSPORT
  LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, it is perhaps with more trepidation than usual that I rise to address your Lordships today, after the magnificent speech which members of both Houses have heard this afternoon from the Prime Minister of

  737
  Canada. But I shall not detain you long at this late stage in the debate, because I want to emphasize only one point. It is a point which I have mentioned on a previous occasion in your Lordships' House, but I make no apology for mentioning it again, because I feel that it is of great importance. It is that whatever instrument or instruments run the civil air lines of this country after the war, service to the traveller, to the member of the public whose case has been so well put by the noble Lord, Lord Denham, is of the highest importance. That is something which is sometimes forgotten. An air line whose aeroplanes are not always of the best can compete with, and can sometimes get more traffic than, an air line which has the very latest aircraft, if the service which it gives is above reproach. The noble Lord, Lord Rennell, touched on this subject earlier in the debate. I am not going to follow him on the lines on which he spoke because I have very little experience of war travel by air, but I do feel that all concerned with travel at the present time and with travel immediately after the war, must think seriously of this question of service.
  I am glad to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Knollys, has just returned from a world-wide trip of the air lines of B.O.A.C. and I know that he regards that question of service as of the highest importance. In the past those connected with civil aviation have not always got around themselves and seen how things are being operated in the desert and in those isolated rivers and harbours where British Overseas Airways run. I think that Lord Knollys has the same idea as that great pioneer of civil aviation, Sir Sefton Brancker, who was known on every aerodrome and every base in the world. Let the watchword of our postwar civil aviation, therefore, be service and attention to every detail for the comfort of the traveller by air.
  LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I saw a report in the Press after the termination of the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook's conference with Mr. Berle that there was a Press conference, and that one correspondent complained that the Press were not being given one line worth printing, and walked out. I think that after several of the debates on civil aviation to which we have listened in this House a great many of your Lordships must have felt
  738
  rather inclined to echo that remark, but the debate which has taken place yesterday and to-day, I confess, makes me feel that the questions are now being tackled, the mist is clearing to a certain extent and we do begin to see where we are going. I have taken Lord Beaverbrook's advice—I believe it is sometimes dangerous to do so, but I have not had that experience yet; I have taken his advice and I re-read Hansard. I think Lord Beaverbrook's speech rather suffers by translation into cold print, but I recognize the difficulty. The noble Lord is the enemy of Committees and has frequently addressed your Lordships in the most violent terms about Committees, and now he finds himself the Chairman of a most important Committee dealing with air transport.
  I think it must be confessed—the noble Lord, I feel sure, would be the first to say so—that he had not got an entirely exhilarating tale to tell, but, in fact, how could it be an exhilarating tale? The fact is that our representative in these matters and at these conferences has got very few cards indeed to play. He has got no quick tricks in his hand at all, in fact, he holds a Yarborough. I think we should be very grateful indeed to Lord Beaverbrook because, with such a hand to play, he does not try to bluff but faces the situation in a spirit of reality and makes the best of a very poor hand. But I thought that one passage in his speech was extremely reassuring, and that was when the noble Lord told us that Mr. Berle had said that in the interim period after the war America will be prepared to supply us with civil aircraft in order to fill in that interim period. That, I think, is a statement of the very greatest importance, but I would like to ask the noble Lord a question, although I have not given notice of it. The noble Lord did not say anything as to the terms upon which those aircraft will be supplied to us to make good our need and our deficiencies. If the noble Lord felt able in his final reply to give us some indication of the terms on which we are to have these aircraft, it would be very important and very interesting.
  That undertaking by Mr. Berle is most valuable, and it should go some way to putting an end to certain mischievous statements which have been made about American intentions regarding industrial and commercial matters after the war. A statement was made in another place the other day with reference to shipping. It

  739
  was said that after the war America intended to unload a lot of old junk on us. That sort of statement is very unfortunate. As I see it, during the war great fleets of aircraft and merchant ships have been built up by our two nations for a common strategic purpose against our common enemy. For very good reasons, we have undertaken certain forms of construction in ships and aircraft and America has undertaken other forms of construction, and it may well be that that will work out in times of peace rather in favour of America. But I decline to believe that, these things having been done for a common strategic purpose against our common enemy, one nation would seek to turn that position to the economic detriment of its Ally in this struggle. Mr. Berle's undertaking given to the noble Lord bears that out.
  As regards what has been said during the debate, I wish chiefly to reinforce the very remarkable speech made by Lord Essendon yesterday in regard to civil aviation and the shipping industry. There are just one or two points I would like to mention. I agree with those who consider that the Air Ministry should be relieved of responsibility in regard to civil air transport. The present job of the Air Ministry is to get on with the war. After the war the Air Ministry will be confronted with a tremendous task in the post-war reorganization of the Air Force. In regard to civil aviation, an authority is required which is concerned with air transport and with nothing else. Although I am very reluctant to differ in these matters from the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, I am bound to say I did not entirely agree with that part of his speech where he suggested that the situation could be met by civil air transport being handled by an autonomous Department within the Air Ministry. I cannot think that that would be a good arrangement or would conduce to rapid progress.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I threw out the suggestion. I should be very sorry to have any acute controversy on this particular point. I thought by throwing out suggestions we might come to some arrangement which would satisfy everyone.
  LORD WINSTER: I entirely agree. I only wish to say that I feel some doubt about that suggestion. I rather prefer
  740
  the suggestion made by Lord Rennell that civil air transport should be handled by an autonomous Department within a Ministry which is concerned with transport and with nothing else. As regards another essential point—the freedom of the air—what are to be the conditions? It seems to me that the air should be as free as the seas, and freedom of the air ought to mean the right to carry freight and passengers to, from, in, and through any country in the world, not merely the right to fuel and to land passengers. Otherwise what becomes of the Atlantic Charter? Nothing has been said in this debate about President Roosevelt's policy of no pick-up of passengers or cargo. I understand that the Prime Minister accepts that policy and agrees with it. I can only say that I do not like that policy. It seems to me to conflict with the essential principles of the Atlantic Charter, and certainly conflicts with what in my opinion should be our conception of the freedom of the air.
  As regards the vexed question of the chosen instrument and of subsidies, the Government's policy evidently is that of the chosen instrument because we know that the B.O.A.C. is reorganizing and planning the development of its European services. That certainly implies that this is being done with Government approval and assent. The B.O.A.C. would not be going forward on these lines without Government approval, and so the B.O.A.C. will alone be eligible for subsidies. We have been told that, although other lines may compete, they will never in any circumstances receive subsidies, and in consequence they will be at a disadvantage. There are, of course, opponents of the chosen instrument policy and the policy of subsidies. In theory, their objections are probably well founded and right, but as, generally speaking, commercial flying will not be able to pay its way for many years to come, I confess I find it difficult to see how it is to be carried on save by means of subsidies. Shipping services, operating in conjunction with air services, no doubt could carry on on the principle that what they lost on the swings they could make up on the roundabout. Their profits on their sea transport would make good their losses on their air services.
  After all, somehow or other air services have got to be brought into existence,

  741
  and to do this they must be planned, and planning involves international regulation. On what basis are you going to plan except that of subsidies, since this service cannot be self-supporting? That seems to me the dilemma about subsidies however much in principle one may object to them. I thought Mr. Berle spoke very wisely before he left this country when he said subsidies should never be used to knock somebody else out of the air. That seems to me to be entirely the right line to take in this matter of subsidies and one to which we should subscribe. Looking to the future, one can see there will be certain air services which will be absolutely necessary from a national point of view, and if these are only possible with a subsidy then surely they must be subsidized. Broadly speaking, however, international trade has to be carried on at a profit and until air services can do that, until air services can carry on without subsidy and at a profit, I do not see how they are going to contribute to our national wealth.
  Coming to the question of air transport in connexion with our shipping industry, I have said that it may be necessary in certain cases to subsidize air services in order to get them started; but it seems to me we are on very dangerous ground when that has to be carried to the length of subsidizing one branch of the same industry—namely, transport—against another, and that is going to be the situation if you have to subsidize air services which are running in competition with sea services. It certainly is bad enough to have to rob Peter to pay Paul, but if you are going to kill Peter in order that Paul may live that seems to me to be going too far altogether. I am sure that shipowners do not want to find themselves working in competition with Government-subsidized air lines. As regards the position which the shipping industry is taking up in this matter I see that, speaking in another place, a member gave as his opinion that shipowners were seeking to control post-war aviation in order to make up for possible losses on passenger ships. So far as I am able to judge, and I have had no communication are correspondence with anybody engaged in the shipping industry in this matter, that is not at all, as I have followed it, the attitude which is taken up by the shipowners in regard to post-war civil aviation, and if I may say so I think a great mistake in this particular
  742
  matter is made in always talking about the shipowners. It is not merely a matter of the shipowners. It is a matter of the whole shipping industry which embraces a great many other interests than the interest of the shipowners alone. I think it is very natural that the shipping industry, with its century-long experience of passenger traffic, should feel that it is able to make a useful contribution to the problem of air transport, and shipping companies must inevitably be concerned with civil aviation as an adjunct to their passenger ship activities.
  Some of them are taking powers at the present moment to carry on air services, but they are not meeting with very great encouragement, and the longer the active participation of the shipowners in the matter of air transport is delayed the greater is the danger of their foreign rivals securing the plums of international air transport. That is why delay is dangerous. The shipping industry has more than once asked for a declaration of Government policy in these matters, and I see that the Chairman of the General Council of British Shipping has described their reception when they open up these matters as very courteous but completely non-committal. And so far they have been able to get nothing but courtesy; they have been able to get no declaration of policy at all. How can the shipping companies go ahead in such circumstances? Looking into the future and remembering the vital part which the shipping industry will have to play in the rebuilding of our export trade, I think they are entitled to have at the earliest possible moment a statement of Government intentions as regards monopolies and subsidies for air transport. The Government's statements so far on this subject have been rather contradictory. Sir Archibald Sinclair has made certain statements in another place about the position of the shipping companies as regards air transport and the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, has made other statements in this House on the same subject. There seems to be a certain discrepancy between these statements. I think it is of great importance and only fair to the shipping industry that these discrepancies should be cleared up as quickly as possible and that the shipping companies should be told where they stand in this matter as soon as possible.

  743
  At this late hour I would only detain your Lordships with one further point in this respect. I would emphasize the very great difficulties under which the shipping industry finds itself at the present moment owing to this absence of any statement of Government policy in regard to the question of replacement of ships. The shipowners after the war will have a tremendous replacement job on their hands. At the present moment they have got very large funds indeed accumulating for the purpose. It is no good their building ships for purposes which will be better served by aircraft. The development of air transport, for instance, may quite well put a stop to the building of vast liners. That may be a commercial necessity, but it is going to be an extremely dangerous thing for us from the national point of view if certain types of ships disappear, not as a process of evolution, but because one form of transport has been subsidized as against another form of transport. From the national point of view passenger ships are extremely useful in war-time. What are the shipowners to do at the present moment? Are they to plan their replacement programme before they get a clear statement of Government policy as regards the part which they are to play in air transport?
  Air transport is much more fortunate than the shipping industry in this matter. It is treated far better. The noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, told us, I think in the last debate, that he intends to follow the views of Lord Brabazon and his Committee regarding post-war needs and, following on that, the Chairman of an aircraft firm has stated that his company has been asked to design the large transport aircraft which Lord Brabazon's Committee has recommended to the Government should be used on the Transatlantic air service. This will involve expensive research and development. This shows the trust that is placed in the treatment of those concerned with air transport. The shipping industry is unable to plan its replacement programme of ships because it does not know what the Government policy is in regard to these matters, whereas those concerned with air transport are able to get on with the design of the aircraft which Lord Brabazon's Committee says will be necessary in future air transport.
  744
  Then there is the question, to which I would like to refer very briefly, which the noble Lord, Lord Essendon, mentioned yesterday. That is the proposal of certain shipping companies to operate a service to South America. I think that is a most interesting development because it shows a tendency in the shipping industry to prefer co-operation to competition. This proposal in regard to the South Atlantic will have, I hope, some effect upon the situation in the North Atlantic in the future. Here you have a number of shipping companies, of which one at least has carried mail and small and precious goods across the South Atlantic for a century. Obviously that shipping company in the course of that time has built up an enormous good will in South America. It it takes a part in operating this air service, obviously it will carry that good will forward with it into the new field. This group of five companies is the first to come forward when we are all thinking about planning post-war trade and industry, with a perfectly specific proposal of its plans. The group will certainly have to face at least Brazilian competition and it will probably have many competitors. I think the plans of that group of companies ought not to be retarded by Government dilatoriness in announcing policy. On the contrary, it should be assisted in every possible way in the framing of its policy.
  Look at the present situation as regards South America. Mail, urgent freight, official passengers, all at the present moment have to go to South America via the United States. Mails are frequently delayed three months and passengers take nine or ten days to get there, whereas by air service the transport would take only two days. We have business with South America of much importance at present in connexion with the war, but there is no air service. I think the specific proposals which the noble Lord, Lord Essen-don, threw out yesterday regarding this service deserve very careful attention and I hope there may be some indication of encouragement for what he proposed. I have said before and I repeat, that if we are to have regard to the post-war period the most important task with which we shall be confronted will be the rebuilding of our export trade. Unless our export trade can be rebuilt, developed and expanded then a great many of these Utopian dreams of which we hear so much

  745
  in the perorations of members of the Government will fade away and come to naught. A great many of these perorations depend upon our shipping industry and I lope that in his reply the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, will be able to give us some indication that that fact is recognized and that the Government do intend to have full regard to the claims of the shipping industry in this matter of post-war air transport.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD BEAVERBROOK): My Lords, yesterday I made a, speech with five agreed statements in it. I had to take very great care that those agreed statements were not extended to too great length and I exercised the greatest care in presenting them to your Lordships. To-day I have no agreed statements at all but this I will say about international relationships on civil aviation. Those relationships must be a subject of careful statement in your Lordships' House when the issues involved are considered at the international conference. For my part, I do not mean to go back today to any international issue in the answers that I give to the questions your Lordships have raised. I will, however, try to deal with the domestic question faithfully and frankly.
  One question I have been asked again and again is what is the position of B.O.A.C.? B.O.A.C. was created by Parliament. It was created by this Rouse. The Bill came to your Lordships on August 1, 1939. Your Lordships passed it without amendment. You passed it after discussion. Some of you who sat here supported the B.O.A.C. measure, none of you opposed it. In the other place the Bill was passed by a considerable majority. I ask your Lordships whether it is your wish that the B.O.A.C. Act should be repealed. Is that your wish? I think you should express yourselves with great freedom. What do you think about it? Do you desire the Act to be repealed? It is a big issue and a question which must take up considerable Parliamentary time when it is presented to the House. If you are going to ask for repeal of the B.O.A.C. Act, do you want to put anything in its place? If so, what is it? Have you settled in your minds what you want to put in its place? Some of the shipping companies and railways offer to give services free of any subsidy. That is a very
  746
  generous offer; but what do they mean? Will they give the service the B.O.A.C. gives free from all subsidies? Is that the proposition, for if it is the proposition I am sure the Treasury will be glad to hear it. But is it? I am not sure. I think it is time the shipping companies and the railways came to the Government with their proposals instead of asking the Government about B.O.A.C. Do they want to supplant B.O.A.C.? If so, let them say so.
  VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: The point is not what we propose to do but what the Government intend. The B.O.A.C. is one company with a subsidy.
  LORD BEAVERBROOK: We have been asked whether the Government intend to repeal the B.O.A.C. Act. That is a very big issue. I, have made no suggestion about repealing the law. Does the noble Viscount desire it? That is what I want to know. Does your Lordships' House or the House of Commons want to repeal the law? It is an issue which cannot be settled without consideration and discussion. If the shipping companies and the railway companies make proposals that will supplant the services of B.O.A.C. and give them without subsidy, then of course the Government would be very glad to listen.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: We want the Government to announce their policy instead of asking us what to do.
  LORD BEAVERBROOK: Should the Government have a policy in regard to the B.O.A.C. Act, which is on the Statute Book and which is bound to be defended, supported and sustained by members in this House and the other House?
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: It was passed four or five years ago.
  LORD BEAVERBROOK: On August 1939. It was very warmly supported by my noble friend.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Not warmly.
  LORD BEAVERBROOK: I want to know what the British shipping companies propose.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Does the noble Lord really say the policy of the B.O.A.C. is on the Statute Book?
  LORD BEAVERBROOK: I say the B.O.A.C. was set up as the chosen instrument by Statute.
  LORD WINSTER: A specific proposal was made in this House yesterday by a representative of shipping companies to establish an economic service to South America without subsidy. What is the Government attitude with regard to that offer?
  LORD BEAVERBROOK: Do you mean a service only for South America, or do you mean to supplant the services of the B.O.A.C. without subsidy? If you mean to supplant the B.O.A.C. services without subsidy, that is a proposal which must necessarily go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  LORD WINSTER: May I ask whether the B.O.A.C. has ever operated a service to South America?
  LORD BEAVERBROOK: The B.O.A.C. has already services throughout the world in many directions.
  LORD WINSTER: South America?
  LORD BEAVERBROOK: The B.O.A.C. has projects, and necessarily the B.O.A.C. is under the necessity of protecting those routes that will give it an adequate income and lighten the burden on the Treasury. But if the services with the highest measure of remuneration, such as those to South America and Paris—there were many proposals that the Paris service should be taken over by the railways—are only to be taken over then necessarily the B.O.A.C. would suffer a considerable decline in -revenue. I am not defending the B.O.A.C., the chosen instrument, or any monopoly in air transport, I am asking what are the proposals of the shipping companies and the railway companies.
  VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: My Lords, I do not like interrupting, but perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me.
  LORD BEAVERBROOK: Certainly.
  VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: By what you have said, are we to understand that you, speaking on behalf of the Government, mean that they are only going to keep on the B.O.A.C. as one chosen instrument and have no subsidy to any
  748
  other company or any other chosen instrument?
  LORD GIFFORD: May I, too, be forgiven for interrupting, but is not the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, rather assuming that there are throughout the Empire and throughout the world a number of services in being run by B.O.A.C. when, in fact, there are only very few such services at the present time, and we are informed that certain shipping companies are prepared to run services on specific routes not in competition but where none now exist?
  LORD BEAVERBROOK: There was a proposal that the Paris route should be run by the railway companies.
  LORD GIFFORD: Surely there is no service to Paris by air now?
  LORD BEAVERBROOK: The proposal has been made that the railway companies should take over the route to Paris after the war. I am putting the question to the shipping companies and the railway companies, without hostility and not in any critical spirit, what do they mean? Do they mean that they will take over B.O.A.C. services or will only take over certain selected services? This is no attempt on my part to resist claims but to obtain information as to the basis on which they suggest they should take over services of B.O.A.C., and operate them without subsidy. Do they want to take all of them over, or do they want to take over some services, leaving a residue to B.O.A.C.—in other words, taking the eyes out of the carcase? I repeat that I ask this question in no spirit of hostility or criticism. Surely we are entitled to know what they propose.
  LORD KENNET: May I answer that question at once on behalf of the railway companies? Their idea is certainly not to take over selected portions of the services. I thank the noble Lord for his invitation to clarify the attitude of the shipping companies and we will take an early opportunity of giving him an explanation
  LORD BEAVERBROOK: Thank you very much. I think that I have spoken sufficiently on the subject of the B.O.A.C. at the moment. Perhaps I may deal with the B.O.A.C. monopoly when I come to discuss the speech of the noble Viscount. That B.O.A.C. is a chosen

  749
  instrument and has the benefit of subsidies goes without saying, but I think I can elucidate what that subsidy means when I come to discuss the speech of the noble Viscount. As to the shipping companies and the railway companies, suppose that the proposal is not a proposal to take ever the services of the B.O.A.C. Suppose the proposal of the shipping companies is to run a line to South America. Then I have to say to the shipping companies: present your proposals to the Foreign Office. This is the answer I give you now, it is an answer which I received from the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office will be glad at any time to consider applications in consultation wits the other interested Departments of His Majesty's Government, but, of course, no useful purpose would be served by applying so long as applicants cannot provide the necessary aircraft and personnel.
  VISCOUNT ROTHERMERE: May I ask how they are going to provide aircraft or personnel without the consent of His Majesty's Government? They are not allowed to order any aircraft, either in this country or anywhere else, and it is quite obvious that the Minister of Labour, until after the war, would not agree to their having the necessary personnel.
  LORD BEAVERBROOK: Viscount Rothermere has pointed out the weakness of the situation. Quite clearly there are not any aircraft, there is not any personnel, there is no ground staff. Do you want to take away any aircraft or any personnel from the war effort? Is that the desire of any member of this House? I should very much doubt it. So what is the use of this shadow-boxing with the Government about the line to South America? It is just sheer waste, of time. For two days this House has been discussing a line to South America when we have not got aircraft, personnel, or grouted staff available.
  LORD DENHAM: Is not the whole purpose of this debate to discuss what will happen after the war, not during the war? If there are to be great plans for civil aviation many of us want to know what is going to happen after the war, not during the war.
  LORD BEAVERBROOK: Your Lordships see the sort of difficulties that confront me. One moment I am told:
  750
  "These are lines that do not exist now" (I refer to the Paris line which of course does not exist now). Then I ask, what is the project? Do you want to lay down certain lines to be run after the war? Do you want every shipping company and every railway company to be able to say that these lines are reserved for these companies until after the war? If the shipping companies and the railway companies want to go into aircraft transportation, why do not they lay down their plans? There is no reason at all why the shipping companies and the railway companies should not do so. It would not be expensive or difficult. When decisions have been reached on their proposals, then the moment they know that they can start after the war they can go ahead and operate these services, they can go forward with their projects. We can deal with them and if we fail we shall be subject to censure. There can be no justice in any censure until that time comes.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me, but this is very important. He asks why the railway companies do not make their plans. You cannot make plans for post-war aviation services without knowing that you are going to have the support of His Majesty's Government in your negotiations for landing grounds, and without knowing that His Majesty's Government are going sympathetically to consider giving you after the war the aircraft which you need. We cannot make our plans now unless we know that this idea which we put forward, and which seems to us to be a good one, commends itself to His Majesty's Government, and that we shall have the help of the Government in carrying it out.
  LORD BEAVERBROOK: I understand the position perfectly, but that is not quite the proposal put forward by the shipping companies and by the railways. The shipping companies have said "Let us now make plans for a line to South America," and the railways have said "Let us now make plans for a line to Paris." Those are two very definite propositions which have been put forward, as I understand it, in the speeches of the noble Lords who have spoken.
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, there is really no special emphasis on the line

  751
  to Paris. The proposals were entirely general.
  LORD BEAVERBROOK: I shall come to the question of the railways very shortly, but for the present I think that I have outlined the Government position in this respect quite clearly. It is perfectly open for the shipping companies to go to the Foreign Office now. The shipping companies must show where they can produce their aircraft and their personnel, and if they can; persuade the Foreign Office to make arrangements with them for the release of aircraft and personnel, that will be all to the good.
  I want to spend one more moment on internal policy. Internal air lines do not concern the Committee over which I preside, but are the concern of the Air Ministry. I am authorized to say that after hostilities in Europe have ceased it will be necessary to continue these services on their present basis for a certain time, the length of which will be dictated by military exigencies. So far as long-term policy for internal civil aviation is concerned, the Air Ministry have under review the form of organization, the planning of routes, and questions of aerodromes, equipment and ground organization. These questions are now in an advanced stage, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Air will have something to say on the examination of these matters in the not-distant future. That is in relation to the internal air lines and the desire of the railway companies to take part in the internal air services, in which they already play a very considerable part.
  I hope that I have dealt with the question of the B.O.A.C., though I shall return to the question of the nature of the B.O.A.C. monopoly when I deal with the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. I want to say a word on the vexed question of cabotage. My noble friend Lord Rothermere said that the definition which I gave yesterday was not quite clear, and that he thought that if I looked at the Official Report I should see that I had given an obscure definition. I am bound to say that I have looked at the Official Report and it seems to me that the definition is perfectly clear. It is the only part of my speech which I have studied, but it seems to me that there is not a flaw in the
  752
  description of cabotage; it is exactly what I intended it to be, and it suits me perfectly. I am willing, however, to discuss cabotage again if that is desired.
  Cabotage is the right to carry traffic—not the right to fly—within the boundaries of a country. For instance, the French would claim the right to carry traffic (since it is conceded that the Empire forms the boundaries of a country) from Paris to Timbuctoo, and they would describe it rightly as cabotage—a French word, as the noble Viscount says, but none the less with a meaning which I should have thought the noble Viscounts, Lord Trenchard and Lord Rothermere, would have known all about, for it is laid down in 1919 in the Paris Convention in the language which I used in this House yesterday. It is also laid down in the Havana Convention, and it must have been a commonplace in all the consultations in relation to the air transport industry over the last twenty-five or thirty years. I must confess I am surprised that noble Lords do not know the meaning of the word. I can quite understand that those not concerned with air transport are not familiar with it, but those who are familiar with the industry and those who come here and speak to this House again and again on this subject should surely be familiar with it. It is plain in its use and plain in its meaning. I have written down the words used in the Paris Convention to which I have referred: "Traffic between any two points within that territory." There was a proposal to exclude from the definition journeys involving an intermediate stop, but that proposal never came to anything.
  We were greatly concerned about cabotage, because we wished to know whether it was conceded to us by other countries that cabotage embraced our Empire. I must say that I rejoice that cabotage is recognized as a right applying to the Empire as well as throughout Great Britain. We must not confuse cabotage with freedom of the air or with the right of innocent passage, neither of which arises in relation to cabotage. The right of innocent passage is something quite different, and has no bearing on cabotage at all. I was a little confused by the question put to me by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, when he referred to a straight line. If I had known what he meant I should have tried to give a sincere answer; I was not joking about it at all. The

  753
  answer depends on the circumstances. France, for instance, will have a right to claim to take part in issues relating to innocent passage. France may say: "We are not going to give innocent passage; we will not allow it." They have said that before. Germany said: "If you want to fly over Germany you must come down when you enter Germany and submit to inspection and investigation; you must have your engines checked and spend hours on a German airfield being overhauled." I myself had that experience again and again. They also said: "You roust come down at the end of your flight over Germany." All that was done before the end of the war and may be done again.
  VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: I quite agree, but will you say whether the Government are going to recommend that policy at the international conference, because it is reciprocal?
  LORD BEAVERBROOK: One of the proposals at the international conference is, of course, innocent passage. There are four freedoms, and innocent passage is one of the four freedoms. But I do not want to go into the four freedoms to-day. If I digress any further we may be here all night. I want to answer the question addressed to me. I say cabotage has nothing to do with innocent passage, cabotage has nothing to do with freedom of the air. Cabotage is what we have talked about ever since 1919—in the Paris Convention and in every part of the world where the air transport industry is—and cabotage is something we greatly desire for our enterprise.
  VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: Really, this matter is most serious. This question of cabotage, you say, has nothing to do with innocent passage. If there is no innocent passage it makes cabotage senseless as you define it.
  LORD BEAVERBROOK: Well, it is the noble Viscount's opinion that if there is no innocent passage cabotage is senseless, but I cannot see that myself. For instance, take flight from here to Jamaica. I cannot see that refusal by any country in Europe to permit innocent passage would interfere with flight from here to Jamaica. Now perhaps I may pass on from cabotage unless there are any questions your Lordships wish to ask me on my interpretation of cabotage. I say it
  754
  has no relation to innocent passage, it has no relation to freedom of the air or sovereignty over the air. It is something else. It is the right of the aircraft of Britain and the Empire to carry the traffic originating in Britain to various portions of the British Empire. It is the protection of our own traffic and the reservation of it for ourselves. And we admit, of course, that others are entitled to the same privileges.
  Now may I pass on to the chosen instrument? It is not really a monopoly. I do not object to the interpretation of those who regard it as a monopoly, but it is not a monopoly. It is a monopoly of subsidy and of subsidy only, and you cannot say that a monopoly of subsidy is an operational monopoly. It is not. Operational monopoly does not exist. There is no monopoly of operation, but there is a monopoly of subsidy. There is really a difference; I assure the noble Viscount there is a great difference. There is nothing clearer than our complete freedom in relation to operations. There is no monopoly whatever so far as operations go. That is the only definition that I can give of the chosen instrument.
  Then I am asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, about the President's declaration about innocent passage. Of course his declaration about innocent passage will have a great influence, art immense effect, and is bound to be the subject of much discussion at the international conference. But the President cannot guarantee innocent passage over France or Spain or Portugal. Only France, Spain and Portugal can settle the issue of innocent passage there. That must be settled by those countries. We are trying to bring them to an international conference and to get them to sit down round the table with us and to say, "Yes, we give you the right of innocent passage." That is what we are trying to achieve.
  VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: And you are going to back it?
  LORD BEAVERBROOK: That is the purpose of the international conference in part. The British Government are entirely in favour of that principle. Another question is whether cabotage extends to the Dominions. No, because the Dominions are self-governing. Cabotage in India also is the affair of India. These

  755
  Dominions come to the international conference, and they come there with the intention of taking part in the deliberations with full authority and full power, and, of course, they will look after their own cabotage. Necessarily, they will protect their own cabotage. Then I am asked whether a plane can fly from Great Britain to Spain and there put down passengers and take up passengers again for Great Britain. Yes, certainly, if there is an arrangement with Spain. We are trying at the international conference to bring Spain into an international agreement that will cover that very situation and provide for that very condition.
  VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: Inter-national or national? Between two nations?
  LORD BEAVERBROOK: Between two nations. We will try at an international conference to provide for flight from nation to nation.
  VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: That is very different from international. That is what I want to be certain of.
  LORD BEAVERBROOK: I read Hansard this morning. I read the passage the noble Viscount refers to on an international conference. I do not know what it means. Now I come to the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Rothermere. He asked me a question about the situation in relation to aircraft production. I assure my noble friend I never gave any indication of hope or expectation in relation to aircraft production in Great Britain during the war. I have examined Hansard. I have Hansard here for the 19th of January the occasion when I addressed the House on the subject—the only occasion when I addressed the House on the subject. Speaking of the Brabazon I said:
  "Of course years must pass before a type so completely new can be brought from the drawing-board to the traffic route."
  Years must pass. I do not know of any delay in the preparation of the Brabazon type, but, oh dear! it is slow. Then I say of the Tudor just the same—a very fine plane. Its design is already in hand, but only its design. A long time must elapse between design and production. And I said that even if production were achieved before the war was over—because we do not know how long the
  756
  war will last—still the Tudor must be made use of for military purposes and could not be disposed of for civil aviation. I made that position quite plain. I want to say that the delay over the Tudor is not exactly an unexpected delay.
  But I will not be optimistic about the preparation of civil aircraft during the war. I see no hope of civil aircraft until the crisis of our strategy in this war has been brought to a conclusion. If we are to have any aircraft for civil purposes during the war I shall be very glad, but I am sure that not a single member of this House wishes me to go to the Government and make any plea for civil aircraft at the expense of military machines. I am sure such a proposition would be utterly reprehensible to the members of this House. We must confine ourselves wholly to military purposes until we know what is to be the decision in the great battles confronting us.
  VISCOUNT ROTHERMERE: Does that apply also to development? Of course about production we know, but what about development?
  LORD BEAVERBROOK: There is no question of developing civil aviation at this moment, except by a happy adventure. A little advantage here and a little advantage there might be seized and made use of, but it can be nothing more, and I know the House does not want me to present to the Government any other picture. You speak of the Tudor. This is a political decision as I understand the meaning of your words. It is a political decision, and it is due to the need for special and particular equipment for the Royal Air Force at this crisis in war strategy. That is the reason. We know what we want and we hope to get it, but what we want is by no means any interference in the remotest degree with war production. I am asked by my noble friend Lord Rothermere how long will civil aircraft be held up. If he will tell me how long the war with Germany will last, I can answer his question. The next question my noble friend has asked is about bases. If we are successful in the international conference the international authority will control the user of bases.
  VISCOUNT ROTHERMERE: Will it make the rules.
  LORD BEAVERBROOK: I think I shall be able to make the position quite

  757
  clear in one moment, if I can only lay my hands on a document amid the confusion I have brought on myself. It is a declaration by the Governments of Australia and New Zealand, and it is a declaration to which toe British Government adhere subject of course to individual instances which must be affected by special bargains. There are special bargains. This is the declaration, that the two Governments—that is, the Government of Australia and New Zealand—accept as a recognized principle of international practice that the constriction and use in time of war by any Power of naval, military or air installations in any territory under the sovereignty or control of another Power does not in itself afford any basis for territorial claims or right of sovereignty after the conclusion of hostilities. I think that answers my noble friend's question to his satisfaction.
  VISCOUNT ROTHERMERE: And the British Government agree entirely with that resolution?
  LORD BEAVERBROOK: That decision is accepted by the British Government subject to certain individual instances which must be affected by the terms of the arrangements made at the time—arrangements made with Newfoundland or somewhere else—which do not conform entirely to that situation. They are only individual instances.
  VISCOUNT ROTHERMERE: Can we have any information about these instances? Are they many or few?
  LORD BEAVERBROOK: No, they are not important. If you wish, I shall see if I can get the information for you. It is not important. As to the bases in the West Indies, that is a different situation. There we leased the bases for ninety-nine years. We leased them as a gift to the United States of America, and the United States of America made a gift of destroyers to Grew Britain. These bases are leased only for military purposes. They cannot be used for civil aviation except with our consent. They do not pass under the general conception of bases for civil aviation. What may be the intention of the Government in the future remains to be seen, but at present the question of civil aviation in connexion with these bases has never arisen so far as I know. They are good people to deal with, the Americans.
  758
  Then there was another question raised by my noble friend Lord Essendon, whom I should like to congratulate on his speech yesterday. It was a magnificent, impressive speech, a very fine speech, a first-rate contribution to the debates in this House. He asked what will be the position of the international conference, when we come to it, about the chosen instrument and free competition. Any international regulatory system will permit each nation freedom of expression—State ownership, chosen instrument, private enterprise, all free. That is the condition on which we shall go to the international conference. So you will see, as far as those are concerned who hold to the system of free enterprise, that they are not being prejudiced at all by the international convention. Their principles are unimpaired.
  My noble friend Lord Rothermere wants to know what are Mr. Berle's views. I do not know, but I think he favours private enterprise. I am not sure that he favours private enterprise exactly as we understand it. There are many versions of private enterprise. For instance, there is the private enterprise which exists in the Daily Mail and the private enterprise which exists in the Daily Herald—two different manifestations of the same thing! Then Lord Rothermere raised another question. He spoke of Mr. Berle's statement that "it would be very had business if we did not." That was the statement attributed to Mr. Berle in relation to the supply of American aircraft for our purposes after the war, and supplied to us, I may say here, on the basis of non-discrimination. I was asked on what terms are we to get these aeroplanes. We are to get them on the basis of non-discrimination. That is the language Mr. Berle used. I think Mr. Berle means to see that in relation to these aeroplanes we are not prejudiced in the slightest degree.
  LORD WINSTER: Are we to pay for them?
  LORD BEAVERBROOK: I do not want to raise that question. I do not know. We are going to be well treated. The Americans treat us well. Over civil aviation we are being treated well. We must not press for these things from America when we want military aeroplanes from America. It would be folly on our part to say, "Give us civil aeroplanes,"

  759
  when we need every military aeroplane they are in a position to send to this country and elsewhere while the battle rages all over the world. Mr. Berle said we were to have aircraft after the war. Lord Rothermere pointed out that that would be a situation not entirely beneficial to us for We should be establishing supply depots, repair depots, spares depots, all based upon American principles and therefore prejudicial to British aircraft when we get British civil aircraft into operation after the war. I agree with all that. I made the same declaration in the lengthy speech I made yesterday—the speech of five parts I made yesterday. I made that same point for the purpose of showing that we must get our British aircraft into production and operation for civil purposes. Lord Rothermere misunderstood Mr. Berle entirely. He thought that Mr. Berle meant it would be very bad business for the Americans if they did not, because they would be securing for themselves the spares and repair market in the airfields where the American aeroplanes might fly. Nothing was further from Mr. Berle's mind. The sentence following shows that: "It would be a betrayal of an understanding entered into in good faith." His sole purpose was to say it would be bad business to break an arrangement entered into in good faith. I can assure you that Mr. Berle is a man we can trust and depend upon, with the assurance that he is going to give us a square deal. I am convinced of it.
  Now I want to go on to the debate to-day. There were one or two speeches to-day that interested me very much, particularly the speech of my noble friend the Duke of Sutherland. That speech was very gratifying to me because he found favour in some of the things I have been doing. But he said he did not think the progress had been very great since the last occasion preceding the present debate when I spoke in your Lordships' House. I assure you I cannot understand how anyone can hold that view. I am confused and utterly mystified by the notion I get from many parts of the House. I think there must be something wrong with my own calculations. What have we achieved? We have achieved most tremendous progress. I should have thought we would all be grateful for the progress which has been made.
  760
  In the first place we have got on paper an agreement with the Dominions. It was a great achievement to get all the Dominions into an agreement providing for an international conference, all saying the same thing with one voice. It was accomplished in a very short time, as my noble friend pointed out, but we had made immense preparations before the event. We did get an agreement with the Dominions and now we have an agreement with the United States, a very wise and a very excellent agreement, an agreement to go to an international conference on lines approved by the Dominions conversations. We have had to make concessions—I understand that perfectly—but there are the two pieces of paper. I should have thought that to bring those two pieces of paper down to this House would have been enough to bring forth words of admiration. But we got more. We got an agreement on cabotage. If I had thought we could have got that matter settled on those terms six months ago I should have considered it was worth any labour that I might be asked to undertake. I am sure that is the view of those in the aircraft industry. The settlement is an immense advance and it is of great benefit to Britain.
  VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: Have those agreements been published or are they still secret?
  LORD BEAVERBROOK: They are published in Hansard. I gave them in full again yesterday and I should like to recommend to noble Lords that they are worth perusing. I took great labour over that speech yesterday. It was so difficult and I was so long on its preparation that if I may say so without committing an offence I became bored. But there it is; it is word perfect; and I say to anybody who will read it that it is a complete statement of the whole position. Anyone reading it will I think be satisfied with the progress that has been made in the direction of the international conference. Next I come to the dispute that was going on in America about bases. It was blowing up in such a way that one might have thought it was going to be the issue in the Presidential election. I think everybody is satisfied about bases. As to the way we stand in relation to bases there is no complaint. There can

  761
  be no claim to our bases except under the international agreement.
  I do not think this Government could have done more. I know your Lordships will say, "You are praising yourself." I do not want to do that, but I do say that we could not well have made more progress than we have done in the six or seven months that have passed, for that, after all, is only a comparatively short space of time. My noble friend Lord Kennet yesterday suggested I was like the angel that appeared to Balaam. On the contrary, I think I have been like Agag in the way that I hive walked. And here I have the result of it. These results are worthy of your Lordships' attention, and if you examine them critically and with fair unprejudiced minds I think you will say the Government have done well in getting forward in the direction of an international conference so swiftly and in such compliance with the principles for which Great Britain strives.
  I have dealt with the B.O.A.C. question and there is nothing left for me to deal with except to say one final word about the international conference. It: is going to mean a tough negotiation. We have not got all the advantages and benefits that we would like. We have some difficulties and trials confronting us. You will find reported in Hansard a structure for the international conference. Study it first and if you find that structure meets with your approval, then let sleeping dogs lie until the conference takes place. Give us a real chance to pull out something that is worth while. If you will do that I think we shall manage to get something done that will meet with your satisfaction.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, although it is appropriate that I should make some reply to the noble Lard's speech, I feel we have traversed the ground to a great extent and your Lordships will not wish me at this late hour to go meticulously into the many points that have been raised earlier in the debate. I would have liked to argue with the noble Lord who has just spoken for a considerable time, but I should not like to begrudge him the evident satisfaction be has in what he regards as the great accomplishments made by the Government during the seven months which have just passed. I do not know that your Lordships here will put those achievements so high as the noble Lord
  762
  has done. Still, something has been done. We can congratulate ourselves in having had several debates in this House and on having achieved something. Personally, I by no means regret this debate. I said yesterday that we had achieved the result of having a Minister appointed to look after this particular subject. My noble friend has been selected as the chosen instrument. I am afraid he has come under as much criticism in your Lordships' House as the other chosen instruments.
  I think the noble Lord will understand that there has never been any intention on our part to suggest anything that could interfere with the war effort. We have particularly asked the noble Lord to give us some idea of the policy that is in the mind of the British Government. Several matters that I raised dealt with policy, but we have certainly received no information at all on those points. The noble Lord has now turned to the House and asked us to give the Government a policy. I would suggest that if the noble Lord would hand over to me the keys of the medicine chest I would dispense the medicine, but at the present moment it is for the Government to give us a policy. I have asked on several occasions in this House that the Government's policy should be enunciated so as to give some encouragement to those enterprising people throughout the country who cannot proceed further in the direction of making their plans and entering into undertakings and commitments without knowing what the Government are going to do. As to that we really have received no information at all.
  These debates have had the effect of bringing to this House my noble friend Lord Essendon. I have had a note from him and I am sorry to inform the House that he is indisposed and has been unable to, be present to listen to the reply of the noble Lord. Had he been able to attend he would probably have had some remarks to make upon it himself. But we had Lord Kennet here and I think it was a great advance that those two noble Lords, speaking for the railways and shipping, told us very clearly what is in their minds. We know quite well that they are not proposing to do anything at this moment except to make plans and they wish to receive In what encouragement they can get from the Government by the Government telling them what their plans

  763
  are. There is no suggestion of a line to Paris or a line to anywhere at the present moment. That is to come after the war. The noble Lord has done a great deal of planning in his business life and he knows quite well that you have to get together certain facts and figures and ideas before you can make plans. That cannot be done in this case without some encouragement from the Government and without some knowledge of what the Government are going to do.
  There was a certain controversy this afternoon about the B.O.A.C. The noble Lord challenged the House. I do not know why he did so. The noble Lord said I supported the B.O.A.C. Act in 1939. It is quite true I was not a Minister then, but I would point out that that is five years ago and we know a great deal more about the speed and capacity of aircraft at this moment than we did in 1939. Although the B.O.A.C. idea was useful at the time the position at present places it in a different aspect. I sincerely hope that the Act will be repealed. The noble Lord asked me a plain question and that is a plain answer. I do not want to see a monopoly. The noble Lord tried to explain when a monopoly is not a monopoly, but of course this is a monopoly. It cannot be anything else. It is supported by the taxpayers' money, it gets all consideration from the Government, and if it is a question of landing rights the Foreign Office will give preference to the B.O.A.C. In carriage of mails the B.O.A.C. will get priority. I cannot agree with the noble Lord's explanation of when a monopoly is not a monopoly. I sincerely hope that the Act will be repealed and that we shall have an opportunity for free enterprise.
  There are several other matters which I do not feel I should be entitled to go into at the present moment, but I should like to mention that my noble friend Lord Essendon, in the note he sent me, specially asked whether companies like shipping companies will be assisted by our Government and by our Foreign Office in acquiring landing rights, because they feel that other countries—neutral countries perhaps—may be able to get priority in landing rights which later will put the companies at a disadvantage.
  764
  There is only one final word I would like to say in relation to America. I feel that I understand exactly what the noble Lord said, and I know quite well that he has had very friendly conversations with Mr. Berle and that Mr. Berle has given him almost categorical undertakings. But I am not taking a defeatist attitude about the production of aircraft in this country and about our being dependent on America for air transport. When the war ends we shall have a lot of machines and I hope that by the acceleration of programmes we shall have the Tudor and the York and others in being. We shall have some of the finest crews, men who will want employment, and when they have employment they will discharge their duties as well as or better than men in other countries. When it is suggested that we shall have to depend on the good will and co-operation of America I would say that we shall all be dependent on each other's good will. I hope we shall not adopt the attitude that we shall be in the humble position of having to beg, borrow—not steal, but obtain what we can, and that we have not got a policy and determination of our own. I believe the proper thing on such an occasion as this is to ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Motion, but I have put on the Paper a Motion that an humble Address he presented to His Majesty for Papers upon certain matters of importance. I should like to see any Papers there are relating to policy. I am mistrustful to this day of the air-mindedness of the War Cabinet, and I hope that the noble Lord, having made a vehement speech here to-day, will deliver it again in equal or more forcible terms to those people who direct his effort and who, I suspect, are very sticky on air matters.
  LORD BEAVERBROOK: I have no Papers.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): Does the noble Marquess press his Motion?
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: With all due deference, a Motion having been put on the Paper it must be either accepted or not.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As there seems to be some reluctance on the part

  765
  of the Government to accept it, I asked the noble Marquess whether he would press his Motion. I only did so for the convenience of the House.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I did not understand whether the Government opposed the Motion.
  LORD BEAVERBROOK: Yes.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I would not like to put the House to the bother of a Division, so I will ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  House adjourned.