Sitting of 11 June 1945

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  WEAVER NAVIGATION BILL
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  NORTH DEVON WATER BOARD BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time, and committed.
  PORT GLASGOW GAS AND BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

  PRIVATE BILLS
  Ordered:
  "That Standing Orders 88 and 208, relating to Private Bills, be suspended."
  Ordered:
  "That, as regards Private Bills to be returned by the House of Lords with Amendments, such Amendments (if unopposed) shall be considered forthwith."
  Ordered:
  "That as regards Private Bills returned, or to be returned, by the House of Lords with Amendments, the consideration of such Amendments (if opposed) shall be deferred until some future day at the time at which private business is usually taken or until half-past seven of the clock on any day not being a Friday as the Chairman of Ways and Means may determine."
  Ordered:
  "That, when it is intended to propose any Amendments thereto, a copy of such Amendments shall be deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office, and notice given on the day on which the Bill is returned from the House of Lords."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Mr. Attlee: I desire to ask the acting Leader of the House whether he can make any statement with regard to the Industrial Injuries (Insurance) Bill?
  The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Brendan Bracken): Yes, Sir, there have been discussions on this subject. My right hon. Friend the Minister of National Insurance is giving notice to-day of the presentation of this Bill, in the form in which it was prepared by the late Government. The Explanatory Memorandum will also be published.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS
  That they have agreed to—
  Distribution of Industry Bill, without Amendment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
Ordered:
"That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 14, Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before a quarter past Nine o'clock and that if the first two proposed Resolutions shall have been agreed to by the Committee of Supply before a quarter past Eight o'clock, the Chairman shall proceed to put forthwith the Questions which he is directed to put, at a quarter past Eight o'clock, by paragraph 6 of Standing Order No. 14, as modified by the Order of the House of 8th March."—[Mr. Bracken.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Bracken.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY [7TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1945; NAVY, ARMY AND AIR ESTIMATES, 1945

  HEALTH
  Resolved:
  "That a further sum, not exceeding £36,271,562 be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sums necessary to defray the charges for the following Departments connected with the Health of the Nation which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, namely:

  £

  Class V., Vote 1, Ministry of Health

  11,601,234

  Class X., Vote 6, Ministry of Health (War Services)

  90

  Class V., Vote 2, Board of Control

  150,815

  Class V., Vote 16, Department of Health for Scotland

  2,402,233

  Class X., Vote 18, Department of Health for Scotland (War Services)

  90

  Class X., Vote 4, Ministry of Food

  90

  Class V., Vote 9, Ministry of National Insurance

  22,117,000

  £36,271,562"

  EDUCATION
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a further sum, not exceeding £62,952,140 be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sums necessary to defray the charges for the following Departments connected with Education which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, namely:

  Civil Estimates, 1945

  £

  Class IV., Vote 1, Ministry of Education

  55,507,780

  Class IV., Vote 13, Public Education, Scotland

  7,444,360

  £62,952,140"

  2.25 p.m.
  The Minister of Education (Mr. Richard Law): Hon. Members opposite have given me very little time in which to take stock of the new and very important command to which I have recently been appointed. I have had very little time to make the acquaintance of my crew, to explore the engine room, or to do any of those things which one would naturally wish to do on boarding a new craft. Indeed, I am conscious that I have not been able to make the best use of the time that I have had. Owing to the regrettable absence of the Foreign Secretary—and I am sure the Committee will be glad to know that he is getting along very well indeed—I have had to direct a good deal of my energies and attention to many urgent and important matters which have very little to do with the strict sphere of education, if we are to interpret the word literally. Perhaps I ought to say now that I may, at a later stage this afternoon, have to absent myself for a short time for a meeting of the Cabinet. I am sure the Committee will realise that that implies on my part neither disrespect to the Committee nor lack of interest in this very important subject that we are discussing this afternoon.
  I would not like the Committee to misunderstand me when I say that hon. Members opposite have given me very little time. I do not resent that in any way. It is quite clear that education is one of the most important subjects which we can bring before the attention of Parliament and the people and, for my part, I hope to learn a great deal from the Debate this afternoon. However, I think that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and I are entitled to
  1300
  claim in full measure that consideration which the House of Commons is always willing to give to those who are embarking upon new and, for them, uncharted seas.
  I am very conscious as I stand here that my hon. Friend and I have succeeded to a great inheritance. We have been given the opportunity of carrying on the work which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service has so nobly begun. It is our job now to clothe with flesh and blood, and nerve and sinew, the great Act of Parliament which he piloted through the House of Commons. I realise that the passage of this great Measure through the House was due not only to the skill and the patience of my right hon. Friend; it was also due to the fact that he was assisted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede)—a day or two ago, I was also entitled to describe him as my right hon. Friend, and, in my weaker moments, I am still all too apt to think of him as my right hon. Friend. The fact remains, however, that the success which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service was able to achieve in this great Measure, which will always be associated with his name, was due to the fact that in very large degree he had the willing and enthusiastic co-operation of all parties in the House.
  The situation is, perhaps, a little different to-day. The late Government has come to an end, and perhaps it would be optimistic to suppose that we could look forward to the same degree of cooperation in the future. Nevertheless, I trust that my hon. Friend and I will have the utmost good will and support from all parties inside the House and from those who are interested in education outside the House, in the discharge of this very important and difficult task to which we have succeeded. It is one thing—and a very good thing and a very difficult thing—to pass a great Act of Parliament through this House, but it is another thing and a very difficult thing, and, I hope, a very good thing to make that Act of Parliament effective in action. In education, we have now left the field of Acts of Parliament and what we need now is action, determined, resolute and patient, on the part of human beings, not only in this House but thousands of them outside.

  1301
  I will, if I may, give the Committee my own view, for what it is worth, of what is involved in the implementation of this great Measure, which has so recently been before us. First, I think I ought to draw the attention of the Committee to the background against which we have to work to put this great Act of Parliament into real effect. It is a background of war and the aftermath of war. There are great shortages of manpower and woman-power, and of materials. There has been an enormous dislocation of our life in this country and a good deal of destruction and, above all, there are these shortages. There are, as the Committee know, very many claimants, all of them of a serious character, for these goods and services which are in short supply. There are, for example, the claims of the war, which is by no means over yet. There are the urgent claims of housing, there are the claims of our export trade, upon the extension of which everything we are discussing to-day and a lot of other things, not only education, but housing and all the high hopes we have, do ultimately depend. Therefore, we have to consider these educational problems in the wider context of the national life as a whole. I would not like the Committee to think that I was pessimistic about the prospect for education and for the great scheme of reforms which is enshrined in the Education Act, 1944 I do not feel in the least bit pessimistic; there is a splendid prospect ahead of us, but I think it is necessary for us to take a sober and realistic view of the immediate possibilities. We have undertaken in this house, through the Education Act, a tremendous task and it is not going to be at all easy in present circumstances, to perform it. It is only if our understanding is clear, and if our will is resolute, that we are going to be able to realise the spendid prospect which has been opened to us by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service.
  Now, I must confess that I am by no means master of the intricacies of the Education Act. If the Committee supposed that I were I should feel extremely flattered, and also extremely uneasy. In fact I am not, and I hope the Committee will not think too hardly of me for that. I look at this great Statute as a man might look at a massive mountain
  1302
  range early on a summer morning. The prospect is grand, the air is clear and exhilarating; the young sun has just appeared above the horizon and has not yet realised the full force of his mid-day beam. The valleys and streams, the lower slopes of the hills and the little communities clustered around them are still covered by the mists of early morning. But one can see, high above the clouds, three or four great peaks clearly outlined against the blue of the summer sky. It is with those peaks that I intend, if the Committee will allow me, to deal principally this afternoon. I intend, in other words, to confine myself to those great matters which seem to me to be most urgent and most immediate. The Education Act, 1944, is now legally in operation, except in three respects. First, the school-leaving age has not yet been raised, secondly, the county colleges have not yet been established—they are, under the Act, to be established on an appointed day which shall not be later than three years after the raising of the school-leaving age; and, thirdly, Part III of the Act, which deals with independent schools, cannot come into operation until we have accumulated a sufficient number of inspectors to make that part of the Act effective. But, as I say, except in those three respects, the Act is now legally in operation, and I use the word, "legally," advisedly.
  Let me turn, first, to that great problem which, from my recollection of the passage of the Bill through this House, perhaps principally interested right hon. and hon. Members. I refer to the problem of the raising of the school-leaving age. I would remind the Committee what the legal position is, what immediate difficulties we are faced with and what steps we are taking, or contemplating, to deal with those difficulties. First, there is the existing legal position. I have no doubt that the Committee is aware of what that is: It is that under the Act the school-leaving age had to be raised to 15 on 1st April this year, unless the Minister, from the point of view of shortages of buildings and teachers, made an order under Section 108 postponing the raising of the school-leaving age. My predecessor was compelled, owing to the existence of those shortages, to make such an order, and he did so, I think, last August. The present position is that the school-leaving age will be raised to 15 on 1st April, 1947,

  1303
  unless, in the meantime, another order is made advancing the date.
  The Committee may well ask what my intentions are in this respect. Is it my intention to let the order run until that date which now seems to be so far ahead, or is there any real prospect of anticipating that date? I cannot, in honesty, at the present time, give any answer to that question. The position is so very uncertain, that I shall be better able to consider this whole question when I have had replies to Circular 48 which was issued by my Department to local education authorities a week or two ago. The Committee are probably aware that Circular 48 outlined the urgent building needs which would be required, not to implement the whole Act, but to implement the immediate steps that have to be taken, and asked for replies from the local authorities outlining what their building programmes would be to meet these urgent needs. Until I have seen those replies, any forecast I could offer now would be no better than a speculation, and a speculation of the purest and most frivolous character. All that I can say is that I am determined to push on with this reform to the fullest extent in my power. It is not that the raising of the school-leaving age is the only important reform which is contemplated by the Bill, but I think it is fair to say that it has become the symbol, as it were, of the seriousness of our intention in the field of educational reform. I can assure the Committee that my Department and I will do everything we can to push ahead with it. The only limiting factor is facts, some of the facts of a harsh and disagreeable character, and nearly all of them, as I think the Committee will realise, outside the control of my Department.
  Let us look at the facts. The first fact is that the raising of the school-leaving age, it is estimated, means an addition of 390,000 to the school population. That figure, when it is set against the total school population, may not seem to be very formidable, but when we convert 390,000 school children into terms of teachers and of buildings, we see that it is, after all, a pretty formidable figure. An additional 390,000 school children means 13,000 additional trained teachers, and I am quite sure the Committee will understand that we cannot conjure 13,000 trained teachers out of the impalpable
  1304
  air. But that is not the whole problem. It is not even the greater part of the problem. It is, in fact, the smallest part of the problem.
  Leaving aside altogether the whole question of the raising of the school-leaving age, can we say that the numerical position of the teaching profession is in any way satisfactory? Unfortunately, we can only say that it is not satisfactory. During the war great gaps have been made in the teaching profession by the call-up to His Majesty Forces. At the same time the intake into the schools has been nothing like the normal. In the past few years, to fill these gaps, we have had to rely upon married women returning to the teaching profession and upon teachers who had already retired or who were on the point of retiring. It is a fact to-day that about a quarter of the whole teaching profession has been drawn from those two sources: married women who have come back, or retired or retiring teachers. It is also a fact that whereas before the war the percentage of men in the teaching profession was about 30 per cent., the percentage of men to-day has dropped to about 20 per cent. These married women and retired teachers have performed in these years a most valuable service to the State, and I hope very much that they will feel able to continue that service for as long as they possibly can, and if necessary only on a part time basis. But it is quite clear that we cannot rely upon their services indefinitely. We have got to find somebody to take their places, and the estimate we have made of our needs in that respect is another 25,000 teachers. That is over and above any who may be returning to us from the Forces.
  There is another great demand for teachers which arises from the necessity to reduce the size of classes. I dare say the Committee are aware of what the immediate pre-war position was in that respect, but it may be worth while to remind the Committee, because it was pretty bad. Of 145,000 classes in what were then called the public elementary schools, 98,000 had more than 30 children in them, and 44,000 had more than 40 children in them. If we are to reach even our first target, which is that no class of seniors should have more than 30 and no class of juniors more than 40, we have got to find somewhere 20,000 additional teachers.

  1305
  All in all, it is a pretty big bill that we are putting in. For the raising of the school-leaving age, 13,000 teachers, plus 25,000 to make up for wastage during the war, plus 20,000 for reducing the size of classes; that is an over-all total of about 60,000;and even that takes no account of nursery schools, county colleges or the expansion of further education in general. Altogether, we can say that we shall require an additional intake of round about 70,000 spread over the next few years, and this intake is additional to the normal annual output of teachers which is needed to make good the normal annual wastage. If the Committee consider those figures, they will agree with me that the problem with which we are faced in regard to teachers is a. pretty formidable one.
  What are we doing to meet this very formidable problem? The first question I ask myself, and possibly the same question has occurred to other hon. Members, is whether the teaching profession is sufficiently attractive to induce the right kind and the right number of recruits to come into it. I think that to-day on balance the profession is sufficiently attractive. I do not suppose that salary is the first consideration which moves a man or woman when he or she goes into the teaching profession. I suppose that teaching is a vocation rather than a career, and I suppose that most people go into it because they feel that there is a worthwhile job to be done there. For my part, I have no patience at all with the shallow view which one sometimes hears that teachers must have an easy life because the school holidays are so long. I think that teaching makes great demands upon people. Any calling that requires above all sympathy and patience does make the most exacting demands, and I have no doubt that the teaching profession is an extremely exacting profession, but I think we have to do everything we can to make it in a material sense as attractive as possible. The life of the teacher is never going to be a luxurious one, but we must do what we can to improve the material conditions, and I believe the new Burnham scales are a very great improvement upon the old and offer a reasonable prospect to anyone who is considering embarking upon the adventure—for that is what it is—of school-teaching.
  There is another question in my mind and also, no doubt, in the minds of many
  1306
  Members. What are we doing to induce members of the Armed Forces, men and women, to take up this profession. I think it is important from two points of view that they should take up the vocation of teaching. First, they have been serving their country for some years past, and I feel fairly sure that many of them will desire an opportunity to continue that service. Secondly, just as we, in our whole scheme of educational reform, are trying to bring into education the maximum of diversity, so I think it important that we should try, as far as we can, to diversify the elements which go to make up the teaching profession and, so far as I know, that would be the view of the profession itself. What have we done in this field, and what are we contemplating? Up to now, obviously, it has not been possible to do very much to attract teachers from the Forces, and we have had to confine our lures to those who have been invalided out of the Forces, and certain other special categories in the national war effort. I believe we have had about 9,000 potential recruits from these limited categories, and I should think that, of these, we should be able to procure as teachers between 2,500 and 3,000.
  Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Do I understand that the 9,000 are people who have been invalided out and are at home?
  Mr. Law: That is my understanding—people who have been invalided out, and certain other special categories of people engaged in the national war effort. What are we doing now about getting people from the Armed Forces? I do not feel that any system of high-pressure salesmanship is called for, or is desirable. It may be too much to suppose that to every member of the teaching profession teaching is a genuine vocation, but I think we might expect that it should be, as far as possible, a genuine inclination. Therefore it is not our purpose to try, in a commercial sense to "sell" teaching to members of the Armed Forces. But we have prepared a leaflet which sets out the facts of the teacher's life; the proofs have come to hand and it is a sufficiently attractive leaflet. We are also preparing a film to be shown to members of the Forces. There is no need for any member of the Forces to feel that he is going to be too late to apply for training as a

  1307
  school teacher, and the emergency training scheme will continue for just as long as there are releases from the Forces. Here, perhaps, I should say a word about the present arrangements about releases. Substantial numbers of teachers are included in Class B for early release. That will make no difference to the net deficit of teachers. But it will be of considerable assistance to us.
  Recruits are beginning to come already, and I have no doubt that, as time passes, they will be coming in in even greater numbers. What about the training of these recruits? It is no use just having people with an inclination to teach. They must have some training as well. The present position is that three emergency colleges have already been started, and others will be started as soon as we can secure the buildings for them. In addition, it is our intention to increase the output of the permanent training colleges. It is easier to expand a permanent institution than to create a new one. But the intake into these training colleges will mainly be direct from the schools. It is clear that, in general, for the moment we must be limited in our choice of school teachers among young men, and therefore we are taking steps to increase the intake of young women, starting right from those who are leaving school this summer. In addition we are urging local education authorities to start on a purely temporary basis, and I hope only for a term of two, special classes, school practices and so on, without even waiting for the temporary buildings, which I hope they will soon be able to provide. It is too early yet to say what the full response to this appeal will be, but so far the reception has been extremely encouraging, and I am sure we can look forward to the fullest co-operation from the local education authorities.
  It is necessary, as a primary condition of any extension of training facilities, that there should be an over-all revision of the system of grants for the training of teachers, and that revision is being undertaken now. There are two reasons why we want to revise the system. First, we wish to ensure that no young man or woman will be debarred from having training as a teacher purely through lack of means. The second thing that we want to ensure is that the cost of training
  1308
  teachers will be better distributed than it has been before as between one local authority and another.
  I have indicated that the supply of teachers is not the only problem that faces us. There is another, which is also extremely serious—the supply of buildings. In thinking of building programmes in relation to schools, we do not even start from scratch in the race. Quite apart from any question of raising the school-leaving age, or of reducing the size of classes, or reorganisation in general, there is at this moment a very great deficiency in school buildings. I do not know how many school places have been lost through enemy action, but I would guess that the figure is somewhere between 150,000 and 200,000. In addition, the urgent needs of the Armed Forces, of the Civil Defence force, of the evacuation schemes, and so on, has meant during the war that there has been the most wholesale requisitioning of school and college premises. We have to get these premises back, and I am glad to be able to tell the Committee that we are making real progress in getting them back. The Government have given the release of school buildings generally the same priority as small dwelling-houses, and, in instances of real importance and where no other solution can be found, permission may be given for new buildings to accommodate the services that are at present accommodated in school buildings. Target dates have been fixed for the return of almost all the training colleges. I think I am right in saying that, in general, the return of the latest should be by 1st September. We expect also to recover all premises in areas where the evacuation arrangements no longer apply. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, who is far and away the biggest cuckoo in my nest, is doing everything he can to help us by getting out of our nest. He has undertaken a full survey of all the accommodation used by the War Department, with a view to release at the earliest possible moment, and I believe that he will make a statement on it very shortly; it may be to-morrow. We are in touch with all the other Departments concerned, and I can assure the Committee that our combined efforts will shortly reduce this problem to a small size. We are determined to press on with the de-requisitioning of school buildings until the problem has disappeared altogether.

  1309
  Perhaps I ought to say a word about bomb damage, and the general expansion of our educational building programme. The Committee will realise that it would hardly have been possible to find a worse moment for expanding school buildings in any sphere. There are great shortages of labour and material; there are the urgent demands of housing; and we have to recognise plainly that the building situation must be, for the time being, the condition of our educational advance. Nevertheless, the late Government did give school buildings such a measure of priority as could reasonably be hoped for in the straitened conditions of the time. We can only do our best and see that we make the fullest possible use of that priority, but I must warn the Committee that we cannot look forward, at the present time, to very much being done in permanent building, in the educational field. We will have to rely, for the time being, upon temporary buildings which can be erected very quickly with the minimum of skilled labour. I think there is nothing very depressing about that. After all, our first objective is to get ahead as quickly as we can and by any means at our disposal with the restoration of our whole educational fabric, and with the raising of the school-leaving age to 15. These are the first and important things to which we have to turn our hands and attention. I ought perhaps to explain that what I have been saying about temporary building is altogether outside the main scheme of reorganisation, and of the building which will be required to make the organisation effective. It is a purely temporary expedient. We have already issued to local authorities the Building Regulations to which they must conform in their permanent building schemes.
  I have been dealing for some time with the material limitations upon our activities. I would like to mention in passing, lest the Committee think that material considerations are occupying the whole of our attention—unfortunately, they do loom very large, and, of necessity, have to occupy a great deal of our attention—that the Ministry have recently issued a pamphlet, which I think is a very good pamphlet, on the objectives of our educational system. The pamphlet is the first of a series which is to be issued and is now available. It is called "The Nation's Schools: Their Plan and Purpose."
  1310
  For most of my speech I have been wrapped up in a material envelope. I have been confined by the strict limitations which are placed upon our actions by material considerations, but for the moment I have escaped from that envelope of crude matter, and I intend, if I can, to make good my escape and to direct the attention of the Committee to another field. That is the important field of secondary education. I think that perhaps the most important thing about the Education Act of 1944 was its new approach to the subject of secondary education. Until the passage of that Act, what we had been thinking about too much in relation to education for the people as a whole, was literacy as against illiteracy. The general line of thought has been that, for the great mass of the people, literacy was the best that you could do, and that secondary education was a pasture that was strictly reserved for the favoured few to browse in. All that kind of thinking has been swept away by the Education Act, and we are now thinking of education, not as literacy for the masses and secondary education for a favoured few, but of education in general for the many, and secondary education in particular as being one part of a stage in a continuing process in which everybody will be able to participate according to his abilities and aptitude.
  At the beginning of my speech I said that the Education Act of 1944 was now legally in operation, and I rather stressed those words. I stressed them for the reason that there is a gap, and we have to recognise it, between legality and reality. There is a gap between Act and fact. For example, as a result of the Education Act a great many children will receive their education at modern schools. There is therefore an urgent need, which has not yet been met, for the completion of reorganisation and for the improvement of staffing standards and of buildings.
  There is a gulf between what the Act lays down, and the existing position. All I can say now, is that we are determined that that gulf shall be bridged. Of all the media of secondary education, I suppose the grammar school is the best known in this country and most familiar to the minds of our people. For that reason there is great competition to enter these schools. The Committee is aware that in the Education Act two governing

  1311
  principles for secondary education were laid down. The first principle was that secondary education should be suitable, and suitably varied for the needs of pupils in every area; the second principle was that secondary education should be fully accessible to all qualified pupils, irrespective of the income of their parents. So far as maintained schools are concerned, those two governing principles have been, I think, fully met. Under Section II of the Act local education authorities are bound to submit development plans making adequate provision for secondary education in their areas, and under Section 61 maintained schools are forbidden to charge fees; so that so far as maintained schools are concerned, there is no difficulty at all.
  Now we come to direct grant schools. Even here I think there is very little real difficulty. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service gave an undertaking, I think on the Second Reading of the Bill, that direct grant schools should make a suitable contribution to local provision and that they should continue to be accessible. Part IV of the Primary and Secondary School Regulations, I think, fulfils completely the undertaking which was given by my right hon. Friend. Part IV of these Regulations says, first, that a direct grant school must give 25 per cent. of its annual intake, without fees, to qualified pupils from grant-aided primary schools. The second thing is that if the local education authority desires further places, the governors of the schools must put at their disposal another 25 per cent. of the annual intake, which I think are called reserved places. In addition to that, if both parties are agreeable, the governors can make available further reserved places to the local education authority. That leaves a percentage, which will vary between 50 per cent. and something less, of places for fee-paying pupils.
  Even here the test of merit is still maintained because it is laid down in the Regulations that any parent of one of the fee-paying pupils can apply for a total or partial remission of fees in accordance with an approved scale of income. So I do not think there is any difficulty so far as direct grant schools as such are concerned. But there is some difficulty about schools which, until now, have
  1312
  been on the direct grant list and are now seeking their independence, because they regard the limitations which I have just described as being irksome and onerous. These schools, I think, are few in number, and most of them are governed by schemes under the Charitable Trusts Acts.
  Mr. Cave:Does the right hon. Gentleman know how many have actually claimed independence up to now?
  Mr. Law: No, I cannot answer that. The only cases which have actually come to my notice are between half-a-dozen and a dozen. As I say, I think these schools will be found to be few in number, and most of them come under schemes under the Charitable Trusts Acts. As the Committee knows, the Minister of Education has some responsibility for these schools under the Charitable Trusts Acts, and therefore the Committee would probably like to know my own attitude towards this problem. I can understand the attitude of the governors of these schools which are now seeking their independence. They have hitherto enjoyed a wide measure of discretion in the admission of pupils, and I recognise that, generally, they have exercised this discretion wisely, as is shown by the high reputation which the schools enjoy. They fear now that the need for regulating admissions in the manner which I have described, may alter the whole character of their schools. But while I can understand this point of view, I am bound in the exercise of my functions in relation to educational charities, to pay due regard to the interests of the beneficiaries under the trusts. As a matter of policy I must see to it that nothing is done which is inimical to the best interests of the education of the boys and girls of this country. Where, therefore, charitable trusts are involved, any increase of fees such as would be occasioned by relinquishment of a grant from my Ministry will require my approval, and I can assure the Committee that before approving any considerable increase of fees I shall take steps to secure that the interests of poor scholars and those with special residential qualifications are adequately safeguarded.
  Perhaps I ought to say a word about the Fleming Committee's Report.
  Mr. Ede: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, will he deal with the position which will

  1313
  arise with regard to those parents who can afford to pay the existing fee, but who will be debarred from the school if it becomes independent and the fee is raised? Does he include those among the poor scholars? For instance, I know of a school which proposes to increase its fee from £30 to £51. Some people might not call a scholar whose parents can afford to pay £30 a "poor scholar," but the parents may be too poor to pay £51, and the child in consequence may be debarred.
  Mr. Law: The right hon. Gentleman will understand that I have not yet had a full opportunity to consider in all their details the cases of the schools which we have been discussing. I have given an assurance that I shall scrutinize any proposals that are made to me by these schools, and that is all I can say now, and all the right hon. Gentleman can reasonably expect me to say now.
  Mr. Ede: Surely the right hon. Gentleman would agree that even when the schools become independent under the schemes they still have to come to him to fix the maximum fee?
  Mr. Law: Yes, I do not dispute that for a moment; all I am saying is that until now, I have not had an opportunity of examining these schemes in detail. I have already given an assurance that I shall personally scrutinise these schemes in detail.
  Mr. Cove:I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman again, but this is an extremely important point. If an independent school is to be subject to scrutiny, so far as fees are concerned, are we to take it definitely that in the easy of such a school as my right hon. Friend has just mentioned, the Minister can turn down a fee of £51 a year? Can we have that point made clear?
  Mr. Law: I do not think there will be much chance of the hon. Member getting anything very definite, so long as I am not allowed to finish a sentence. If the hon. Member will allow me, I will try again to make the position clear. I have not, myself, had an opportunity of examining these proposals in detail. I have already given the Committee an assurance that I will scrutinise the proposals very carefully, especially with a view to securing the interest of the poorer
  1314
  scholars. The point which the hon. Member has raised and which was raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, clearly has a bearing upon what I have already said, and I will tell the right hon. Gentleman now that I will certainly bear the point very closely in mind when I come to look at this scheme.
  Mr. Cove:I am sorry, but does what the Minister has said merely cover pupils who are now in the schools, or will it cover those who will go into the schools after the schools become independent? How can they be independent, if the Government can determine the fees that are paid?
  Professor Gruffydd:Is it not correct to say that the Minister is speaking simply of independent schools under a charitable scheme, and that in those cases the Government have authority in the matter?
  Mr. Law: Yes, I have been speaking all the time about schools which are governed under charitable trusts and that is the only reason, so far as I know, why I would have any influence or authority over such schools.
  I should say a word about the Fleming Committee, and their recommendation that there should be a closer relationship between the public boarding-schools and the general system of national education. The Fleming Committee was unanimous in the view that State bursaries should be made available to qualified children from the grant-aided schools. The governing bodies of the public schools, and the headmasters and headmistresses, met my predecessor some time ago, and assured him that they would be very glad to discuss further the details of the Fleming proposals under this head. Since then, officers of my Department and the negotiating committee from the public schools have been discussing this problem together. I have great hopes of receiving from this joint body of the Ministry of Education and the negotiating committee from the public schools an agreed report at the end of the month.
  I am afraid that I have already detained the Committee, by speaking at some length, but I should say one word about further education, which is a most important part of our educational reform. I cannot take much time over this, but I would like to draw the attention of the

  1315
  Committee to three points which seem to be of especial urgency. The first is that we must make facilities for the technical training of ex-Servicemen and women. Also, the great experiment of A.B.C.A. in the Army, and similar facilities in the other Services during the war have proved their worth; we must do what we can to continue education along those lines. The second point is the importance of training for the building industry. The third point is the whole question of part-time day releases, as they are called. I can assure the Committee that I am fully aware of the importance of those three points in particular, and that my Department are fully alive to the importance of further education generally.
  At the beginning of my speech I said I would confine myself to three or four of what seemed to me the most urgent problems with which we are faced. The fact that I have done so and dealt with three or four big points does not mean that either my Department or I lack interest in the great number of other points, in which I have no doubt Members of the Committee are deeply interested. It is only that time is limited. The points with which I have been dealing have all been fairly complicated and I am afraid that I have taken excessive time in making them clear, but I assure the Committee that if I do not deal with the other points, it is not because I lack interest in them. The Committee may feel that I have stressed the difficulties with which we shall be faced in present circumstances in making effective the Education Act. I have certainly devoted a great deal of my time to an explanation of those difficulties but I have done so for one reason only, that I believe it is only if we understand those difficulties fully that we shall have any chance of mastering them—and we are determined to master them.
  Miss Rathbone: Would the Minister say just one word about a point which is causing some mystification amongst teachers, in relation to release from the Armed Forces? We were told repeatedly by the Minister of Labour that there would be no general priority for teachers, and either the Minister of Labour or the right hon. Gentleman himself said a little while ago that teachers would not be released from
  1316
  the Forces en bloc, but that there would be an examination of individual cases by the appropriate authorities. Does that mean that schools who want to have a particular man back can apply for him? What is the procedure?
  Mr. Law: I do not think I can be more precise. The position at the moment is that school teachers will be included in Class B, and a substantial number—
  Mr. Lindsay: Can the Minister say what "substantial" means?
  Mr. Law: My hon. Friend asks me what I mean by "substantial." I really cannot give him any definite figure, but I am satisfied that "substantial" does mean what it says, and that there will be a sufficient number of teachers released in the reasonably near future to give us a good deal of help; but, as I have already said, they will not be a net addition to our teaching force. As I was saying a few minutes ago, I stressed the need of understanding our difficulties and overcoming them. There is no short cut to making the Education Act, 1944, an effective reality; the only way is by determination and will on the part of individuals who are interested, whether in the Ministry of Education, in the House of Commons, among the local education authorities, or in the wide world of education outside. I can assure the Committee that the Ministry are doing and will do for the next few years everything they can to make this great Act of Parliament into an equally impressive fact of our national life.
  3.30 p.m.
  Mr. Creech Jones: I am sure the Committee will wish my right hon. Friend well in his position as caretaker of the Ministry of Education in this House, but on this side of the Committee we rather hope that his sojourn there will not be very long. He himself was somewhat apologetic about the very short period in which he had had to acquaint himself with some of the problems of the Ministry, and I feel somewhat diffident in addressing the Committee in the presence of the ex-Parliamentary Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), because of his very considerable contribution to the making of the last Act and also his wide knowledge and experience in the field of education. But we on this side of the Committee felt that

  1317
  in the last week of this Parliament, it was desirable to direct the attention of Parliament and the nation to this service which is so vitally important in the working of a democracy. After all, the Education Act was, I suppose, the largest reconstruction Measure for the post-war world which the present Parliament enacted. The success of that Act will depend very largely on the initial steps which are taken to set it along the road and the manner in which it is to be implemented. I confess that I was not too much impressed by the pronouncement of the Prime Minister in the Press yesterday in regard to the policy of the Minister's party in the field of education. He said:
  "Our object"—
  that is, the object of this new creation, the National Party—I suppose it refers to the Conservative Party—
  "is to provide education which will not produce a standardised or utility child useful only as a cog in a nationalised and bureaucratic machine, but will enable the child to develop his or her responsible place first in the world of school and then as a citizen."
  That, of course, is just the political claptrap of the Prime Minister, because there is no party which conceives of any world in the terms described by the Prime Minister. The statement goes on:
  "Many parents will be able to choose the school they like and to play their part with the educational authorities in the physical and spiritual well-being of their children."
  That sentence reveals a policy calculated to give a twist to the operation of the Education Act which will lead to discrimination between parents who can afford to buy education for their children and those who cannot.
  The Minister has introduced Estimates which reveal a very considerable activity on the part of the Ministry since the passing of the Act, and I, on behalf of the Labour Party, desire to express our appreciation of the manner in which the two Ministers concerned before the break-up of the previous Government and the Ministry itself have applied themselves to the implementing of the new Act. The pace at which circulars have been issued from the Ministry indicates their very serious intent in regard to laying a firm foundation for the Act which they are beginning to work. Those circulars, concerned with the re-organisation of the education
  1318
  authorities, the building regulations, the supplementing of free secondary education and the re-organisation of the local schools all indicate a determination on the part of those at the Ministry to give effect to the Act.
  Of course, we were considerably disappointed that the Minister, in the light of all the circumstances, was obliged to postpone the raising of the school-leaving age. The nation accepted his verdict as inevitable, but the nation and those interested in educational advancement are not inclined to wait too long. I wish to saw a word in regard to the building programme.
  It is true that the local education authorities have been asked to produce their schemes and are busily engaged on that work, and also that the Ministry, by its most recent circular, has given them an indication of the mind of the Government that there must be a speeding-up in the building arrangements in order to prepare for raising the school-leaving age at an early date. I confess however that in reading the Circular, it struck me as being a little doleful. It tended, perhaps, to accept the difficulties of the situation in rather too complacent a way, and what I wish to know is whether the Minister has staked the claim of education for the labour and building materials which will be required for the extension and readaptation of buildings, and whether, from his short experience, he can say if education authorities themselves are yet seized of the vital importance of improvisation or the use of prefabricated buildings in this interim period before permanent buildings can house the children in the manner the Ministry have laid down in their earlier circular. One hopes that the greatest drive will be shown by the Ministry and local authorities and that a definite claim will be staked out for building materials and labour because of their consciousness that this is a priority as urgent, or almost as urgent, as housing itself.
  In regard to the raising of the school-leaving age and the supply of teachers, I am not very clear what progress has so far been achieved in regard to securing men and women from the Forces or elsewhere who are prepared to undergo emergency training. How many students have been accepted and how many have already begun their courses? Or is it that

  1319
  the scheme is still in its infancy and that these details cannot yet be ascertained? What progress has been made, apart from the three emergency colleges brought into operation, in getting other colleges set up and properly staffed and working? The Minister said he hoped that those training colleges which had been requisitioned by the Services would be de-requisitioned by 1st September. I hope he will insist that they are de-requisitioned in time for proper opening at the beginning of the autumn term and that the Services will not be able to retain them any longer. One point to which the Minister did not refer was the steps which the Ministry are taking to encourage the training colleges and the university departments to arrange for an increased outflow of students in readiness for the secondary school expansion and the raising of the age on the senior side. I should like to have that information, because these two basic matters of building and the supply of teachers will determine at what date the raising of the school-leaving age shall operate, and it would be unfortunate if the country were disappointed later and told, at the expiration of another year from the earlier date, that the school-leaving age still could not be raised.
  Then the Minister referred to the private schools, and said the Section of the Act concerned with them cannot come into operation until more inspectors can be found. I hope there will not be serious delay in tackling this problem. The report of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields goes back now quite a long time. The Government have been inactive, and it is about time that the urgency of this matter was recognised and the Ministry decided that it can brook no further delay.
  I would also refer to the brief comment of the Minister upon further education. I am greatly interested in adult education, and I appreciate that the Minister has felt that it was not quite wise at this stage to press the local education authorities for their schemes, but during the war there have been many interesting experiments in adult education. New agencies have been created, a considerable amount of new work has been done among men and women who previously had not made use of this facility, and it would be a thousand pities if that work could not be carried forward from the war years into
  1320
  peace. Therefore, I hope that at an early date the Minister will prepare his plans for new opportunities in the field of adult education. I hope, too, that in these regulations and arrangements the position of those voluntary bodies which have done such a lot of pioneer work will be properly recognised.
  I desire also to welcome the activities of the Ministry during the past few months in quite a number of fields which are just as vital in the education of a child as actual teaching in the school room. I am glad to see that some energy has been shown in expanding the school meals and milk service. The Ministry have directed the attention of the authorities to proper dental treatment, to the improvement of medical facilities and arrangements for inspection. New provision has been made for the maladjusted child, for those suffering from speech defects, for blind and epileptic children, and regard has been paid to the grouping of such children, in respect not only of their age but of their aptitude and ability. I welcome, too, the directions which have gone out in regard to nursery schools, and the regular inspection of foster homes in which many unfortunate children are obliged to live; also the maintenance grants which have now become payable to those promising young people who may now go, with some public support, to technical and art colleges, and with more support, to the universities.
  I would next refer to the pamphlet recently published by the Ministry and mentioned by the Minister. I do not want to criticise it—"The Times Educational Supplement" made a most exacting criticism of it and passed some very strong strictures. It was important that public attention should be directed to what this pamphlet had to say. It struck a note which betrays some danger in regard to securing a proper balance in our secondary school system. In paragraph 47, the pamphlet tended to acquiesce in the reduction of accommodation in secondary schools of the grammar-school type. One appreciates the importance of building up the modern and the technical schools, and getting a proper balance between those three types of secondary work, but in view of the recent policy of certain highly selective grammar schools, to try to pass out of the local education arrangements, to become independent or possibly direct-grant schools, and in view

  1321
  of the excellent financial provision which is now being made for that type of school of different status, it is important that we should preserve, and even develop, the amount of accommodation available in the secondary course of the grammar-school type. Otherwise we shall find that our professional classes will come mainly from the grammar-school type, and these schools recruited from a particular stratum of society. This would be a tendency that is not wholesome, certainly not healthy, for our public life generally.
  The Minister made reference to the problem of the direct grant school. I wish to ask several questions in regard to these schools. They receive a capitation grant for all pupils between the ages of 10 and 19 years. They are, therefore, able to recruit their pupils at least a year earlier than is the case with the maintained schools, and they get a capitation grant in respect of children below the normal age of admission to the maintained secondary school. The Act defines secondary education in Section 8 as full time education for senior pupils, and senior pupils are defined in Section 114 as pupils between the ages of 12 and 19. I would like it to be made clear why the Ministry pays the grant to pupils of primary school age, while in respect to the direct grant schools, this lower age is accepted in regard to the capitation grant. Further, not only is this the practice now, but the amount of the capitation grant for those schools has been substantially increased, and I believe is greater than in the case of the ordinary secondary school. Deliberate encouragement also seems to be given to the direct grant schools, in respect of the payment of better salaries, certainly to the maintenance of standards which the Board regard as "adequate and reasonable," and this puts them in a position preferable to that of the ordinary secondary schools. The net effect of these arrangements is to encourage some of the maintained schools to alter their status, and if possible to become independent schools, or alternatively, for schools which do not enjoy this status, but which belong to some old foundation, to apply for the status of direct grant schools. The situation is further obscured because it is not—
  Mr. Lipson: Is it not the case that if the direct grant school
  1322
  becomes an independent school, it does not get a grant at all?
  Mr. Creech Jones: I take it the Minister has to approve the fees to be charged if it is a charitable foundation.
  Mr. Law: If it becomes independent, it does not get any financial assistance. It is only if it is governed by the Charitable Trusts Acts that I have some responsibility for it. I have some responsibility for the operation of those Acts so far as education is concerned.
  Sir Richard Wells:If a direct grant school became independent, it would be subject to a tapering grant for three years. The grant in the first year would be £12 instead of £16, which is the full amount; the second year, £8, and the third year £4. After that there would be no grant at all.
  Mr. Ede: Will there be provision to include the paying back of money previously obtained by saying that the school is in a bad way?
  Mr Cove: Like Dulwich.
  Mr. Ede: And Bedford.
  Sir R. Wells: No.
  Mr. Creech Jones: It was suggested by the Fleming Committee that, when consideration was given to an application for transfer to a direct grant basis, the Board should have regard to the financial position of the school, and non-local and other special characteristics of the school, the value and extent of the contribution which the school could make to the national, provision for secondary education, including the education of pupils from grant aided primary schools, and finally, to the observations of the local education authority. What criteria are the Ministry going to apply in regard to the schools which wish to assume direct grant status? Will the recommendation of the Fleming Committee operate in such cases, and will due regard be given to the needs of the locality, and to whether proper local arrangements already exist, before such status is conceded? The question arises in a city like Birmingham, where, I gather, seven schools of a single foundation hitherto maintained by the local education authority have now applied for direct grant status. What will be the position of the schools, which have hitherto made considerable provision in the normal

  1323
  way for secondary school education amongst the ordinary boys and girls of Birmingham? Will this affect the admission of ordinary children from the primary schools to these schools in the future? Of course, the local education authority will see considerable financial advantage in removing part of the financial burden from themselves on to the governors, but it seems that it will impose a limitation on the number of ordinary boys who can go into these schools if these seven schools are given direct grant status.
  Again, what is the policy of the Ministry in regard to the application to the Harpur Trust in Bedford in regard to their secondary schools in Bedfordshire? There, the Grammar School and the Girls' High School wish to have independent status, and the two other secondary schools wish to have the status of direct grant schools. But in any case, the fees in all the four schools are to be raised, and it would be interesting to know what, in such circumstances, the Ministry are going to do about it. If these four schools are to be taken away from the normal status and two of them are transferred to independent status, and two to direct grant status, what provision is likely to be made in Bedford for ordinary secondary schools for the children whose parents are not able to buy places?
  Sir R. Wells: All four of them are, and have been for some time, direct grant schools.
  Mr. Creech Jones: According to my information, when the application was made, two of them wished to pass to independent school status, and I gather that two of them are ordinary maintained secondary schools, with a charitable foundation which now desire to become direct grant schools.
  Sir R. Wells: No, all four were direct grant schools previously.
  Mr. Creech Jones: I am obliged for that information, but the point remains about the application for a change of status to independent status made by two of the schools. My desire is that the Minister should take a fairly strong line against increasing the number of direct grant schools. Indeed, I think that they should be greatly diminished.
  1324
  Another point I want to put is, What standards are to operate in regard to the admission of the boys from the ordinary schools to the governors' places in the direct-grant schools? The Minister, in reply to a question the other day, said that regard would be had to the school records of the boys, the possibility of how long they could stay and enjoy secondary education—which would depend on the contracts which the parents were prepared to enter into—and also the educational qualifications of the boys. To judge from recent statements of some headmasters, it would appear that there is a very real dislike of the dilution of certain types of secondary schools by boys from the ordinary school system. They would, I think, tend to apply very curious tests for the admission of such boys into their schools. I press the point that the placing of such boys should depend entirely on the capacity of the boys to profit from the education offered, and that the capacity of the parents to pay fees should not be a consideration. If such a tendency in education is encouraged, we shall, instead of getting that common social equality in education which is indispensable for a healthy society, continue discrimination between the privileged few, whose parents are able to buy education, and those whose parents have not the means. I conclude by welcoming the very active work of the Ministry in the past months; I hope that the tendency which I have indicated will not be pursued, but that the hopes raised by the Education Act of last year will be fulfilled.
  4.3 p.m.
  Sir Malcolm Robertson: Ineed not say that in the presence of experts, I speak with the greatest diffidence. I think the main difficulties confronting us in the next year or two will be the shortage of buildings and the shortage of teachers. I propose to address myself to the shortage of teachers only and to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, and to the Members of this Committee, who know far more about the question of recruitment than I possibly could. If the prospect were held out to the young men and women of this country, and notably to the members of our Forces, not only of serving as teachers under local authorities—good though those local authorities may be, and I am not criticising them—for the rest of their teaching lives, but

  1325
  of being given a chance to serve throughout the world, I believe there would be no difficulty about recruitment. I admit that we in this country shall need every teacher that we can recruit. But suppose that we put the figure of teachers required at about 70,000;I suggest that, if we threw the world open to them, we could recruit fully 100,000. I know a little of what I am talking about. We are a very modest people; I do not think that even yet we realise how the world is clamouring for a greater knowledge of us and of our character.
  I am speaking as chairman of the British Council. We require British teachers the world over and we cannot get enough. I suggest that if, instead of these young men and women looking forward to a life of teaching under their own local authorities, they were given a chance of serving abroad, anywhere in the Empire or in foreign countries, we should be able to attract a class of recruits, possibly such as we have never had yet. We all know young men and women eager to get on, eager to get experience. Here in this great profession, which to my mind is one of the noblest of professions, is their chance. I do not want them to spend the rest of their lives in China or Paraguay or Spain, or anywhere else. I would like them to go for three or four years to a given country, or perhaps for two years in one country and then two years in another country, and then to come home and refresh themselves at the fountainhead. The benefit to our young people would be incalculable.
  The British Council have recently had the most interesting experience in the North of England. We ran holiday courses for young people between 15 and 18. They come there voluntarily. These young people would find on Monday morning, say, a Norwegian to tell them about Norway. He would talk for three-quarters of an hour, and then show films. On Monday afternoon there would be, perhaps, a Yugoslav; on Tuesday morning a Chinese, and so on. These voluntary courses were attended by hundreds of boys and girls. The questions asked were most interesting and inspiring. They wanted to know all about those foreign countries. Surely if in our own schools we had a body of teachers who could tell the young folk, from their actual experience, what the Chinese look like and how they live, those
  1326
  young folk would take a much greater interest. Let us have teachers who can tell them of the geography of other countries and the story and the personalities of other peoples. I have nothing more to say, except to make a strong appeal on this question of enabling our teachers to go abroad without forfeiting their pension rights or their status. That, I believe, is the way to recruit young men and women of good standing, who would be not only a credit to their profession, but of great and abiding use to their country, and, indeed, to the peace of the world.
  4.11 p.m.
  Mr. Seaborne Davies: I am very happy to address the Committee for the first time on the subject of education. There are two main reasons for that. First, education was a subject which was of very great interest to my illustrious predecessor in the representation of Caernarvon Boroughs. He had many achievements of which he could be proud, but I well remember how on many occasions he used to refer with great pleasure to his association with the late Sir H. A. L. Fisher, and the breath of fresh air which entered into our educational system through the efforts of that great man. There was a janitor in the college to which I first went, who used to delight the students very much by saying that the trouble with education was that it was not left to people like himself, who had been in it all his life. I can say that, apart from these war years, I have been in it all my life, and I am glad to think that my first intervention—and I hope not my last—in the Debates of this Assembly is on the subject of education. I am told that a maiden speech must be brief and modest; and perhaps the Committee will be glad, at a quarter past four, to have a brief speech.
  I want to press the Minister to tell us more about the relation of the education programme to the general programme of building in this country. It is a question which is exercising the minds of authorities everywhere. The right hon. Gentleman will know that if the statutory regulations which his Department have laid down are to be observed, something like 70 to 80 per cent. of the schools in this country must be modernised. It is obvious, from what we heard last Thursday, that there is to be a ques-

  1327
  tion of priority as between housing and education, but we hope that the claims of education will not be forgotten in the general clamour for housing. There is a duty upon the Ministry of Education in this matter, because the conservatism of the Board, as it then was before the war, is partly responsible for the bad state of things at present.
  I can illustrate that from my own county of Caernarvon. We wanted to build a school at Portmadoc which would accommodate 350 children. We were looking forward—not too far forward—but, owing to the conservatism then ruling, we had to build a school for 170. It has never been occupied, because the military went in, and now, before it can be used at all for its real purpose, there will have to be a large measure of reconstruction or addition to it. We are pressing for a more definite statement about the priority which is to be given to school buildings in the general building programme of the country.
  I might, while we are on the relation of housing to education, mention another matter. We are extremely worried about the building trade. We had a Debate last Thursday about recruitment for that trade. In North Wales, we could now have 700 boys entering the building industry, but, owing to the lack of facilities for technical education, there is no means whereby they can come up to the reasonable standard prescribed by the trade unions for apprenticeship. We do press that plans for technical education in the rural and less populated areas should be pressed forward as quickly as possible.
  To-morrow, we are to have a Debate on health, and I want to say one word on that subject in relation to education, from my own personal experience. For many years, I have had the privilege of supervising a large number of students in this country outside the lecture-room, and I have been very fully aware of the dangers to their health involved in the present position in the universities. Particular attention should be paid to this matter in our great Imperial centre, the University of London. There is that scheme of living in Bloomsbury boarding-houses on a "bed and breakfast" arrangement. We all know what young students are, and that, very often, they run to "fish and chips and fruit salad",
  1328
  the money being spent on other attractions. I have had several cases of young students falling into tuberculosis and other diseases because of lack of adequate equipment and facilities in London. I hope the Minister of Education will encourage all our universities, the provincial universities as well as London University, to provide, as quickly as possible, an adequate system of hostels for their students. Those are general remarks on the relation of education to housing and health.
  On the Estimates themselves, there are several points which I would like to raise had I the time. There is one about the education of the Ministry of Education itself to which I must refer. I present to the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Petty Officer Herbert), the item in the Estimates for one half-time librarian to the Ministry of Education. Only he could do full justice to that. It is on a par with some other provisions for libraries which I have seen in Whitehall and which are disgraceful. I hope that that item in the Education Estimates does not suggest that the Ministry itself is not keeping fully up with every development, in other parts of the world, on the subject with which it concerns itself.
  There are one or two general points which I would like to press upon the Minister. We want all the great reforms which are anticipated under the Act, but I want to stress the desire in many parts of the country to reach the standard which we had reached in 1939. Hon. Members for London can speak for themselves, but there are many schools where the standards now prevailing are not really up to the standards that we had before the war. In its Memorandum in 1943, the Ministry said that "providing teachers in sufficient numbers and of adequate quality, was the master-key which would open the whole building." I think I am expressing the view of many hon. Members when I say that we are very concerned whether that key to the building is being furnished and furnished quickly enough. Reference has already been made to administrative Memorandum No. 64. The hon. Lady who represents the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone) pressed the Minister to tell us what, in fact, is meant by this latest statement about release of teachers from the Forces. I have the Memorandum here and I am quite certain

  1329
  that schoolmasters and local education authorities will ask to have explained in concrete terms exactly what it means. They are now planning their staffing for the next session, and it is rather important that education authorities and headmasters should know what is meant by this new scheme for the release of teachers from the Forces. I hope the Minister can say something more definite on that subject.
  Another matter on which I think there is great concern in many parts of the country is not merely the release of teachers in sufficient numbers, but the provision of teachers of adequate quality. We all welcome—and, I particularly do so, who started my own teaching life in the University of London on a very inadequate salary—the increases in teachers' salaries and particularly the recognition of the services of those serving in primary schools. But it will be a very bad thing for the schools and for the teaching profession, if this welcomed development is going to mean a debasement in the quality of the profession. I was up in North Wales this week-end consulting with extremely experienced persons in this matter, and they say that the effect is already apparent. Young men and women who have already made application for entrance to the universities are withdrawing their applications, and are saying, "We are not going to the university; we are going to a training scheme for two years, and we can then get practically the same emoluments as we would get after four years in the university." I could furnish definite figures of that effect being already in operation. That, in turn, is going to affect the higher work of the grammar schools. If children are to leave after the senior school certificate, and not take the higher certificate, then that again will have its effect on the secondary schools. I hope and trust that tins progress in the recognition of the work of all parts of the teaching profession, will not result in a debasement of the quality of the profession as a whole, and that we shall still be able to have a high percentage of the teachers in our schools who are university graduates.
  There is only one more point I want to make. It is that there is considerable fear in many parts of the country on financial grounds about the working of this Act. Indeed, in the Principality, it is
  1330
  very difficult to foresee how this Act is going to work anywhere except in Glamorganshire. The North Wales counties come out of this matter extremely badly. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, when he explained his scheme for helping the poor authorities, in this House on 20th February, ended up by saying:
  "I cannot illustrate clearly to this House the exact effect on each county, each constituency, each town, of this formula."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1945; Vol. 408, c. 707.]
  The right hon. Gentleman was a wise man, because, had he done so, I suspect that he would have left the House a wiser but sadder man. The counties of Caernarvon, Merioneth, and Denbigh are suffering badly under the formula. It is not a fair formula. It is one based on the product of a penny rate and the road mileage figure. I will not burden the Committee with detailed figures, but the position is that those counties will be steadily penalised for their progressive policies in the past. The high percentage of their children in the secondary schools, as compared with the percentage in primary schools, is now working to their disadvantage, and I press the Minister to promise these authorities that he will consider very carefully the inequitable operation of the rate formula which has been adopted for helping the poor authorities.
  Those are all the remarks which I think it is wise for a man making his maiden speech to offer this afternoon. If I might refer again to my illustrious predecessor, I remember being with him on the day when a distinguished Continental politician died—a. man who played a great part in the last war—and I took advantage of the opportunity to draw on the right hon. Gentleman's reminiscences. He was comparing two eminent Continental politicians, the one who had died on that day and another colleague of his, and he said: "A was a marvellous man; he had strong steps like an ostrich, but B had wings." We want a generation in this country which will be strong and will have strong steps for progress like the ostrich; but we do not want them to be ostriches, we want them to have wings. We all wish the Minister and his Department every success in working this great scheme of progress, but we ask him, at the same time, to be very careful to see

  1331
  that this scheme will not result in the deeper entrenchment of privilege, as there is a danger, in some respects, that it will do, but to see to it that the whole of our population goes forward, to a better Britain.
  4.28 p.m.
  Mr. Cove: It is my privilege and pleasure to congratulate my hon. Friend on his maiden speech. I think that it is very appropriate that an hon. Member from South Wales should be able to congratulate an hon. Member from North Wales. The hon. Gentleman has, indeed, followed a very distinguished predecessor, and I am quite sure that, in this Committee, so far as progressive policies are concerned in relation to home affairs—health, housing and education—we can look forward to his support for every progressive Measure brought into this House. He has shown that he has a great deal of knowledge about the subject upon which he has spoken, and it gives me much pleasure to congratulate him on this occasion.
  Now, I turn to the Minister. He began by apologising to the Committee because he had been in his office for only a short time. I am bound to be frank and to say that, though the right hon. Gentleman has been in office only a very short time, he delivered a very long speech, but a speech in which I feel—and I believe some of my hon. Friends around me will agree—there was not any real enthusiasm or dynamic urge for the cause of education. I was trying to think of a phrase which I had heard or read long ago, and which my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Harvey) recalled to me. My hon. Friend gave the right pronunciation; I hope I shall be able to pronounce it correctly. It was uttered by Mr. Asquith, and it was "inspissated gloom." That describes the speech which the right hon. Gentleman made this afternoon. The right hon. Gentleman may not agree, but it was so. He cast a gloom over this Committee this afternoon.
  Mr. Law: I would like to say to the hon. Member that, if he and his hon. Friends are going to be made so gloomy every time they come up against the facts, it will be a bad look-out for this country should they ever get control of our affairs—which I do not think is likely.
  Mr. Cove: I will reply to the right hon. Gentleman. He saw the mountains in the clear air, but there were a lot of mists and fogs and bogs in the speech he made to us. He said, "Let us view the splendid prospect before us." Yes, but let us also take a sober view. There was no idealism, no drive, no imagination, but a mere acceptance of all the difficulties that lie before us. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman, in his gloomy speech this afternoon, barren of any ideals and with no faith in the common child, has given us the real Tory approach to the implementing of the Butler Act. The right hon. Gentleman may laugh, but I am going to tell him something in a minute. It needed a Coalition Government to get this Act on to the Statute Book. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler) has had great praise for getting the Bill on to the Statute Book, but he could not have got it there, unless he had been supported by the whole of this House; with all his adept Parliamentary qualities and capabilities he could not have got it without a Coalition Government. He got the Bill on to the Statute Book as an Act because, behind him, he had the help and support of all parties in this House. But now that the Act is there, what do we find? From the Ministry of Education comes the first document which shows the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. I take it that he is responsible for it. It is Pamphlet No. 1 "The Nation's Schools; Their Plan and Purpose."
  Mr. Law rose—
  Mr. Cove: The right hon. Gentleman appeared to be nice and cool but I see that he is more jumpy than I am.
  Mr. Law: I want to know which right hon. Gentleman the hon. Member says is responsible?
  Mr. Cove: I am just now addressing my remarks to the right hon. Gentleman his predecessor. I absolve the right hon. Gentleman the present Minister for a moment. Here in this pamphlet we have the context, the meaning and the purpose of the Tory approach.
  Mr. Law: What about the other right hon. Gentleman who sits opposite?
  Mr. Cove: I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman is so merry; his

  1333
  gloom is being dissipated. Here we have the reality and I warn the Committee, and anybody who may be interested in education, that it is more important now to take notice of what comes from the Ministry of Education than it was before the Act was passed. One of the defects of the Act was that it stored up immensely more power in the Ministry of Education than existed before. In many respects the Minister of Education has become a dictator. Therefore, while in the past we took a great deal of local action and took notice of local opinion, now, since the Act is on the Statute Book, we must take much more interest in what comes from the Minister of Education. The right hon. Gentleman may say, "Here is an idealist"—an "extremist," if you like. But wait a minute. Was there ever a greater condemnation of the meaning and purpose imparted to the field of education by the Ministry of Education than is contained in "The Times Educational Supplement"? I will go into this document a little more fully. The Committee will have to pardon me. I very rarely read long extracts and I usually speak without any notes at all, but I must read this, because it is the most damning condemnation of the attitude of a Department to a service which it is supposed to serve that I have ever read. It says:
  "During the debates on the Education Bill Mr. Butler proclaimed his intention that the centre should 'lead boldly, not follow timidly.' The first 'Educational Pamphlet' "—
  That is the pamphlet here giving the policy of the Board—
  "to be issued by his Ministry hardly lives up to the promise of those brave words. It is dull, unprogressive, and amateur. In its introduction it speaks of the changes to be made in education as constituting a challenge; in its conclusion of the courage and imagination, the energy and judgment that will be required to shape them and carry them into effect. But in the pages between no attempt is made to meet the challenge. They do not contain a single new idea, nor any gleam of courage or creative imagination. Least of all is there any hint of the urgency, importance, or extreme complexity of the task ahead. All they offer is a cautious recapitulation of the more conventional ideas current about educational reform. What is sound has been said many times before; what is unproved remains unqueried. Hoary assumptions are accepted as axioms, administrative convenience allowed to masquerade as educational principle, and generalisations unfounded on either experience or research as golden rules. The argument abounds in contra-
  1334
  dictions interlarded with historical inaccuracies, while to complete one's depression the pamphlet is written in inferior Civil Service English as clumsy in style as it is condescending in tone, and presented in a lay-out as stodgy as it is stereotyped."
  That is "The Times Educational Supplement."
  Mr. A. Bevan: "The Times" will have another warning.
  Mr. Cove: I agree. This is "The Times Educational Supplement's" judgment on the pamphlet. This pamphlet shows clearly that the Ministry of Education wants reaction. I thought I was helping to put on the Statute Book—and we did help—an Act which would give an extended secondary education, commonly called a grammar school education. I thought that I was helping to provide greater educational equality of opportunity for the common child of this country. What do I find? In this pamphlet the Minister of Education says, clearly and definitely, that now, at this moment, we are providing too many places for secondary education throughout this country. We are now providing 15 per cent. of the school population with secondary education. On page 13—here is the policy of the Ministry—I read:
  "For reasons which will appear in what follows, there are good grounds for thinking that, taking the country as a whole, there is no case for increasing the present intake to secondary courses of the grammar school type. Indeed, it is reasonable to suggest that it might with advantage to many children be somewhat reduced."
  That is the great Butler Act.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mrs. Cazalet Keir): And the Chuter Ede Act.
  Mr. Cove: No, it is not the Chuter Ede Act. This is the Tory implementing of the Butler and the Chuter Ede Act. That is the whole point.
  Mr. Law: I do not think that the hon. Member should really get away with that. I do not share the views expressed about it. I do not share the views of "The Times Educational Supplement" about it. That is beside the point. But in discussing the pamphlet, it is no use the hon. Member shaking his finger at me. His right hon. Friend sitting opposite had far more to do with this pamphlet than I had.
  Mr. Cove: That is the whole point of my speech. I might say that definitely and clearly—
  Mr. Bevan: Is it the rule for Parliamentary Secretaries to accept responsibility for major policy?
  Mr. Cove: The Act is the Act of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden, if one likes to put it that way; it was a Coalition.
  Mr. Law: That is a Coalition pamphlet.
  Mr. Cove: No, it is not. The implementing of that Act clearly shows—
  Mr. Law rose—
  Mr. Cove: How many times am I to be interrupted? I am glad that I have dissipated the gloom and stirred the air. It is clear that no Member, not even my right hon. Friend, dare say, having regard to the Labour Party's policy, that 15 per cent. of the child school population is too high a percentage for the secondary school. We have always as a party stood for free secondary education for all. I want to say to my educational friends throughout the country that if they want the Butler Act implemented, it is no good relying on the right hon. Gentleman whose name has been given to it.
  Viscountess Astor: Why?
  Mr. Cove: Because he belongs to the Tory Party. Because no longer is it a Coalition Government. It has now resolved itself, and I say quite definitely to my friends in the educational world that though the Butler Act has given us the opportunity for an advance in education, if that advance is to be realised, then it is quite clear that a party has to be in control that has not the philosophy, the outlook, of the Party opposite.
  Viscountess Astor indicated dissent.
  Mr. Cove: The Noble Lady may say "No," but let me refer to this pamphlet again. It divides the children of the nation roughly into three classes. I am not very learned, but I believe we are still back where Plato was when he divided the youth of the nation into the men of pure reason who were to be the
  1336
  philosophers and statesmen, the men of courage, who were to be the soldiers and the adventurers of the State, and the men of appetites. You are going to fit in your educational system according to that stratification. That is in this pamphlet. Here are the few in the public schools, in the direct grant aided schools, who are to have a grammar school education; here are the next lot who are to have a technical education, maybe a little expanded. What does it say about the vast masses? Here is the section, I have marked it very carefully:
  "It has to be remembered that in these schools"—
  that is, the senior schools—
  "will be a considerable number of children whose future employment will not demand any measure of technical skill or knowledge.'
  Therefore give them the education that the future before them will demand.
  I do not want to detain the Committee any longer, but I say quite definitely that the issues between the two parties are clearly joined on this. There is a vast difference in approach. We believe on this side in the common child.
  Viscountess Astor: What do we believe in?
  Mr. Cove: In class. We, on this side, believe in the uniquenessof each individual child, in drawing out the individual capacities of each child to make its contribution to the State, independent of the class into which it was born. This pamphlet still maintains class privileges in the educational world. This pamphlet, I say quite definitely, is educationally profoundly reactionary. There is no unity of a nation under this pamphlet.
  Viscountess Astor: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Cove: I am not a right hon. Gentleman.
  Viscountess Astor: Well, the hon. Member ought to be. He is in a class by himself and ought to have a special honour. Is it right to talk that way with Mr. Ede sitting there—[Hon. Members: "Order."]
  Mr. Cove: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) might not subscribe to my way of putting things, but he certainly will subscribe, I think, to the outlook I am putting before

  1337
  this Committee. His party has always stood definitely for secondary education for all.
  Mr. Ede: To calm the atmosphere a little, especially to calm the Noble Lady opposite, may I say that I hope to have an opportunity of addressing the Committee later, when I will endeavour to make my own position clear?
  Viscountess Astor: I am delighted to hear that.
  Mr. Bevan: If the Noble Lady will keep quiet.
  Mr. Cove: Finally, this is a class approach which we shall see if we get a Tory Government in this country. If that class approach is not to rule in this country then it is quite clear and definite that we have to get the progressive forces—the Labour Party—in power on that side of the House. It is true, as I have said before, that the National Government put that Bill on to the Statute Book and made it an Act. It is equally true—I say it with every confidence and conviction—that the real implementation of that Act—that is, giving it substance and reality, making it a progressive instrument, an instrument of social equality—will depend on Labour coming into power on the Government Front Bench.
  4.51 p.m.
  Mr. Lipson: I must say that I deplore the speech to which the Committee have just listened. I think that anybody who tries to throw the implementing of the great Education Act, recently passed by Parliament, into the arena of party politics is doing a great disservice to the country and to the future of education. Let us start on the common ground which was won during the recent passing of that Act. It was passed with the support and approval of Members from all quarters of the House, and it is not true to say that one party is more anxious than another to see it implemented. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend, who until recently was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education, will remind his hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon(Mr. Cove) that the pamphlet to which attention was drawn was not produced by this Government, but by the Coalition Government, in which he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education, and I hope
  1338
  that he will accept full responsibility for the pamphlet, and himself will provide a really effective answer to the speech which has just been made.
  I do not share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Aberavon on the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education. The right hon. Gentleman began by asking for the sympathy of the Committee, because after having been only a short time at the Ministry, and part of that time having had to be devoted to the Foreign Office, he has been called upon to deal with education in this Debate, and I think every Member of the Committee came down today prepared to give him that sympathy. May I say, after hearing his speech, that I do not think he requires sympathy, for he has shown that he has made remarkably good use of the very short time that he has spent at the Ministry, and he was able to put before the Committee a clear picture of the existing situation. For my part, I would much rather have the attitude adopted by my right hon. Friend, facing the facts of the situation, than that of somebody who comes along and suggests that an Act of Parliament of this nature can be implemented simply by talk of idealism.
  What we want to know is, what is practically possible to implement the Act? The hon. Member for Aberavon, though he criticised my right hon. Friend's presentation of the case to-day, did not himself give us one practical suggestion as to what the Ministry should do now to implement the Act, as compared with what had been brought forward by my right hon. Friend. It is a fact to anybody who knows education from the inside—and I deplore the speech of the hon. Gentleman the more because he knows a great deal about education—that unless you have the teachers and the buildings you cannot implement the Act. If you were to try now to raise the school-leaving age with the existing buildings and the existing number of teachers, you would not be advancing education in this country; you would be putting it back, for the simple reason that the classes, which already are too large, would have to be larger still, and the buildings, which are already inadequate, would be still more inadequate because of the large increase in the number of children who would be staying on at school.
  Mr. A. Bevan: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend said, and I think no Member of the Committee would disagree with him, but I do not think that is quite relevant to what the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) said, that the pamphlet called "The Nation's Schools: Their Plan and Purpose" does not deal with the immediate administrative difficulties but sets out the general purposes.
  Mr. Lipson:The only particular point taken up by the hon. Member for Aberavon out of that pamphlet was the suggestion that in the view of the Ministry of Education to have 15 per cent. of children going to the secondary schools was already too large. Everybody knows that it is provided in the Act, and it is the purpose of the Ministry and the intention of all parties, to see that not 15 per cent. of the children shall receive secondary education but 100 per cent. When the hon. Gentleman talked about secondary education just now, he was not talking about secondary education in its entirety, but only about grammar school education. It may be, it will be under the Act, that the provision of secondary education may take the form of grammar school education, it may take the form of technical school education, it may take the form of modern school education—all between them will cover the 100 per cent. In the past, secondary education has been limited purely to the grammar school type. It is provided under the Act that the decision as to what type of secondary education a child shall have in future shall be determined partly by the wishes of the parents and partly by the capacity of the child. It is quite wrong to suggest that there was anything in that pamphlet which proposed that only. 15 per cent. of the children are to receive a secondary education.
  Mr. Cove: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but really it is humbug to say that you are giving secondary educaton to the masses of the children by merely changing the name. All that has been envisaged in this pamphlet is that you merely change the name, you do not change either the quantity or the quality of the education given to the vast mass of our children, but you call it secondary education. I say that is misleading, that is humbug—as a matter of fact, that is hypocrisy.
  Mr. Lipson: The answer to the hon. Member is that at the present, owing to the shortage of teachers and buildings, it is not possible to implement the Act as it ought to be implemented. All that has been made possible so far is that all schools where the children are 11 plus and upwards are now to be called secondary schools. That brings me to a suggestion I want to make to my right hon. Friend. There are things we can do within the limitations which I have just mentioned. We recognise, at present, that the Act cannot be fully implemented, but there are two things we could do. In addition to teachers and buildings there is something else of value in education, and that is an adequate supply of school books and equipment and I mean books of an attractive type. During the war, inevitably, there has been a definite shortage of school books, and I ask my right hon. Friend to use all his influence now to see that that no longer obtains, and that in the new school year which will be opened in September there will be available an adequate supply of school books. I would also like him to see that these books are made as attractive as possible in their general layout, because they can, to some extent, help to make up for the deficiency of teachers. This is a matter which, I think, is of great importance, and which can be carried out even under present limitations. I would also like my right hon. Friend to give his attention to the content of education, to what is to be taught in the schools. This is also a vitally important matter, in which I think there is a great field for much useful work.
  Mr. Cove: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the pamphlet which was issued deals with the content of education? May I read him this?
  "Having regard to the fact that already the existing schools provide grammar school education for a considerable number of pupils who clearly cannot derive full benefit from it, it is reasonable to suggest that at present, taking the country as a whole, there is no occasion to extend this type of secondary education."
  That deals with the whole meaning and purpose of the school and says, in effect, that before you can deal with the content of education you have, first, to settle the social purposes of the schools.
  Mr. Lipson: I do not go so far as the hon. Gentleman, but I do say that the

  1341
  curriculum of grammar schools is not something which is fixed. It ought to be modified and adapted in the light of a changing world, and I believe that guidance might be given by the Ministry and a great deal of work done, by local education authorities. I now want to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a matter which I have raised before by way of Questions, namely, Regulation 23, which was issued by the Ministry under the Statutory Rules and Orders procedure. Many Members of the House, and many people outside, were shocked when they found that ministers of religion and clerks in holy orders were debarred from teaching in elementary schools. Under the Regulation this was to apply not only to those schools where it had hitherto obtained but also to secondary schools. Since then the Regulation has been revised, and it will now be possible for ministers of religion, who were already in teaching posts at schools, to continue to teach in them. But even under the revised Regulation there is not complete freedom for religious belief among those who are teaching. In those schools—I imagine they will be primary—where ministers have not been allowed to teach, and where it is desired that a minister should be appointed to the staff, it will be necessary first to get the consent of the Minister.
  There are practical difficulties about that. In the first place, I think it is a slur on a minister of religion to suggest that there should be any limitation of his right to teach in a school. There is nothing in any Regulation whatsoever to prevent an atheist from teaching, and if you are prepared to admit an atheist I do not see why you should exclude a minister of religion. Of course, nobody is suggesting that a minister of religion who already has a living should, at the same time, teach in a school, but there are many men who have taken holy orders who feel that they have a calling to teach in schools, and these men ought to be allowed to do so. If it is a good thing that men of this kind should teach in public schools and secondary schools, then it is desirable that they should also be able to teach in primary schools. It is said that all a governing body has to do is to get the consent of the Minister of Education, but it is not as simple as all that. There may be two applicants for the post, and the appointing body might
  1342
  prefer to appoint a minister of religion. They first have to get confirmation from the Minister for that, but in the meantime they run the risk of losing the second applicant, and in these days when there is a great shortage of teachers, few education committees or managers of schools are prepared to take that risk.
  I, therefore, ask my right hon. Friend to have another look at this matter, because I do not believe that public opinion in this country is any longer prepared to allow a slur or reflection of this kind on the right of a man in holy orders to teach in a primary school to continue. It is a relic of the past, and I think we would be acting in the spirit of the Act as a whole if this restriction were removed. I cannot understand why, in these enlightened days, it should be necessary to continue a provision of that kind. If my right hon. Friend decided to withdraw the Regulation entirely, I believe his action would be welcomed by the people of the country as a further step towards that complete religious tolerance which is one of the important matters which we can teach in our schools.
  May I say, in conclusion, that I welcome the speech which my right hon. Friend made? I think he has shown, in the short time he has been at the Ministry, a very great acquaintance with the problems of his Department. In saying that I think I ought also to say how much we regret the departure from the Ministry of Education of my right hon. Friend's predecessor, and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who was his Parliamentary Secretary. They made a remarkable combination; in fact, I cannot think of a better example of loyalty in working together since the days of Don Quixote and Sancho Panza—
  Mr. Ede: Will the hon. Member please particularise? Who is who?
  Mr. Lipson: My two right hon. Friends at all events did not use their energies to tilt at windmills. They produced a Measure of educational reform which, I believe, has great possibilities, and will make a very great contribution to the happiness and well-being of our people and of the children in particular.
  Viscountess Astor: I want to ask my hon. Friend a question. If the minister of religion is still working as a minister might there not be created a feeling in

  1343
  the schools of intolerance and, further, would it not—
  Dr. Russell Thomas: On a point of Order. Cannot the Noble Lady wait until she is called?
  Viscountess Astor: I have great respect for the point of view of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson), and I wanted to ask him what he felt about this matter. We must be careful to see that there is no religious intolerance, and to make sure that—
  The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): The Noble Lady ought to confine herself to her question.
  Mr. Lipson:May I say, in reply to my Noble Friend, for whom I have a great regard and affection, that I think the answer to the point she made would come better from the Minister, as having greater value than if it came from me.
  5.12 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: In listening to what has been going on here to-day I have found myself in a difficulty. I understood that the present Minister of Labour who, until recently was Minister of Education, was a keen educationist. Now the attitude adopted by some Members is that the only thing that kept him safe was the presence of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). Well, that is not quite good enough. I have my own views on the respective enthusiasms of the different parties for education, and I am not sure, looking back over the last 25 years, that any party has such a wonderful record. We had two "axes"—the Geddes axe and the May Report. The Geddes axe was referred to by the hon. Member for Caernarvon Boroughs (Mr. Seaborne Davies). We all hope that the Act which has just been passed will be of great benefit to our children in the future. [An Hon. Member: "Hear, hear."] It is all very well saying, "Hear, hear," but I give 95 per cent. for good administration, and 5 per cent. for the actual Act. Unless we are going to have, from day to day, an enlightened administration, this Act can never make any sense at all, and I will give some examples before I sit down.
  I welcome the Minister's speech, because it was a speech of sober fact. I have mentioned from time to time, and I
  1344
  will repeat it now, that we have been living in the clouds—in a sort of haze—ever since the Education Act went through this House. Before I left the Board of Education, in 1940, we were about to raise the school-leaving age to 15. We were not ready, but we were 70 per cent. ready. Since then 30,000 potential teachers have not gone to college. There are 25,000 teachers in the Services, and from 150,000 to 200,000 school places have been blitzed. That is the moment which has been chosen to bring in the greatest Education Act ever known. That is something which must hit any realist between the eyes. I am sorry that the Minister of Labour, in a speech the other day, talked about mud-slinging, because I think that was very inadvisable. I believe he has done a big job, but I think it was quite wrong to talk too much about "National." Who is National? I am not talking party politics because I, at any rate, am completely independent, but when I know that a large number of people sitting on the opposite benches have had a large amount of money spent on their education—much above the average annual wage of the ordinary manual worker—I am of the opinion that we ought to get a better conception of what is meant by the word "National."
  Two questions have been raised—teachers and buildings. I do not think the question of teachers has been faced with the necessary urgency. What is the position? There are wanted urgently 70,000 teachers. Apparently there are 7,000 soldiers, men who have been invalided out of the Forces, who have signified their desire to teach, and 2,500 of them have been accepted, but only 350 of them are in colleges. What sort of emergency is this? At the present moment 1,000 girls have been refused admittance to the normal training colleges. The girls are leaving school and desire to become teachers, but they cannot get into the profession because there is no room for them in the normal training colleges. That figure has been given to me by people who have expert knowledge. At a school which I visited recently, the information was given to me by the headmistress that there were three girls present at the prize-giving, very promising girls, who could not get into the normal training colleges. What is the measure of this urgency? Is there any particular reason why we should not have emergency training colleges

  1345
  now? This matter is not being faced in the way that we faced the problem of training schools for the Services. It is not being faced in the way that the Army faced its problems. They took over training colleges throughout the country. Why have not the Ministry of Education gone further with the emergency training? The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) talked about the pamphlet "The Nation's Schools," and I would like to put a question about it to the right hon. Member for South Shields. How much of the pamphlet, which I have read carefully, had he seen before he left office?
  Mr. Ede:The whole of it. I saw it in draft, I suggested certain corrections, and some of them were accepted. My right hon. Friend who is now Minister of Labour suggested certain corrections. We discussed the document together. I saw every document of that kind. I was not like some Parliamentary Secretaries—
  Mr. Lindsay: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but I am sorry he has taken what I said in the wrong spirit. I asked him the question because, if he had seen the whole document, obviously it is a Coalition document. It is quite unnecessary to get roused about it.
  Mr. Ede:There was an insinuation in my hon. Friend's question that I had not seen the document. I wanted to correct that impression.
  Mr. Lindsay: I thought it inevitable, as the right hon. Gentleman was in office when the pamphlet was issued, that it was a document issued jointly by the two right hon. Gentlemen. That being so, the situation seems to me to be even more serious. To some extent I agree with the hon. Member for Aberavon, although I do not go quite as far as "The Times Educational Supplement," in which there was a very bitter attack on a document which is, at any rate, a serious attempt to meet the problem.
  What is meant precisely by secondary education? For some years to come 40 per cent. of the children will still go to unreorganised schools. For some time to come there will still be 40, 50 or 55 children in a class. Parents now say to me, "I thought this Act meant free secondary education, but my boy is going to leave school at 14 years of age; I shall save up as much as I can and send him
  1346
  to a private school." Is there any knowledge at the Ministry of Education as to whether or not there is an increase in the number of private schools at the present time, and whether it is a fact that part of the Act cannot be implemented because the absence of inspectors prevents schools from starting? I have on this point the sympathy of the right hon. Gentleman the former Parliamentary Secretary, because it was by his Report that the revelations about private schools were very largely made known to the country. If these schools can be started at the moment without full inspection, I prophesy—it is happening already—that there will be a large number of new schools started, because the maintained schools, the grammar schools, have been graded down on four different points.
  I know this is an unpopular thing to say, but it appears to me to be completely true. I have had more letters from secondary school headmasters and assistant masters since the Debate on the Burnham scales than I have received on any other single issue during the eleven years I have been a Member of the House. These letters are not of the sort that simply say, "Your are right" or "You are wrong." They are letters that have brought home to me the injustices that are being done. I beg hon. Members, particularly the right hon. Member for South Shields, to believe that I do not take a narrow view of secondary education. I think it is wrong to make a sharper distinction between the maintained schools and the direct grant schools and independent schools which seems to create a bigger gap than there has ever been in the past. The direct grant schools and independent schools are not affected by the Burnham scale or by the arrangements for the pooling of teachers. Do hon. Members realise that teachers now go into a pool? For reasons which I well understand, teachers have to be apportioned throughout the country. The old idea that a headmaster chooses his own staff has very largely passed away for the time being, together with all those other precious things which attached to the old grammar schools. The hon. Member for Caernarvon Boroughs made an excellent maiden speech. What a treat it was to hear a man coming to the House and speaking with such authority and knowledge.

  1347
  I think the Committee ought to face the question of what we mean by secondary education. For many years the policy of the Labour Party has been, "Secondary education for all." But what do we mean by that? There has been some consternation because the pamphlet says that 15 per cent.—it may be 10 per cent. or 25 per cent.; it is a small point—shall have a grammar school education. It is a question whether education shall be largely of the literary type. There is nothing necessarily superior about a literary type of education. The right hon. Member for South Shields made some very interesting remarks during his tenure of office on the black-coated occupations. These questions go deeply into the whole structure of society and they cannot be altered by obiter dicta about the secondary school curriculum. I suggest that the shortage of supply means that there will be the most severe competition among the children. Last year we all rejoiced that the examination at II years of age was to be abolished; but it has not been abolished, and the competition will be fiercer than ever. The difficulty of getting into a grammar school is much greater now than it was two years ago.
  Ought we not to stop humbugging ourselves and face the real issue? It is this. For many years to come we shall have to make a selection of the children who are best fitted to go on to higher education. We shall have to do this if we are to have the trained personnel for medicine, dentistry, teaching and 40 or 50 other professions. All I am concerned with is that those children who are best fitted shall have the opportunity, and that there shall be no other grounds. At the present time there is such a real social cleavage in education in this country that I feel it would be a great tragedy if the effect of this great Measure, passed last year, were to be the making of an even wider gulf between private independent schools, direct grant schools, and the rest. Do not tell me that the grammar school was a class school. It was no such thing. It was the best educational reflection of the ordinary people of the country. Through such schools I have seen children from the poorest homes raised to the blue ribbon of scholarship of Oxford and Cambridge. It was the most characteristic English school there
  1348
  has ever been. To degrade the grammar school is to make it more difficult for ordiary children to get a full education in that school and very likely to direct the higher ranges of scholarship into the direct grant and independent schools. That part of the Act does not touch them. It is a most dangerous thing.
  As a constructive suggestion, I ask the Minister of Education not to worry too much about the pamphlet. Much of what it contains has been said before. What is to be the policy for the next four or five years? We are concerned with five years of reconstruction. I would like to see the priorities clearly stated. There is a priority about the school-leaving age. That is all right; but what is to be done with the 80 per cent. of schools which have warehouses, shops, wharves, and so on, all around them? How are these schools to be converted into secondary schools? It cannot be done. The only thing to do is to take the children out to the rings of the cities. Gymnasia cannot be added when the schools are bounded by buildings. Swimming baths cannot be added; there is no room for them, and in the present state of legislation about the use of land, we could not afford them. These are things which no Minister can overcome unless the facts are faced. The children will still go to the same schools; there will still be 40 or 60 children in a class next year.
  I want to see a much greater sense of urgency brought into this matter. There ought to be at least 20 training colleges either in operation or about to come into operation. I believe I have the sympathy of the Parliamentary Secretary on this, because only a few months ago she was urging the same point. What arrangements are being made by the Ministry for the training of teachers? I have never thought that the Ministry of Education was itself very good at executive work. That is not its job; its job is in relation to local authorities and so on. At present the training of teachers is too highly centralised. Where are the bottlenecks? Why is it that there are not the proper people trained to train others? Faced with a problem of that sort, the Army set up a place at Preston and got the job going. The Royal Air Force have done the thing in the Middle East, and elsewhere. Why not do it for ordinary teachers? There are 350 students in the

  1349
  emergency colleges, 2,500 are waiting to enter, and 1,000 girls cannot be taken. There is something wrong. Perhaps people do not care about these things.
  I say with all the seriousness I can command that, if the country does not care about education, it is going to have an even more difficult decade in reconstruction. The shortage of trained personnel is critical—technicians, doctors, dentists, architects, the people who will implement the town-planning legislation when it comes. If we do not take more trouble about this, if there is not a greater sense of urgency, whatever Government comes in, I am fearful. That is one of the reasons why I sit on this bench at this moment.
  I should like to ask a further question. We started five years ago a new project—C.E.M.A. For the first time the State interested itself in making it possible for children who have grown up in the schools to hear and see the arts outside. The Treasury are spending £100,000. For that money orchestras, repertory companies and exhibitions of pictures are being semi-subsidised. What is the future of this organisation going to be? There is a very interesting development going on, partly at San Francisco and partly here, of building for the first time an International Education Office. I think that it can make a contribution to world peace and that in the Economic and Social Council it should play an important part. Can the hon. Lady tell me whether the draft constitution is now being approved by the United States, whether Congress has recently said they will spend money on this project and whether there is going to be a Conference in London shortly to give it a final blessing and make it part of the San Francisco organisation? Finally could the hon. Lady tell me why it is that emergency nurseries are being closed? Is not the line of country now, growing prints, and not blue prints. Many good things have come out of the war. For Heaven's sake nourish them and get on with them. It is enlightened administration that is needed. We shall test any Government solely by its day to day administration. Let us not even wait for county colleges. For once you have industry with you. I say, Let us get on with it.
  Finally, we have for the first time, owing to the war, millions of people
  1350
  brought into contact with what is loosely called adult education. I know that it is superficial in some cases, but it is something. I have friends back from the Middle East where, they say, the men are studying political and economic questions in a quite different atmosphere. There is a sort of feeling that they are left behind in the battle. It has given an intensity to their studies and an attitude which is something that we do not understand. Are these men coming back to find just a few W.E.A. classes or is there to be a new set-up which brings large numbers of other people into the field of adult education? I should like to see the Ministry taking an active part. What I want to see in the central administration is not just an advisory committee but a department which will help to supply all the things that are required by a strong adult education movement. The Ministry have issued a pamphlet on community centres. So far so good, but I think there is something missing in the central machinery in regard to adult education. Would the hon. Lady answer some of these questions? I do not think you can take education out of politics—it is the very life blood of politics—but I hope that, even if there are going to be battles, as there will be, on this subject we shall remember that it is in the long run by the month to month administration that any Government will be tested.
  5.37 p.m.
  Professor Gruffydd: A good many things that I wished to say have already been said by my friend the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay). I now want to address myself to one point in particular, namely, the administration by the Ministry of Education of the secondary schools. Since what I am going to say must of necessity be somewhat critical of the activities of the Department, I take this opportunity of assuring the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary that I do not intend to saddle any of the responsibility for what has already been done upon their shoulders. But I also take the same opportunity of asking them, since they are new and therefore not altogether, perhaps, committed to what has already been done, to see that a great deal of the wrong that has come down to them from their immediate past shall be put right. I hope they are not wedded to that idea of

  1351
  continuity of policy which has been such a mill stone round the neck of progress in our national offices.
  The Ministry and its supporters claim that at last, under the Act of 1944, we have secondary education for all. This cry of "secondary education for all" was never more than a slogan, and a slogan is something which has not a very definite meaning but is meant to raise the temperature of aspiration rather than induce reflection on realities. That is exactly what this particular slogan did. We got very enthusiastic about it and we thought that by saying "secondary education for all" in the end we should get the substance of it. Now the Minister claims that they have given secondary education for all, but they have done that in the easiest and most disingenuous way possible, namely, by giving a new and degraded meaning to the word "secondary."
  Secondary education had a definite meaning in the educational tradition of this country. It meant something which was not different in degree from primary or technical education or from apprenticeship or commercial education. The people who wanted secondary education for their children meant participation in the amenities and privileges of national culture; they meant that which had hitherto enabled the sons of the rich to take their place in the most honourable and lucrative positions in the British community—in the Civil Service, the universities, the professions, the higher branches of commerce, the Church, the law, and so on. They meant something which the public schools, in spite of all their faults, could give and were giving in a very ample degree—a chance for a person who passed through them to participate in the rich and refreshing fruit of reward for service to the community.
  The people who wanted secondary education for all believed that this could also be in the gift of their own schools, the ordinary schools of the people fully maintained by the rates. It looked at one time as if the ordinary schools of the people were going to get it; it looked as if the chasm between the maintained schools and the public schools was going to disappear. I never felt so hopeful of the future of popular education as when I understood that 49 per cent. of the
  1352
  fellowships in Oxford and Cambridge were held by men who had passed through the maintained secondary schools. I thought that was a most hopeful sign, but I prophesy that with the present policy the Minister of Education will be able and willing to destroy that very promising growth. Year after year adolescent education was becoming more unified in achievement. The elementary school children who passed to the secondary schools were getting more and more positions in the professions, the Civil Service and the universities, and, in spite of the enormous advantage which the privileged public schools have, the common schools were at last beginning to be able to compete with them, and that all through the range of secondary schools from maintained schools up to direct grant schools. There was emerging something really solid, an achievement that the British tradition with its gradualness might very well be proud of.
  What has the Ministry done in face of this and what has it done by this policy and by its incredible intransigence in dealing with the Burnham negotiations? Has it given secondary education to all? Is it going to give secondary education to all? Is it going to foster this most promising growth, this equality of the common school with the public school? The answer is "NO," in large capitals. It has done all those things which even a malevolent enemy of our common schools could not have devised better. It has persuaded people that at last we have secondary education for all, but at the same time it has degraded and denaturalised the secondary schools of the common people, and that by a series of the most subtle attacks.
  What are those attacks? What are the blows that it has aimed at our secondary schools? First, the secondary school owes its character, in the full sense of "secondary," to the fact that it has its own governing body, people who are intensely interested in its welfare and can contribute something individual to the development of the school. The secondary schools are going to lose those governors. They are going to be massed together in one great huddle, and the secondary school of the future will be like a parish child who is maintained by a mixed community with no parents or even foster parents of its own to look after it.

  1353
  Secondly, the comparative scale of salaries has been immensely lowered. By "comparative" I mean the scale of salaries as compared with that of the primary school or with what will be, I understand, the scale of payment in the universities. In future, many headmasterships will have actually less money attached to the post than in the past. The disadvantages of secondary schools in gathering together their staffs in direct competition with public and direct-grant schools are vastly increased. Thirdly, the Ministry of Education have seen to or, to put it at its lowest, has been willing to see to the curtailment of the holidays of the secondary school, so that in many areas they will be the same as the holidays of the primary school, in spite of the fact that the secondary child's school time is taken up every evening with school work, that the secondary school teacher has to correct exercises, and that the teacher, if he is to keep up his standard of teaching, must devote a large part of his holidays to research. I have had experience of both the secondary and university sides, and I would like to make it clear that there are men in the free maintained secondary schools who would adorn any university. These men have attained to that degree of scholarship because they have been able to give a large part of their vacations to research. Let us take one example, which must be obvious to everyone. How can you possibly be a modern language master or mistress and teach French in a secondary school unless every year you go to France? The same applies to any other teacher of modern languages. It is impossible for you to do so under present regulations.
  My fourth point was with regard to Regulation 23, which has, I understand, now been withdrawn, but when a pistol is pointed at me and it is withdrawn and the shot is not fired, I still have my suspicions of the pistol-owner's intention. What is the result of all I have been saying? The public school and the direct grant school still have their governors, and the free secondary school has not. The public and direct grant schools have a reasonable scale of salaries, but the secondary school has not. The public and direct grant schools have adequate holidays, but the secondary schools have not. What further is in store for these Cinderellas of education I do not know.
  1354
  I shudder to think what is going to happen to our system of secondary education if the present trend in the administration is to be what it has been during the last few months. The fruits of this policy are yet to be seen. In a year or two I think that the whole country will realise that the Education Act of 1944, far from giving the advantages of which its promoters spoke, has, by its method of administration, taken away even those few advantages which secondary schools of the common people of the country already had.
  5.50 p.m.
  Mr. Edmund Harvey: I do not share the extreme gloom of my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd), although I realise the gravity and importance of a number of the points he has put before the Committee. The Minister at the outset of his speech gave us an illuminating metaphor. It did not produce on my mind quite the effect it would appear to have done upon my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), but as the Minister pictured the landscape I could not help recalling the lines of Lewis Carroll in "The Hunting of the Snark":
  "But at first sight the crew
  Were not pleased with the view,
  Which consisted of chasms and crags."
  At any rate, it is necessary that the Minister should recognise the immense difficulties of the task in front of him. They are difficulties we all have to recognise, but we look to him to make it clear that he is determined, however difficult the ascent of this mountain, that he will go on and will not turn back; and, if he can show in the acts of his Ministry that sense of determination, he will stimulate the local education authorities everywhere not to be baffled by the immense difficulties of finance and the shortage of staff and of buildings to which he alluded. Each one of them provides enough subject matter for a day's Debate, and we ought to have far more opportunities of discussing these problems.
  I want to deal with one point that the Minister only alluded to and which was only briefly mentioned by one or two previous speakers. I hope that he or the Parliamentary Secretary, in replying, will be able to develop far more fully what are the intentions of the Government in

  1355
  regard to implementing the great Butler Education Act in respect of further education, particularly adult education. That is something for which the need is most urgent and for which the demand is pressing. It does not call at the first stage for the same expenditure upon buildings and it is needed if we are to get our whole education system what we want it to be. There is a great deal of idle room waiting to be used in every university. There are admirable class rooms and lecture rooms that were built for adult education not used in the evenings, while in the neighbourhood of every university centre there are students working during the day in ordinary industry who would be glad to have an opportunity of studying in fellowship with others and with the inspiration of the surroundings they would get if they were able to share in the amenities of the university buildings. I want to see steps taken in the near future to encourage the universities to throw open these opportunities to the disinherited.
  Why have we such small sums in these Estimates for the further education which is not carried out by local education authorities? On pages 12 and 13 of the Estimates we see that the total, for further education, of grants for educational service and research provided by persons other than local education authorities, is for this year £174,320—an advance of less than £20,000 upon last year. That is not enough. We ought to have far more spent on this. It is possible to do it. We have people who are willing to help if they can only have the money. Already great work is being done by the Workers' Educational Association. They do not ask for grants from the Government for their administration, but they would welcome the help that could be given in the growth of tutorial classes everywhere. Why cannot the Government take a certain number of country houses and afford facilities to voluntary bodies like the Workers' Educational Association and other associations, and even the local authorities if they have not been forthcoming, for short courses, week-end schools, and for holiday courses. The Government can do it with comparatively small expense, expense that is quite beyond the means of voluntary bodies. It will enable suitable voluntary bodies of all kinds engaged in education to increase the work that they are already doing.
  1356
  Surely too we ought to have much more done in the training of those who dedicate themselves to adult education. There are in the Forces a large number of men and women who may not be gifted for teaching young children, but who are gifted for adult education work. In the Army discussion groups and classes they meet together and discuss economic and political problems and other questions, and they have awakened to a keen interest in education. They are interested in just this kind of adult education work. The Government ought to be now at work, in conjunction with the Service Departments, giving opportunities for these men and women to get the training they will need if they dedicate their lives to this great service.?
  Professor Gruffydd:May I inform my hon. Friend that one university at least, my own, has already got a sub-department of the department of education dealing only with adult education?
  Mr. Harvey: I am delighted to know that, and I know that there are other universities which are looking forward to taking an increasing share in this great task. We do not, however, see adequate provision for it in these Estimates. We have had no allusion, beyond a word or two from the Minister, to the importance of this subject. I am sure that he is not indifferent to it, but I would beg of him to give a lead to local education authorities. It has been disappointing that so far so little has been done by the local authorities to help in this way. They could do much more, largely in co-operation with the voluntary bodies, not only the Workers' Educational Association, but also such a body as the Educational Settlement Association, which has settlements in a number of different centres. There, I believe, the Government can give a lead which will be of immense value.
  In dealing with this form of education we are on different ground from the territory with which most of the speakers who preceded me have been concerned. We are dealing with people who want to learn, who are not compelled to go to school. They are coming at sacrifice to themselves in their spare time after a day's hard work because they are keen. Surely they deserve to be helped, and we ought to be willing to spend the money of the nation generously to help those who are willing to make sacrifices in order that

  1357
  they should learn. We want it to be in the best surroundings. Let us give them reasonable conditions which will allow them to enjoy something of the beauty of life in the midst of their work and to enjoy it in the atmosphere of fellowship. In dealing with adult education one has not the problem which so constantly worries even a good teacher, when the class does not wish to learn and is not interested in the subject, and he has to coax and persuade them to go on with their work These students are there because they care, because they want to learn and because they are willing to make the sacrifice. It ought to be our task to help them. I beg the Minister to make it clear that the money of the nation will not be grudged for this cause. There is no branch of the great work of education which deserves more support than this neglected branch of adult education.
  6.2 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: I find, myself in a somewhat peculiar position this evening because, when a few weeks ago I heard that it was probable that my right hon. and hon. Friends would ask for the Education Estimates to be considered during the present Session, I had rather cast myself for the role of replying to the discussion. I have, as it were, attended the inquest on myself and I am now allowed to give some evidence before the jury return their verdict.
  I had five years and 13 days at the Board and the Ministry of Education. I had the great privilege of serving under two very distinguished and keen educationists who, if they had not occasionally interlarded their conversations with political remarks, would have been very pleasant companions. I am sure they allowed me as much freedom of initiative and welcomed my co-operation in the efforts of the Ministry as has ever been allowed to a Parliamentary Secretary, and I cannot do other than say that, bearing in mind that they had twice as many political supporters in the House as I had, when we reached a decision it was one for which both of us were prepared to take responsibility, and for what happened at the Ministry of Education between 15th May, 1940, and 28th May, 1945, I accept full responsibility. It is now a matter of history, and history will not worry about what my late colleagues and I say in our own defence. I am
  1358
  sure that when the records are made open to be examined by people who have no personal interest in the matter at all, my right hon. Friends and I can await their verdict, wherever we are—and it is certain we shall not be in company—with complete confidence. I believe that the Education Act of 1944, which originated with the Green Book that was issued at the request of the present Lord Soulbury, will show that in all our deliberations we were guided by patriotic and educational motives alone, and I am certain that as this great Measure steadily comes into operation its scope and design will be increasingly recognised as being so comprehensive that, while here and there amendments may have to be made, it will stand the test of time as well as the Acts of either Mr. Forster or Mr. Balfour.
  The fundamental reform that we made was to say that in future it shall be the duty of the parent of every child to cause him to receive efficient full-time instruction suitable to his age, ability and aptitude, and in future each child is to be the individual concern of the local authority, the teacher, the parent and such other people as may be associated with his education. Therefore, once that duty is made possible of fulfilment, I am not very much concerned as to the exact proportion that may be provided in separate schools, because I do not believe the separate schools will long survive.
  My own administrative experience confirms me in that view. We have had in Surrey this year a number of pupils who reached the appropriate standard for admission to a grammar school, using the expression "grammar school" to include the old municipal secondary school of the grammar school type, and in order to meet the demand we have had to establish in some of our modern schools grammar school courses. I am certain that in some of our grammar schools we ought to have technical courses because it is wrong to put all the great creative brain power of this country into the academic course generally associated with the grammar schools, and I believe that the future lies with the school for which I wish we could find a better name—for it is astonishing how one can kill a good thing by giving it a bad name—what we call the multilateral school. I once heard a distinguished educationist trounce the multilateral school good and hard, and as I

  1359
  came out of the meeting a young lady of my acquaintance said to me, "Is it not astonishing that all these people dislike multilateral, but they love polytechnic?" I could only reply, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) has anticipated, "Well, after all, Greek is the gentleman's language."
  When we come to the pamphlet I advise people to note that we were particularly careful to say—and I say "we" advisedly—in some of the paragraphs that were mentioned, "the present intake to secondary courses of the grammar school type." We did not say "the present intake to secondary schools." I do not regard the grammar school as the only type of secondary school. "Secondary" is not a status; it is a period in the three stages of primary, secondary and further education. Every child between the ages of ii and 16, or such higher age as the parent likes to keep the child at school, is in the secondary stage in a secondary school in which his education is to be suitable to his age, ability and aptitude. It is true that at the moment a large number of these schools are not up to the standard that the best have attained, and it is the duty of whoever may be at the Ministry of Education to see that with all convenient speed those things that settle the esteem in which a school is held shall be made equal for whatever type of school we have within that secondary range.
  It is unfortunate that we had to pass the Act at a time when we were faced with heavy deficiencies in man-power and material, but I was convinced during the passage of the Act through Parliament that no party Government could have passed a comprehensive Education Act. I fought shoulder to shoulder with my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Labour. I fought one evening with him back to back when we suffered our most severe casualty at the hands of the hon. Lady who is now Parliamentary Secretary and who, with a number of her Friends who now ornament the Front Government Bench, took part in a manoeuvre which certainly set back the particular cause they had at heart but which has at last landed them in positions that they will not occupy for very long.
  There are a few points on which I would like to have some information. In
  1360
  the light of what I previously said on what happened up to 28th May, I am at least as responsible as anyone else, because, as I am sure hon. Members will recognise, there are times in Office when a man has to say, "I cannot get my way, but is this a big enough thing on which to go?" And if he does not go he must accept the responsibility for staying.
  In the first place I would like to know how we are getting on with the schemes of divisional administration under Part III of the First Schedule. The number that had been approved when I left office was one. I do not know by how many per cent. that has been increased since. Speaking as a county councillor, I regret very much the attitude which has, generally, been adopted by county councils towards the new administration scheme. The present Minister of Labour and I devoted a very great deal of care to the framing of opportunities for councils of counties to direct the general policy, and to leave the detailed administration to the divisional executives and excepted districts. It is very regrettable to find the way in which some county councils have been niggardly in giving, or being willing to give, any real power to the divisional executives, just as it is regrettable that some excepted districts have gone through the Act, and in every place where "local education authority" is written have said, "Put the council of the excepted districts."
  I was hoping, on a subject on which Members of this House, especially those who had represented the old Part III authorities, had agreed, that this would be an opportunity to get, inside the large and populous counties, the kind of administration which I have always believed is sound. That is for the county to levy a general rate so that the whole community beats a fair share of the maintenance of the public service, and to lay down a general policy with which all the county district executives or divisional executives must comply, and then to leave them reasonable freedom of action so that they can make this great human service really racy of the soil in which it is planted. I hope, as a result of the negotiations which were going on, and which I fear in many cases are still continuing, we may reach some satisfactory arrangement along those lines.

  1361
  I would also like to know whether the Minister can give us any indication of the extent to which local education authorities are getting on with the preparation of their development plans, for upon the development plan rests the possibility of our being able to carry through the reforms of the Act in making education available for our children according to their age, ability and aptitude. The Committee of the Whole House which considered the Bill was very loth to give the local education authority as long as 12 months to perform the task, but I was always quite certain that 12 months would be required. Two of those months have gone by, and we are well into the third. Time hurries on, and I have no doubt that others than hon. Members will soon be partaking of a little excitement, which will interfere with administration. Then will come the holidays with all their distraction. Therefore, it is essential that this task should receive the prompt attention of the local education authorities. I hope that we may be given some information on the way in which their efforts are proceeding.
  I should like to know how far the schemes for medical inspection and treatment are being implemented. The Act threw new liabilities on local education authorities in that respect, and I am sure that every hon. Member recognises that, if we are to give a child a sound education we must make sure that it is a healthy child. Therefore, I hope that we may have some reassurances as to the way this work is proceeding, in spite of the difficulties that undoubtedly confront all civilian authorities, owing to the shortage of doctors. Unkind people have suggested to me that there are two great reasons for the sound health of the nation at the present time. One is the school meals service, and the second is the absence of doctors in the Forces. Far be it from me to suggest which of the two has been more effective. We need an opportunity of implementing the new responsibilities of local education authorities for the medical treatment of children.
  There is only one other topic with which I want to deal at any length, and that is the position of the direct-grant school. One of the Debates which took place during the Committee stage of the Bill was on the question of freeing all education towards which public funds were paid. The present Minister of
  1362
  Labour, in meeting an argument which was advanced by hon. Members from this side of the Committee, enunciated the doctrine of accessibility, which he later somewhat humorously attributed to Archbishop Cranmer, who borrowed it, I believe, from the Jesuits, so that it is of quite respectable ancestry, no matter what one's religious views may be. No child was to be debarred from attending a school towards which public money was voted, whether from rates or taxes, because of the inability of his parents to pay the fees, if he were suitable for admission.
  No doubt my right hon. Friend made the very greatest possible efforts to put that doctrine into practice in the direct-grant school regulations. The Minister has clearly stated what those regulations are. The first 25 per cent. of the places in a direct-grant school are to be free and confined to pupils who have been previously educated for at least two years in a primary grant-aided school. The next 25 per cent. are to be available for the local education authority, if they require them. They are to pay for them. They may admit, in that 25 per cent., pupils whether from grant-aided primary schools or from other schools. The remaining 50 per cent. are to be filled in order of merit, upon an agreed examination list. If a parent cannot afford to pay the fee or part of the fee, that fee is to be paid not by the local education authority but by an Exchequer grant. That will avoid discrepancies that now occur, as between one local education authority area and another, between the various income scales.
  That arrangement completely fulfils, to my mind, the doctrine of accessibility. Let us assume that there are 30 places to be filled in the school, after the two groups of 25 per cent. have been taken. The son of a dustman is No. 30 and the son of a millionaire is No. 31. The son of the dustman will go in first, and the son of the millionaire will be the first outsider. Much as I dislike a means test, in view of the atmosphere in which we were dealing with education, I think that was as reasonable a way of securing accessibility, on grounds of suitability, as it was possible to achieve.
  Now we are faced with the fact that certain schools that used to be on the direct-grant list object to this arrange-

  1363
  ment. I happen to be a governor of one of them. I am appointed as a magistrate. It is about the only school in the country that has magistrates appointed to it, but when I heard what some of my fellow-governors were proposing to do, I thought it would be more appropriate if the people appointed were constables. This trust was established by an Archbishop of Canterbury whose name was Whit gift. He ordained that this school should be for the poor of the parish who were to be taught freely, and that the schoolmaster was to take "children of the better sort of parishioners," and he was allowed to charge them a fee. If he charged them too much, they had the right of appeal to the Archbishop of Canterbury. It seemed almost a 16th century way of stating the direct-grant regulations, but it was remarkable in this, that whereas most charities were apparently designed to establish schools for the children of the poor, here was an Archbishop who had the conception of a school for every class of the community and towards which each paid on the basis of his means. The fee was graded according to the means.
  The direct-grant regulations came along. This school used to charge a fee of £24. It was allowed, some 20 years ago, to increase its fee to £30.
  Mr. Lipson: Is that a year?
  Mr. Ede: Yes, it is a day school. The £24 a year was increased to £30 a year. The governors proposed to go off the direct-grant list. I am using this as an example. I think it is a reasonable example of the half-a-dozen or dozen to which the Minister alluded this afternoon. I do so because I know the whole details of the facts. It is easy to do an injustice to people if you do not know all the details of the facts. The governors propose to raise the fee from £30 to £51 a year, and they still proposed to bring in, in order to make their accounts balance, £4,600 of the charity money. There are 650 boys in the school, so that will mean the parents who can afford to pay £51 a year, and prove it by paying it, will receive £7 10s. a year out of this ancient charity towards the education of their children. Fortunately—at least I hope it will prove to be—this proposal to increase the fee to £51 has to secure the assent of the Minister,
  1364
  in his capacity as Charity Commissioner. There are many parents who make the most tremendous sacrifices to raise the fee of £30 a year; if the fee is raised to £51 some will make greater sacrifices, but some will find that that tremendous increase means they have gone beyond the end of their resources, and parents who would have sent their boys to the school at £30 a year will be unable to send them at £51.
  I hold Archbishop Whitgift's idea. I want to see poor and rich taught together. I would have thought that in these days, after our experiences during two wars of what the people of this country can do when all classes are mixed together, that would have been a pretty general idea. I wrote a memorandum to my fellow governors in which I set out that point of view, I hope with clarity and modesty. A reply was circulated by one of the governors. I have left it at home. It would be far too inflammable election material for me to produce here. I would not have believed that any troglodytes so deep in the cave remained in the world as were revealed by that document. I believe that it is essential that schools like that should not become the monopoly of a small moneyed class. I believe that to fix the fee at £51 a year would mean that such schools would be confined to that very narrow social class who cannot afford to send their boys to the big residential schools, but who want to keep them, for some extraordinary reason, away from contact with people who live the ordinary clean, healthy, family life of the lower middle and working classes of this country.
  I do not believe that any secondary school suffers in the long run from the admission of boys from the grant-aided primary schools. I was one of the earliest of such boys to go to a secondary school with a scholarship. I recollect my mother going to the school one day when she thought it advisable to have an interview with the headmaster about my conduct. While she was waiting outside his room, another lady came in and started to bewail to my mother the way in which the school had been let down by the admission of boys from the elementary school. When my mother explained that she was the parent of one of those terrible fellows the lady just would not believe her. I had hoped we had got beyond that, after 50 years' experience which

  1365
  established the fact that no secondary schools need be ashamed of the working class children being sent into them. After all education in society, in living in a society, is no small part of a real education, and I hope we are not to see those schools made the preserve of a small moneyed class.
  Unless we are very careful the most amazing things will happen if the great public schools come, as they seem likely to do, into this scheme now being discussed between the officers of the Ministry and the Headmasters' Association and the Governing Bodies' Association. They look like undertaking to admit 25 per cent. of their pupils free from the grant-aided primary schools. Would it not be an astonishing thing if a boy born in Croydon was asked in the future, "I suppose you went to Whitgift School," and he replied, "No, my parents could not afford to send me to Whitgift, so I went to Eton." I have elaborated this matter at some length, and I apologise to the Committee, but I believe if what governors of that kind of school are trying to do succeeds we shall have driven a coach and four through our determination, as shown in the House last year, that education is not to be the subject of class association and class discrimination. I urge the hon. Lady to use her influence inside the Ministry to see that those schools are not placed out of the reach of any section of the community, and that they make their full contribution, in accordance with what I believe were the wishes of their founders, to the main stream of national education.
  It may very well be that within a few months there will be in power a Government that will enforce the doctrine that all schools which receive public money shall be free. There is no doubt that that is the policy of my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the Committee. We welcomed the proposals of the Minister for the direct grant system, because it was the only way in which we could expect this House of Commons to reach that arrangement by another way round. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) was a member of a deputation of Labour Members who were seriously concerned about this matter. I do not think I am going beyond what he would like me to say in stating that they accepted this direct grant arrangement in the belief that it would be accepted by
  1366
  those schools which have hitherto been on the direct grant list, which did not wish to become maintained schools under the new Act.
  The Education Act, 1944, is, its designers believe, an engine as near perfect as possible for the purpose of providing us with at least a. really national and comprehensive system of education in this country. It requires the power to drive it, and if I may say so I was rather disappointed at the speech of the Minister this afternoon. We know there are difficulties. We on this side of the Committee, believing that we shall soon have to face those difficulties, are just as much aware of them as is the right hon. Gentleman, but we believe that the issues at stake are so great that we should approach the problem in an atmosphere of faith, and that we should, instead of recounting the difficulties, attempt to devise immediate and practical ways of surmounting them.
  I congratulate the hon. Lady on holding the position she occupies. As I have previously remarked in the Committee, I was greatly assisted on the Private Schools Committee by the work of her brother. I know the keen interest which she and he and her family have taken in popular education in this country. I want to assure her that while she remains in office, if she will show faith and determination to provide for every child in this country an education suited to its age, ability and aptitude, she will find that we will loyally support her.
  6.41 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mrs. Cazalet Keir): Since the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has just left the Ministry of Education after a long and very successful tenure of office, rive years and 13 days—I hope my tenure will be as long—he is clearly in the best position to know all the answers to the many questions that have been raised in this Debate. He has just stated in a stimulating speech that he takes responsibility, together, of course, with the Minister of Labour, for everything that happened on the education front up to 28th May. Well, I can assure him that nothing has been done since that date which need cause him either alarm or despondency. I feel sure he will be tolerant to the newcomer in his late

  1367
  office on this occasion. This has undoubtedly been a Debate of experts, and I cannot call myself that at present.
  It was indeed cause for great satisfaction and pleasure to my right hon. Friend and myself when we learned that, with only three remaining Supply Days, hon. Members opposite had given education such a high priority. The more active interest the Committee take in education the more certain it is that the Act will be implemented and become a living reality, and that is what we all want. My right hon. Friend and I were specially glad because, although we have only been at the Ministry for a few days and obviously had not yet had time to master all the intricacies and vital questions of that Department, the Debate, coming quickly, has shown us beyond doubt, that the Education Act is not to be allowed any rest or peace. This, I am certain, is the only way to keep it alive, and in good health. So I say sincerely, that as long as we remain at the Ministry, education cannot be raised here too often or too much for our liking.
  My right hon. Friend, in his opening speech, dealt fairly fully with the most important problems which confront us it the Ministry, and how we hope and mean to overcome them, so I will, to the best of my ability, deal with some of the other points which have been raised by hon. Members. May I first try to reply to one or two points which my predecessor has asked me? He asked how many schemes of administration had been agreed to since he left the Department. I am glad to be able to tell him there has been an increase of 400 per cent. since 28th May. That means that five schemes have now been approved, so we have not been altogether idle in the last fortnight. I believe it is correct to say that there are no actual development plans in yet. As I understand the Act, the authorities have until 1st April 1946, to send them in, but my right hon. Friend knows that Circular 28 was sent out—when I think he was at the Department—to give guidance to local authorities. He also asked me something about medical treatment. In Circular 29there is no thought of discouraging medical treatment, but my right hon. Friend knows the difficulties—the shortage of doctors and nurses. The circular was intended
  1368
  to encourage them to discuss new ideas and suggestions. Of course, we want to get on with the medical treatment of our children, and to help all those who are ill and who need special attention.
  I do not think I can add—nor do I think it would be wise to try—to what my right hon. Friend has said about accessibility. I realise that my right hon. Friend feels quite keenly on this subject, and I appreciate his point of view. The main point that the Minister made was that, before approving any considerable increase of fees in these direct-grant schools, he would take steps to secure that the interests of the poor scholars and those with special residential qualifications are adequately safeguarded.
  Mr. Ede: I doubt very much whether it would be said that the person who can afford to pay £30 is the parent of a poor scholar. If the fee is put up to £51—and such an increase is suggested—that person's child might very well be excluded. The word "poor" does not really cover it. I hope that the hon. Lady will remember that my hon. Friends on this side did not divide on fees when the Bill was going through Report stage, because they accepted the Minister's doctrine of accessibility.
  Mrs. Keir: I fully appreciate the point, and I will pass on what has just been said to my right hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) covered a very wide ground, and other hon. Members mentioned some of the points that he made; so he will understand if I do not deal with every single one separately. He first criticised the Government's manifesto, published this morning. I do not think I am here today to discuss the merits of election manifestoes.
  Mr. Ede: This one has none.
  Mrs. Keir: I have not got the Labour one here, but am sure I could find something in it that did not meet my approval. I understand my hon. Friend is worried about building and labour; so are we all. But my right hon. Friend indicated that there is a priority, and we will keep a close watch on that priority. Several hon. Members asked about the emergency training colleges. It is well known that there are at present only three open, containing 350 students. We hope that by the end of the year—I do not think it

  1369
  would be any good giving an actual date—we shall be able to meet all the needs of the applicants in these emergency colleges. He then asked one or two technical questions about direct-grant schools. It is true that there is no intention of differentiating in regard to age of entry between direct-grant and other schools. I should like to look into the matter if he can give me any cases of differentiation. He also asked what criteria the Minister will apply in considering applications from direct-grant schools. There are three. He will consider applications on the following grounds: any non-local or special characteristics possessed by the school, the financial competence of the governors to maintain the school and carry out any necessary alterations or repairs, and, lastly, the observations of the local education authorities. It is difficult to make all those points crystal clear in a Debate, but if my hon. Friend would like to discuss them with me afterwards, I will add to any points that I have not fully covered. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Sir M. Robertson) made a very interesting suggestion. He was anxious that teachers should have a chance to go abroad. That is something that the Minister and I would like to discuss between ourselves. Probably hon. Members noticed that there is a scheme in contemplation—I saw it quite recently in "The Times"—for the exchange of teachers between this country and America. That is something with which we have the greatest sympathy.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon Boroughs (Mr. Seaborne Davies) made a very excellent maiden speech. I am sorry that he is not here. I cannot pay him a higher compliment than to say that his great predecessor in the representation of Caernarvon Boroughs would have thoroughly approved of that speech. The hon. Member asked about the priority of buildings—which I have dealt with—and then he asked if I could, enlarge on what the Minister has said about the release of teachers under Class B. We cannot give a hard and fast figure of how many teachers we expect will be able to come out under that scheme. I think it is generally known that there are some 20,000 teachers serving in the Forces to-day. We cannot be more precise about the number to be released until more exact figures are given for Class B releases generally for actual periods and this has
  1370
  to be agreed with the Minister of Labour. The hon. Member also mentioned the universities. We have no evidence that intending teachers are not going to the universities. Our information is that there is great pressure at present on the universities. He also mentioned the financial aspect in relation to the additional grant to be given to poorer authorities, which he did not feel was sufficient. I would only remind him that during the course of the Bill the additional grant for poorer areas was actually doubled. I am sure my right hon. Friend would consider any case where it was thought that unfair treatment was being given.
  I now come to that very lively and somewhat electioneering speech by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove). His first complaint was that my right hon. Friend had said, "Let us be sober." I could have understood him objecting if my right hon. Friend had said, "Let us be—," the opposite. He took strong exception to that little green pamphlet, "The Nation's Schools." I think he agrees that it was a Coalition production. It may be interesting to my hon. Friend, who criticised it so vehemently, to learn that it was the first thing that I found in my room on arrival at 14, Belgrave Square.
  Mr. Ede: The hon. Lady has got my copy, which I left behind.
  Mrs. Keir: Opinions vary on this pamphlet. My hon. Friend read a very long extract from "The Times Educational Supplement," and I might just read one short extract from the "Teachers' World." It is headed "The Nation's Schools," and it says:
  "New and amazing vitality is in striking evidence at the Ministry of Education."
  Mr. Cove: Might I ask who wrote that—a decrepit old gentleman who has retired?
  Mrs. Keir: I cannot tell who has written it.
  Mr. Cove: It would be interesting to know whether it was anybody who is active in the educational world, or somebody who might have retired many years ago.
  Mrs. Keir: My hon. Friend did not tell us who wrote the article in "The Times Educational Supplement," so I do not

  1371
  think it necessary to tell him who wrote this article.
  Mr. Cove: "The Times Supplement" is a responsible production. [Hon. Members: "Oh!"] Yes, it is a responsible paper, written by people who really understand what they are writing about.
  Mrs. Keir:I have not been very long at the Ministry, but I thought that the "Teachers' World" was also a responsible publication.
  Mr. Cove:No, it is a cheap, trumpery paper.
  Mrs. Keir: I am going on with my quotation:
  "This pamphlet should be in the hands and in the mind of every teacher and of all concerned with the administration of education. Packed full with wisdom and suggestion. Here is the ground for a living partnership, which should be eagerly entered upon by all concerned with the—
  Mr. Cove:Written by a man 80 years of age.
  Mrs. Keir: I listened to a very long quotation by the hon. Gentleman: this is a very short one. Now he will have to listen to that part again:
  "Here is the ground for a living partnership, which should be eagerly entered upon by all concerned with the fashioning or with the execution of the work of education."
  I do not think I need answer many of the other points of the hon. Member. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) has shown what a travesty of paragraph 47 he made, and I will only conclude by saying that one thing is certain—that the sales of the pamphlet will go up after this Debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham, in a very interesting speech, asked whether we would take great care that there was a sufficient number of books in the schools. I can certainly say that my right hon. Friend and I will do our utmost to see that the shortage, of which I am only too well aware, is rectified at the earliest possible moment.
  Mr. Evelyn Walkden: That was promised a year ago.
  Mrs. Keir: It is of real importance that we should get the books back into the schools. My hon. Friend also said that what was needed was to look into the whole content of education in the schools. He may be glad to know that the Central Advisory Council which has recently been
  1372
  set up, consisting of very distinguished people from all walks of life, is making its first inquiry into the general nature of the curriculum provided in our schools. That ought to result in a very interesting report for my hon. Friend. I am sorry that he does not feel satisfied about Regulation 23. The truth is that we tried to get agreement at a conference between, all the interests concerned. But they could not come to an agreement. If they had, there might have been a different Regulation, but the desire of my right hon. Friend opposite and of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour was that we should keep the position as it was, or as near as possible as it used to be, and I think that, under the new Regulation, this is so. In addition, in special circumstances, clergy men may, if they get permission, be able to teach. I fully realise that this does not satisfy my hon. Friend, but—
  Mr. Ede:I hope the hon. Lady will make it dear that this Regulation only applies to full-time teachers, and one must protect the schools and the public purse from having in the schools people who have a cure of souls, which occupies a very great part of their time out of school, and which may, in fact, so associate them with particular limited interests in the district as to militate against their success as schoolmasters. Anybody who is taken on to the staff of a school under this Regulation must be a schoolmaster first, and must be prepared not to undertake anything outside the school that will militate against his work as a schoolmaster.
  Mrs. Keir:May I thank my right hon. Friend for answering that question so adequately for me?
  Mr. Lipson:May I say that I made it perfectly clear that I was not proposing that a minister of religion, who held a cure of souls should be allowed to teach, but that a man should not be debarred, because he was a minister of religion.
  Mrs. Keir:I think the fact that the conference could not agree shows that there is a difference of opinion, and we have got to get the best arrangement possible.
  Mr. Harvey:Will the Parliamentary Secretary ask the Minister if he will reconsider it, in the light of what the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has said?
  Mrs. Keir: I do not think I am in a position to ask for reconsideration of this. I think that, actually, the Regulation has been laid—if that is the technical term. Now I come to the speech of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay). It was, as his speeches always are, very informative and interesting. The hon. Member was very worried about the position of teachers. So are we all. It is just possible that 1,000 girls may have been told that there are no places for them immediately. They have all been asked to wait a little, and it is in order to be able to take these girls that we have asked the local authorities to open the new improvised colleges as soon as they can, because we do not want these girls to be in the position of not being able to take the course in teaching which they want.
  I am very glad indeed that the hon. Member mentioned C.E.M.A., because he helped so much in its original formation. I have been privileged to see its work from the inside as a member of the council for the past five years, and I say that, in an almost wholly destructive period, it has proved one of the real constructive developments. To those who love the arts, music, painting and drama, C.E.M.A. brought light in the black-out. I should like hon. Members to read the last annual report, in which it is stated:
  "The arts are a necessary part of everyday life, to be maintained in all weathers,"
  and I should like to add to that: "for every section of the community." I must not anticipate the statement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will probably be making to-morrow about the future of C.E.M.A., but I feel certain that it will bring satisfaction, happiness and beauty into the lives of a great many people.
  We have listened to a very interesting speech from the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd). I really need more time at the Ministry before I can give any fully considered answers to many of the problems and questions which he put about secondary education, but I agree with the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Harvey), who followed him, and who said that his enthusiasm seemed to have carried him, on some points, to great pessimism. It is a pessi-
  1374
  mism which hon. Members as a whole do not share, and which certainly neither I nor the Minister share. A few points which the hon. Member for the English Universities raised included a question whether I could not say something more about adult education. The Minister made some very important points on this question, and I can only say that there is no subject to which we both attach more importance and that we are both alive to the very excellent suggestion which the hon. Member made to-day. There is no doubt that there is great scope for informal provisions and improvised arrangements. I do not believe that money comes into it. At any rate for this year—with the demobilisation scheme not yet started—there is enough. I can assure the hon. Member that, in the adult educational field, steps are being taken to remove restrictions in the development of the work undertaken by the voluntary associations.
  I think I have dealt with most of the points that have been raised in the Debate. Hon. Members can be assured that those with which I have not been able to deal fully, will be discussed and considered very carefully by the Minister and myself. We intend to help in every way possible to make this Act a reality for the future citizens of the country, who will require to be fully equipped with knowledge, wisdom and leadership if they are to shoulder the immense responsibilities and opportunities that lie ahead. I would end by saying that, while my right hon. Friend and I are privileged to remain at the Ministry, I am certain that the most important thing for us is to remember that, among all the complicated network of facts, figures and formulas, our main duty is to serve the best interests of the children. In the end that can only be done if we say to ourselves, in the words of Dr. Thomas Jones "There are no children in general, only children in particular." It is in that spirit we intend to act.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved:
  "That a further sum, not exceeding £62,952,140 be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sums necessary to defray the charges for the following Departments connected with Education which will come in

  1375
  course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1946, namely:

  £

  Class IV, Vote 1, Ministry of Education

  55,507,780

  Class IV, Vote 13, Public Education, Scotland

  7,444,360

  62,952,140"

  THE CHAIRMAN then proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House this day, to put severally the Questions, "That the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the several Classes of the Civil Estimates, including Supplementary Estimates and the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the Estimates for the Revenue Departments, the Navy, Army and Air Services be granted for the Services defined in those Classes and Estimates":

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1945

  CLASS I
  "That a sum, not exceeding £5,112,629, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1946, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I of the Civil Estimates, namely:

  £

  1.

  House of Lords Offices

  42,288

  2.

  House of Commons

  336,322

  3.

  Registration of Electors

  470,000

  4.

  Treasury and Subordinate Departments

  836,304

  5.

  Privy Council Office

  14,832

  6.

  Privy Seal Office

  6,100

  7.

  Charity Commission

  23,669

  8.

  Civil Service Commission

  66,010

  9.

  Exchequer and Audit Department

  188,190

  10.

  Government Actuary

  15,970

  11.

  Government Chemist

  80,131

  12.

  Government Hospitality

  20,000

  13.

  The Mint

  90

  14.

  National Debt Office

  5,892

  15.

  National Savings Committee

  371,904

  16.

  Public Record Office

  30,207

  17.

  Public Works Loan. Commission

  14,259

  18.

  Repayments to the Local Loans Fund

  21,000

  19.

  19. Royal Commissions, etc.

  52,000

  20.

  Miscellaneous Expenses

  64,071

  21.

  Secret Service

  90

  22.

  Tithe Redemption Commission

  90

  23.

  Ministry of Town and Country Planning

  288,840

  24.

  Scottish Home Department

  164,370

  £3,112,629"

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Class II
  "That a sum, not exceeding £20,717,945, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum
  necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on
  the 31st day of March 1946, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II of
  the Civil Estimates, namely:

  £

  1.

  Foreign Office

  1,917,787

  2.

  Diplomatic and Consular Establishments, etc.

  3,110,152

  3.

  British Council

  1,900,000

  4.

  League of Nations

  86,010

  5.

  Dominions Office

  83,260

  6.

  Dominion Services

  254,242

  7.

  Oversea Settlement

  90

  8.

  Colonial Office

  348,780

  9.

  Colonial and Middle Eastern Services

  4,114,656

  10.

  West African Cocoa Control (Disposal of Profits)

  3,676,253

  11.

  Development and Welfare (Colonies, etc.)

  3,337,200

  12.

  Development and Welfare (South African High Commission Territories)

  294,800

  13.

  India and Burma Services

  1,508,702

  14.

  Imperial War Graves Commission

  86,013

  £20,717,945"

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Class III
  "That a sum not exceeding £11,727,490, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum
  necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on
  the 31st day of March 1946, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III of
  the Civil Estimates, namely:

  £

  1.

  Home Office

  1,083,510

  2.

  Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum

  89,070

  3.

  Police, England and Wales

  6,136,809

  4.

  Prisons, England and Wales

  1,420,400

  5.

  Approved Schools, etc., England and Wales

  347,900

  6.

  Supreme Court of Judicature, &c.

  90

  7.

  County Courts

  343,010

  8.

  Land Registry

  90

  9.

  Public Trustee

  18,080

  10.

  Law Charges

  145,275

  11.

  Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

  11,701

  Scotland

  12.

  Police

  1,196,830

  13.

  Prisons

  135,020

  14.

  Approved Schools, etc.

  107,250

  15.

  Scottish Land Court

  4,512

  16.

  Law Charges and Courts of Law

  66,431

  17.

  Register House, Edinburgh

  9,622

  1377

  Ireland

  £

  18.

  Northern Ireland Services

  2,837

  19.

  Supreme Court of Judicature, & c, Northern Ireland

  12,279

  20.

  Irish Land Purchase Services

  596,784

  £11,727,490"

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Class IV
  "That a sum, not exceeding £9,567,865, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum
  necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on
  the 31st day of March 1946, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of
  the Civil Estimates, namely:

  £

  2.

  British Museum

  104,815

  3.

  British Museum (Natural History)

  70,591

  4.

  Imperial War Museum

  9,030

  5.

  London Museum

  6,083

  6.

  National Gallery

  28,325

  7.

  National Maritime Museum

  7,237

  8.

  National Portrait Gallery

  7,371

  9.

  Wallace Collection

  9,841

  10.

  Scientific Investigation, &c.

  409,646

  11.

  Universities and Colleges, &c., Great Britain

  3,900,000

  12.

  Broadcasting

  5,000,000

  Scotland

  14.

  National Galleries

  12,523

  15.

  National Library

  2,403

  £9,567,865."

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Class V
  "That a sum, not exceeding £118,353,198, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the
  sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending
  on the 31st day of March 1946, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V of
  the Civil Estimates, namely:

  £

  3.

  Registrar-General's Office

  216,490

  4.

  Ministry of Labourand National Service

  17,040,000

  5.

  Grants in respect of Employment Schemes

  1,130,000

  6.

  Commissioner for Special Areas (England and Wales)

  90

  7.

  Special Areas Fund

  715,000

  8.

  Financial Assistance in Special and Other Areas

  66,800

  10.

  Assistance Board

  3,805,000

  11.

  National Insurance Audit Department

  100,200

  12.

  Friendly Societies Registry

  31,480

  13.

  Old Age Pensions

  36,750,000

  14.

  Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions

  16,525,000

  15.

  Supplementary Pensions

  41,920,000

  1378

  Scotland

  £

  17.

  Board of Control

  16,822

  18.

  Registrar-General's Office

  36,226

  19.

  Commissioner for Special Areas

  90

  £118,353,198"

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Class VI
  "That a sum, not exceeding £18,482,420, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum
  necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on
  the 31stday of March 1946, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of
  the Civil Estimates, namely:

  £

  1.

  Board of Trade

  1,764,935

  2.

  Mercantile Marine Services

  1,008,154

  3.

  Department of Overseas Trade

  374,903

  4.

  Export Credits

  90

  5.

  Ministry of Fuel and Power

  2,100,000

  6.

  Office of Commissioners of Crown Lands

  24,039

  7.

  Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries

  3,101,376

  8.

  Surveys of Great Britain, etc.

  724,925

  9.

  Forestry Commission

  675,000

  10.

  Roads, etc.

  5,674,400

  11.

  Miscellaneous Transport Services

  32,143

  12.

  Development Fund

  664,000

  13.

  Development Grants

  284,800

  14.

  Department of Scientific and Industrial Research

  1,055,270

  15.

  State Management Districts

  90

  16.

  Clearing Offices

  90

  Scotland

  17.

  Department of Agriculture

  643,272

  18.

  Fisheries

  59,932

  19.

  Herring Industry

  295,000

  £18,482,420"

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Class VII
  "That a sum, not exceeding £16,766,233, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum
  necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on
  the 31st day of March 1946, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of
  the Civil Estimates, namely:

  £

  1.

  Houses of Parliament Buildings

  81,250

  2.

  Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain

  70,030

  3.

  Osborne

  17,900

  4.

  Ministry of Works

  4,195,070

  5.

  Miscellaneous Works Services

  5,845,065

  1379

  £

  6.

  Public Buildings Overseas

  227,200

  7.

  Royal Palaces

  77,735

  8.

  Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

  151,910

  9.

  Rates on Government Property

  2,327,142

  I0.

  Stationery and Printing

  3,736,611

  11.

  Peterhead Harbour

  7,000

  12.

  Works and Buildings in Ireland

  29,320

  £16,766,233"

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Class VIII
  "That a sum, not exceeding £25,680,053, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum
  necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on
  the 31st day of March 1946, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII of
  the Civil Estimates, namely:

  £

  1.

  Merchant Seamen's War Pensions

  202,053

  2.

  Ministry of Pensions

  22,428,000

  3.

  Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, etc.

  800,000

  4.

  Superannuation and Retired Allowances

  2,250,000

  £25,680,053"

  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLASS IX
  "That a sum, not exceeding £34,145,859, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum
  necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment daring the year ending on
  the 31st day of March, 1946, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IX of
  the Civil Estimates, namely:

  £

  1.

  Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, England and Wales

  28,518,000

  2.

  Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, Scotland

  5,627,859

  £34,145,859"

  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLASS X
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,440, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum
  necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on
  the 31st day of March, 1946, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class X of
  the Civil Estimates, namely:

  £

  1.

  Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (War Services)

  90

  2.

  Ministry of Aircraft Production

  90

  3.

  Ministry of Economic Warfare

  90

  1380

  £

  5.

  Ministry of Fuel and Power (War Services)

  90

  7.

  Ministry of Home Security

  90

  8.

  Ministry of Information

  90

  9.

  Ministry of Labourand National Service (War Services)

  90

  10.

  Postal and Telegraph Censorship Department

  90

  11.

  Ministry of Production

  90

  12.

  Ministry of Supply

  90

  13.

  War Damage (Business and Private Chattels)

  90

  14.

  War Damage Commission

  90

  15.

  Ministry of War Transport

  90

  16.

  Ministry of Works (War Services)

  90

  Scotland

  17.

  Department of Agriculture (War Services)

  90

  19.

  Scottish Home Department (War Services)

  90

  £1,440"

  Question put, and agreed to.

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1945
  "That a sum, not exceeding £95,672,390 be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum
  necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on
  the 31st day of March, 1946, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the
  Estimates for Revenue Departments, namely:

  £

  1.

  Customs and Excise

  4,569,600

  2.

  Inland Revenue

  9,842,790

  3.

  Post Office

  81,260,000

  £95.672,390"

  Question put, and agreed to.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1945
  "That a Sum, not exceeding £1,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge
  which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for
  Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, namely:

  £

  2.

  Victualling and Clothing for the Navy

  100

  3.

  Medical Establishments and Services

  100

  4.

  Civilians employed on Fleet Services

  100

  5.

  Educational Services

  100

  6.

  Scientific Services

  100

  7.

  Royal Naval Reserves

  100

  8.

  Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.: section 1.—Personnel

  100

  Section II.—Matériel

  100

  Section III.—Contract Work

  100

  1381

  £

  9.

  Naval Armaments

  100

  10.

  Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad

  100

  11.

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  100

  12.

  Admiralty Office

  100

  13.

  Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine)—Officers

  100

  14.

  Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine)—Men

  100

  15.

  Civil Superannuation, Allowances and Gratuities

  100

  16.

  Merchant Shipbuilding,etc.

  100

  £1.700"

  Question put, and agreed to.

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1945
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,400, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge
  which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for
  Expenditure in respect of the Army Services, namely:

  £

  2.

  Territorial Army and Reserve Forces

  100

  3

  Medical Services

  100

  4.

  Educational Establishments

  100

  5.

  Quartering and Movements

  100

  6.

  Supplies, Road Transport and Remounts

  100

  7.

  Clothing

  100

  8.

  General Stores

  100

  9.

  Warlike Stores

  100

  10.

  Works, Buildings and Lands

  100

  11.

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  100

  12.

  War Office

  100

  13.

  Half-Pay, Retired Pay and other Non-Effective Charges for Officers

  100

  14.

  Pensions and other Non-Effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers,
  Men and others

  100

  15.

  Civil Superannuation, Compensation and
  Gratuities

  100

  £1,400"

  Question put, and agreed to.

  AIR ESTIMATES, 1945
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge
  which will come in course of payment during
  1382
  the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for Expenditure in respect of the Air Services,
  namely:

  £

  2.

  Quartering, Non-Technical Stores, Supplies and Transportation

  100

  3.

  Technical and Warlike Stores

  100

  4.

  Works, Buildings and Lands

  100

  5.

  Medical Services

  100

  6.

  Educational Services

  100

  7.

  Reserve and Auxiliary Forces

  100

  8.

  Civil Aviation

  100

  9.

  Meterological and Miscellaneous Effective Services

  100

  10.

  Air Ministry

  100

  11.

  Half-Pay, Pensions, and other Non-Effective Services

  100

  £1,000"

  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  WAYS AND MEANS
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS in the Chair]
  Resolved:
  "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, the sum of £2,206,991,334 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Mr. Peake.]
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  POSTPONEMENT OF POLLING DAY BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.17 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This is a simple Bill though an important one. As the House will remember, when the date of the Election was fixed representations were made from various sides of the House that something ought to be done in order to meet the difficulty where in a constituency there was, in fact, a mass holiday in progress

  1383
  on 5th July. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 31st May said this:
  "In order to meet the problem arising from local mass holidays which will be in progress on 5th July, the Government are prepared to consider legislation under which, in constituencies to be specified in the Bill, polling day will be postponed to 12th July."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st May, 1945; Vol. 411, c 373.]
  My right hon. Friend went on to say that in order to legislate on those lines there must be general agreement, and he invited Members and town clerks to get into touch with the Home Office and the Scottish Office. This Bill carries out the policy so indicated, and I hope it will be agreed to by the House. An original list of constituencies and also a supplementary list which might come within the principle laid down were circulated, and we have done our best in the Home Office and in the Scottish Office to produce the right Schedule. I propose to refer to the constituency of Nelson and Colne, which has a Schedule all to itself. It turned out that in that constituency there were mass holidays in two places in progress on 5th July and in the third place on 12th July, there being no mass holiday in progress on the 19th. There were no technical difficulties about postponing polling day until the 19th and as this was generally desired in the constituency, according to our information, postponement has been made to that date. The scheme is, I am sure, the only practicable one.
  There are two constituencies, namely, Westhoughton and Coventry, where substantial holidays will be in progress on 5th, 12th and 19th July and in such cases postponement to the 12th or the 19th did not meet the difficulty. Suggestions were made, in particular by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland) and also in a slightly different form by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman), that we should provide for polling on two different dates in the same constituency, or alternatively, extend the provisions for postal voting. These suggestions were naturally carefully examined, but the Government came clearly to the conclusion, with which I hope the House will agree, that neither of them was practicable. To have two different polling days either for the whole constituency, as would be necessary in Coventry, or for different areas
  1384
  of the same constituency, as might have suited the hon. Gentleman opposite, would have been a constitutional innovation. It would, I am sure, have caused confusion, and I believe in the working out it might have been found unsatisfactory and unpopular. It would also have caused extra work to returning officers and their depleted staffs, which I doubt we should have been justified in doing. It would certainly have raised a lot of argument. Our electoral machine is based on the principle that in each constituency there is a single polling day on which all those who record their votes otherwise than by post, vote, and on which the whole campaign gradually proceeds to its climax and its conclusion. There would have been great difficulty about making an innovation which would have cut across that general scheme.
  With regard to what is done by the Bill, having certain constituencies which poll on one day while others poll on an earlier or later date, whichever end you start at, that is not a constitutional innovation, and up to 1918 was the ordinary practice when the Election was spread out over a considerable period of time. Actually, as far as the present Election is concerned, we shall not, of course, get what people got then, namely, the results of the earlier polls before polling in the other constituencies took place. In all cases, as the House knows, the count is postponed until 26th July, and in the constituencies covered by the Bill the count will take place on precisely the same date as those which vote on 5th July. With regard to the extension of postal voting this would, I am satisfied, be impossible with the staffs at present available and would break down the already hard-pressed electoral machine. It would, moreover, be difficult, if we adopted it, to resist pressure to extend it to cases where there might not be a mass holiday but where electors were not in the place in which they were on 31st January, either because they were on holiday or possibly for other, even more compelling, reasons.
  In deciding what constituencies should be in the Schedule we have been very much assisted by Members, by town clerks and by others. I would, however, like to make it clear that the responsibility for this Schedule rests on the Government, and, in particular, on myself and my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for

  1385
  Scotland. If mistakes have been made, let them be laid at our door, and not made the basis of criticism of Members or of anybody else. We have done our best to deal with this problem in a practical way in order to remedy the outstanding cases to which hon. Members rightly drew attention, and I commend the Bill to the House.
  7.24 p.m.
  Mr. Silverman: I think that the House will welcome this Bill. Obviously, the problem with which it deals and which, I think, it solves fairly, was created by the comparatively sudden decision to take an Election at this time. The arrangements for holidays in Lancashire towns had already been made long before the date of the Election was known. In Lancashire, it has been customary, from time immemorial, to have mass holidays at staggered dates and the dates in each case have become traditional and almost fixed. During the war, many people—I think most people—have dispensed with holidays, at any rate, in the sense of going away. They have had their mass holidays at home, but this year, in view of the changed circumstances, great numbers of people who had forgone their holidays for almost the whole of the war, made arrangements to go away before the date of the Election was known. They had committed themselves in ways that would have involved serious financial hardship, if they had sought to cancel their arrangements in order to discharge their duty as citizens by taking part in an Election which, I think, is, by common consent, as important an Election as has ever taken place in the history of our country. I think we are all pleased that, at any rate, this part of the evil consequences of having an Election so very quickly and unexpectedly has been mitigated.
  I would like to make two other comments. I notice a tendency in some newspapers to claim credit for the Conservative Party for generosity in having made these arrangements. The Schedule shows that there are some 24 constituencies involved and of those constituencies seven are held by Members on this side of the House, and 17 by Members on the opposite side.
  Mr. Hubert Beaumont: They will change.
  Mr. Silverman: Most people who are Members hope to retain their seats, and questions of the generosity of one side or the other might be left out of account. We might all agree, on both sides of the House, to say that we have co-operated in doing the fair and proper thing, and that is to see that everybody had a reasonably equal and adequate opportunity of voting. This Bill does so, and we are all glad that it has been done. The only other comment I would make is on what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about having two different days. I confess that I am satisfied with the arrangements for my own constituency. It is true that it gives us ah Election all by ourselves, after everybody else has finished. It has the consequence of prolonging the campaign by 14 days. It may be that on both sides the inconvenience of that will be felt, and obviously it may turn out to be more expensive, but these are all disadvantages which on both sides we are all very glad to endure, in the interests of having an Election in which every elector in the constituency will be able to cast his vote.
  I do not think that there would have been any insuperable difficulty in the case of my own constituency in having two polling days. The constituency includes more than one local authority. While I appreciate the difficulties of having more than one polling day in a constituency with only one local authority, I do not think those objections apply to the same extent in a constituency where the staggering of the holidays goes according not to the constituency, but according to the local authorities, different local authorities having their holidays at different periods. It would have been possible in my own case for polling to take place in every part of the constituency, except one large one and one rather small area, on 5th July, on the same date as the rest of the country, and having another polling day for those other parts which are under separate local authorities. But I am not complaining in the least. If it was generally felt that it was more convenient to have one polling day for the whole constituency, we, in Nelson and Colne, are satisfied with that arrangement. We would have been satisfied with any arrangement, whether it involved a postponement of Election day, or a number of different polling days, which made

  1387
  it possible for us to maintain our proud record of having a very high poll.
  We have always prided ourselves in that constituency on that. In 1935, out of 51,000 people on the electoral register, 46,000 actually cast their votes. I would like to express the hope that throughout the country there will be as high a poll as that, and that these arrangements for Nelson and Colne will have the result that we shall get practically a 100 per cent. poll on the day. I do not want to detain the House longer, but I thought it right that somebody on this side should say that we accept with great satisfaction the arrangements that have been made, and congratulate the Government on having found a way out of the difficulty which they have created.
  7.31 p.m.
  Captain Prescott: I would like to say how much I welcome this Bill. I will not follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) into what are the exact causes of this Election coming about as it has. I would prefer to keep this matter on a non-controversial basis. The position before this Bill was introduced was that had the General Election taken place on 5th July, a very large part of the electors in the Darwen Division—that part which lies in the Turton Urban District Council—would in effect have been almost disfranchised because of their holiday week and, quite understandably and naturally, this being the first peace holiday, many of them would have taken themselves to more luxurious parts of the County of Lancashire. Therefore, to begin with, I and many others in the Darwen Division were considerably disturbed that many of the electors would have been disfranchised had the General Election been held on 5th July. Indeed, even when the alternative date, the I2th July, was suggested, I was rather disturbed, because it was possible that on that date part of the town of Darwen might have gone on its wakes week; but I understand that it will not be so now, that the wakes week will start on 13th July, and therefore the alternative which I pressed on my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary—that in the Darwen Division there should be two polling days—a request similar to that made by the hon. Gentleman the
  1388
  Member for Nelson and Colne—no longer holds, and so I need not press it on the Home Secretary to-day.
  This Bill, which I hope we shall pass through all its stages very quickly, will ensure that everyone in the Darwen division will be enabled to exercise their democratic right of voting for the candidate they deem best. I myself, if I were returned to this House, would not be happy if I thought that I had been returned when many of the electors had not been able to exercise their right of voting for or against me, and I am sure that any other candidates in the field would have been unhappy if they thought that any of their supporters had been away. I am sure it is the feeling on all sides of the House that in this very important General Election everybody should be entitled and enabled to exercise their free democratic right of expressing their opinion as to who should be returned to this House of Commons. I welcome this Bill, which goes a very long way to facilitating that, and I thank the Government for the broad view they have taken on this matter. I would only conclude by saying, with regard to the observations of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne on the polling average of his constituency, that if he will see me afterwards I think I can convince him that we have a much better record in Darwen.
  7.34 p.m.
  Sir Robert Young: I agree with what has been said about this Bill doing a great deal to rectify the grievance imposed on many electors in various parts of the country. I rise to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman a question. He realises, I hope, that the whole of Warrington is a large municipal borough, but a large part of the constituency of Newton is a part of Warrington, the Orford Ward in particular. Also the Sankey District is only divided from Warrington by a canal, and there are other parts of the constituency in which the residents work in Warrington. Consequently there are about 4,000 electors, or perhaps even 5,000, who work in Warrington but live just on its borders, with the exception of Oxford which is in Warrington. Therefore I rise to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether the Newton division of Lancashire under these circumstances will be put in the Schedule.
  7.35 pm.
  Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: The only hon. Members who have spoken in this Debate so far are those affected by the contents of the Bill, and I think it may be at least of interest if someone who is not affected by it should offer a few observations. This Bill does not affect my division at all, but it may be as well to take a little objective study of it and to consider whether it is a good constitutional principle. I could not let this Bill pass without registering my view that it is a retrograde step of which we ought to be very careful, both now and in the future.
  Mr. Silverman: Why?
  Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe:The hon. Member asks me why. The reason I regard it as retrograde is that it is going back to the sort of elections which took place over 1oo years ago. [Hon. Members: "No."] It is heading in that direction.
  Mr. Silverman: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that the old system before 1918, when there were elections in different constituencies on different dates, was a very bad system—for obvious reasons which there is no need to enter into now—but this Bill does not go back to that. It leaves nomination day the same. It leaves the count the same. It leaves the declaration the same. None of the major purposes that were to be served by the change in the law in 1918 are affected by this Bill at all.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): The hon. Gentleman is making a second speech; he cannot do that.
  Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: I was going to ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if the hon. Gentleman had the permission of the House to make a second speech, but he still has not answered my point, which was that this Bill is heading towards the system which existed over 100 years ago. I am dealing with more recent history than that to which the hon. Gentleman is referring. I was thinking of those contests which we know so well from history, such, for instance, as the contest of Westminster which engaged the attention of Charles James Fox and various of his friends over a period of three weeks. During that time, votes could be polled at any time during the three weeks. My
  1390
  objection to a Bill of this kind is not, of course, that it is recapitulating that system but that it is heading towards it. It would seem to me a most unfortunate thing if we sponsored a system which is going backward in history to a system which, over 100 years ago, it was decided was unfortunate. My objection to this, in principle is that democracy undoubtedly carries with it certain responsibilities. It may be unfortunate that some people cannot vote on a particular day, but, if they are away for a holiday on polling day, then it is not too much to ask of them, if they wish the advantages of democracy, that they should exercise their obligation of taking the trouble to go and vote.
  Captain Prescott:Will my hon. and gallant Friend allow me? Speaking as a Lancashire man, may I ask him if he is aware that most Lancashire people book up their holiday months ahead, that they save up for it, and it would cause great hardship for them to come back specially for polling day; and would he suggest that half my constituents should be disfranchised?
  Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe:They are not disfranchised for, if they choose to come back, they can do so, and if my hon. and gallant Friend thinks it is a great hardship to go and register your vote I can only tell him that I entirely disagree.
  Mr. Silverman:What nonsense. He did not say anything like that.
  Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe:It is a great privilege to vote and I regard it as lie duty of those who wish for a democratic government to exert themselves to some small extent in order to exercise that right and privilege. As I explained to the House, it is only the constitutional principle with which I am concerned. I have no intention of registering any objection to this Bill. I was inclined to think, from the enthusiasm with which it was greeted by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) that he himself regarded it as satisfactory in his particular division. I find the hon. and gallant Member for Darwen (Captain Prescott) shares that view with him.
  Sir D. Somervell:May I interrupt my hon. and gallant Friend by telling him that my division is in it too?
  Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: I explained to the Home Secretary when I began that mine is not.
  Mr. Silverman: That is why the hon. and gallant Member is not in favour of it for anybody else.
  Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: It is not any personal or party advantage—
  Mr. Hubert Beaumont:May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman, if he had been the Member for Darwen, would he have made the same speech?
  Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe:Of course, hypothetical questions are always difficult to deal with, but I adhere to ray main point, that I should expect those who wished to support me to take a little trouble—
  Mr. Silverman: Especially when they do not.
  Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe:—to come and register their vote, whether for or against me. I do not mind whether people vote for or against me so long as they vote, and in so doing give some thought and attention to what they are doing. I feel, however, that this is not a Bill which should be allowed to pass without the comment that it is heading in the direction of a system which was regarded many years ago as undesirable, and we should at least be vigilant in the future. May I say in passing that I recognise the necessity for it on this occasion, but we should be vigilant to ensure that we do not extend this principle, to arrive perhaps at a stage where no one is required to vote but somebody comes round—perhaps a man from the Prudential—with the ballot box in his hand and takes it from door to door so that people shall not even be asked to take the trouble to go to the polls. It is only on those grounds that I wish to express my view to the House and to ensure that if we let it go on this occasion we are not recognising a principle which will be extended further.
  7.43 p.m.
  Captain Strickland: Amidst the general acclamation of this Bill, somewhat tempered by the observations of the last speaker, I feel that I must state the position which arises in my own constituency of Coventry, because I cannot rejoice in the general acclamation with which it has been met. In my own constituency we have done what the Government asked us to do, namely,
  1392
  staggered our holidays over three weeks, and the three weeks come during the time of this Election, so that no choice of dates benefits Coventry in the very least. On 5th July, 22,000 workers in Coventry will, generally speaking, not be able to record their votes because they will be away. Nor could the adjournment until the following week or the week after help, because in each of those weeks other workers will be away. However, I want to pay my testimony to the courteous way in which my case has been considered both by the Home Secretary and his staff, and I am quite satisfied that they have given every consideration to the position, which is just one of those unfortunate things. I cannot help thinking, however, that this House would do well to consider whether in future elections there might not be some extension of the postal voting rights of citizens. After all, what we all want to do is to see that every man has the right to record his vote. I feel that in this particular case my own constituency is almost unique in the position which it will occupy in the coming Election. But I feel that even there, where so many of the electors will be away on holiday, they, will accept the general principle. It is not a thing, however, in which we should rejoice and I much regret that it has been necessary for this step to be taken.
  7.45 P.m.
  Sir D. Somervell:Perhaps I might, with the leave of the House, say a word or two in reply to the hon. Member for Newton (Sir R. Young). Without criticising or blaming him in any way, I would like to point out that the Prime Minister's statement, asking for information, was made on 31st May, and that I heard about his constituency only to-day.
  Sir R. Young:And I only knew that Warrington had made application. The people I am talking about are in Warrington.
  Sir D. Somervell: Warrington was in the first list—I am not quite sure—but whatever Warrington did the position in the hon. Gentleman's constituency was such as he described to us. It is not because Warrington's poll has been postponed that the people will not be in Newton-le-Willows on 5th July. That would happen whether Warrington's poll had been postponed or not. The trouble

  1393
  is that we asked for information some time ago. The Bill was published last Friday, and everybody except in the constituencies which are in the Schedules will have been booking halls and making arrangements, and I feel that there would be great difficulty in putting into the Bill on the Committee stage to-morrow a new Schedule. If there was overwhelming evidence, however, that the sitting Member and his opponent or his several opponents and the town clerk and all concerned were agreed that it should be put in I am not saying that we would not consider it. But without strong evidence of a general local desire by candidates and others for postponing we ought not at this stage, when people have made so many arrangements, to put a new name into the Schedule.
  Sir R. Young: Surely it is not a matter for the candidates to determine but for the residents in Warrington. We are putting 3,000 to 4,000 people off the register.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for Tomorrow.—[Commander Agnew.]

  TREASON BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.48 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This Bill deals with a very different topic from that which we have just passed, and although it deals with a great statutory jumble which will be found set out in the Schedule, it is a simple Measure. Its purpose, as its long Title accurately states, is to assimilate the procedure in all cases of treason and misprision of treason to the procedure in cases of murder. Misprision means, in case anybody does not know, concealment of treason, or being an accessory to treason. Otherwise the term has now gone out of use. I do not think we shall be guilty of complacency when I say that our general system of criminal procedure, on both sides of the Border, is the fairest in the world. Therefore, there seems no reason at all why those who are accused of treason should come under a
  1394
  different procedure from that which applies in normal cases of crime on indictment. But, in fact, at the moment there are on the Statute Book a number of archaic provisions—to be found set out in the Schedule—which apply to prosecutions for treason, though with two very important exceptions.
  I should make it clear that nothing in this Bill affects the nature and character of the offence. It merely deals with procedure, up to and at the trial. Now for the two exceptions. In 1800, Parliament passed an Act saying that in the class of treason which consisted in assassinating or attempting the life of the King—one branch of the law of treason—the procedure was to be, not according to these somewhat complicated provisions to which I have referred, but in all respects as in trials for murder. That Act took one class of treason out of what is called the special treason procedure, and put it into the normal procedure. The House will be familiar with the Treachery Act, which we passed in 1940. That Act is not only applicable to spies, enemy spies dropped from the air for the purpose of sabotage, but also applies to acts of treason committed by British subjects, either in this country or abroad, if those acts take the form of assisting the military operations of the enemy. As the House will appreciate, that is probably the most serious form which treason can take. Toassist the military operations of the enemy in war-time is the gravest form of treason. Under the Treachery Act, that can be tried under the ordinary procedure applicable in cases of murder or other serious crimes.
  All this Bill does is to apply to the remaining categories of treason, the principle which has already been recognised as proper in that case of treason which consists of assisting the military operations of the enemy, and treason which consists in assassinating or attempting the life of the Monarch. I do not think the House will want a detailed description from me of the procedure, but there are special provisions as to the service of a copy of the indictment, as to lists of witnesses, and as to no evidence being given of acts not laid in that indictment. All these are normally covered by our modern procedure of a preliminary hearing before the committing magistrates, and the rule that, once an indictment is

  1395
  laid, no new charge can be based on fresh evidence, even though you seek to give notice of it. There is a provision about lists of jurors which is obsolete under our modern system of selecting jurors, but apart from that there is the general right to get a list of the jurors at a cost of is., I think, seven days before the trial—
  Mr. Silverman: And there is the right of challenge.
  Sir D. Somervell: Yes. I should refer to the provision in the 1695 Act, which, makes the evidence of two witnesses necessary for the overt act which is relied upon as constituting treason. It is, presumably, based on the idea that one witness may be unreliable, whereas, on the other hand, if you allege two overt acts, and if you have one witness of each, then the two unreliabilities are taken as adding up to a sufficient certainty. It was very much criticised from the moment it was enacted. Indeed, a forcible criticism will be found in Lord Macaulay's "History of England." He points out that you may get one witness only to the overt act, but that he may be corroborated by a great deal of circumstantial evidence, whereas you may get two witnesses, uncorroborated by surrounding circumstances, who may yet be unreliable. There has been an argument in the past as to exactly what the construction of this provision would be, but I am quite satisfied that under the modern development of our criminal law, where the whole onus is on the prosecution, and the jury must be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt, the danger against which this provision was directed no longer exists, whereas it is easy to imagine cases in which there may be overwhelming evidence, but where this provision might be a bar to the prosecution getting that evidence before the court and the jury.
  There is only one other point I would like to make, and I do so because I have seen a reference to it in connection with this Bill. As the House will remember, when Casement was tried for treason towards the end of the last war, the trial was a trial at bar in the King's Bench Division, before three judges. Under the old law, in the case of treason committed abroad, and not in this country, there had to be a trial at bar. By this Bill
  1396
  we do away with the necessity for trial at bar, but I should like to make it clear that the power which resides in the Attorney-General to apply for trial at bar remains, and can be exercised in an appropriate case. There is also the right of the accused person to apply for trial at bar which means, in modern practice, three judges if he so desires, although he has no right.
  Mr. Silverman: With a jury.
  Sir D. Somervell: Yes, three judges with a jury. As a matter of fact, the institution of the Court of Criminal Appeal has largely done away with the ground on which in the old days trials at bar were asked for. In those days if you had a point of great difficulty to decide, or thought you had, it was said that you ought to have more than one judge to deal with it.
  Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: Could my right hon. and learned Friend say to which court applications for trial at bar would be made?
  Sir D. Somervell: To the Divisional Court, I think. It is all laid down in the rules. I think it is right to mention that point, because I saw a reference somewhere to the question of whether this Bill affected the possibility of applying for trial at bar. As I have said, this is a simple Measure and is in accordance with what the House has already done, and I am sure that it is right that we should sweep away procedure which has been superseded by our modern criminal code.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. Attlee: We on this side support the Bill. We think it is a reasonable thing to sweep away archaisms where those archaisms have no basis of reason. I understand the original reason for making this procedure so difficult was to try to put a check on the habits of Government sat the end of the 17th century of trying to bump off the Opposition. We hope that is not going to happen again. With the development of science there has also grown up the possibility of committing treason in all kinds of new ways. I think the simplification provided by this Measure is necessary and desirable, and I hope the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
  8.1 p.m.
  Mr. Silverman: I think the case for this Bill is overwhelmingly strong and has been very clearly expressed by the Home Secretary. I understand that the privilege of Peers to be tried for other offences in another place is not affected by this Bill.
  Sir D. Somervell: Nor is their right to be tried for this offence. This Bill assimilates treason to murder.
  Mr. Silverman: I cannot help thinking that all the reasons so lucidly and powerfully advanced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman for sweeping away this archaic practice would be equally good reasons for removing the special rights and privileges of Members of another place who might be so unfortunate as to be charged with any kind of criminal offence. I do not know why this particular crime should have been selected for special treatment. I hope the time will come when the Government will see the weight and force of the arguments that have been advanced on this occasion and use them to remove the parallel and quite similar archaisms.
  8.4 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: I wish to join in the general welcome to this Bill and to thank the Home Secretary for his lucid exposition. I agree with the right hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlec) that it is a good thing to sweep away archaisms, but as he rightly qualified his remark, only those archaisms which have no basis of reason. It is not always easy to determine whether or not they have a basis of reason. It very often happens that historical antiquities, although we cannot feel it so easily, have a very good foundation of reason behind them. I agree that this Bill is a step in the right direction. I take it tile primary object of the Bill is to deal with certain notorious British subjects against whom charges are likely to be laid, and I understand from the Home Secretary that it is applicable only to British subjects who commit treason here or overseas.
  Sir D. Somervell: No. I used that expression in connection with the Treachery Act. It is possible for somebody who is not a British subject, if he is here, to commit high treason. This Bill applies to all cases in which an indictment for treason would lie in ordinary law.
  Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: Those of us who have had to consider this matter from time to time have found certain difficulties about it. The Treachery Act applies not only to British subjects.
  Sir D. Somervell: No.
  Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: But to subjects who are not in this country.
  Sir D. Somervell: No.
  Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: I do not want to enter into an argument at this stage. I am concerned with those persons who commit offences outside our jurisdiction. I understand this Bill has no effect on them, and, therefore, I take it this would not be an appropriate occasion to deal with that matter. I have always taken the view that the trial of notorious ex-enemies is a complete farce, and that they who are already condemned ought not to be put on trial but should be dealt with immediately. I should be glad if the Home Secretary would reassure me that the Bill does not deal with the point I am concerned about, that is, the trial of enemy subjects who have committed crimes outside our jurisdiction. They have to be dealt with in some way or another. I would like to see a Bill in which a method of dealing with them is clearly and explicitly provided, and I hope that at some time the Government will make clearer to us how they propose to deal with those people.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for To-morrow.—[Commander Agnew.]

  FAMILY ALLOWANCES BILL
  As amended, considered.
  NEW CLAUSE.—(Adjustment in case of children for whom supplementary allowances, etc., are paid under certain provisions.)
  (1) Notwithstanding anything in—

  (a) the Workmen's Compensation (Supplementary Allowances) Act, 1940, or the Workmen's Compensation (Temporary Increases) Act, 1943;

  (b) Sub-section (1) of Section thirty-seven of the Unemployment Insurance Act,1935, or Section three of the Unemployment Insurance (Increase of Benefit) Act, 1944; or

  1399

  (c) paragraph (a)of Sub-section (i) of Section one of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1936;

  a supplementary allowance, an increase in weekly rate of benefit, or an additional allowance, which would otherwise be payable in respect of a child under any of those enactments shall not be payable in respect of any week beginning after the coming into force of Section one of this Act if at the beginning of that week an award of an allowance under this Act in respect of the child has been made:
  Provided that that supplementary allowance, increase or additional allowance, shall become payable in respect of any such week as aforesaid if and when it has been found by revision of the award, or by an express decision under Section five of this Act, that the allowance under this Act awarded in respect of the child did not accrue during any part of that week and, in the case of an award or of a decision of the Minister, the time for making an application to have the matter referred under that Section has expired or the matter has been referred there under and the Minister's award or decision has been affirmed.
  (2) Where a supplementary allowance, an increase in weekly rate of benefit, or an additional allowance, has been paid in respect of a child under any of the enactments aforesaid in respect of any period before the making of an award of an allowance under this Act in respect of the child, the Minister may in his discretion treat any sums which may subsequently become receivable on account of the allowance so far as accruing during that period as reduced for the purposes of this Act by an amount not exceeding such an amount as he is satisfied to have been paid as aforesaid by way of supplementary allowance, increase or additional allowance, under any of those enactments, and—

  (a) where the payment was by way of such a supplementary allowance as aforesaid, the Minister may pay any amount by which the sums becoming so receivable are treated as reduced to the person by whom the supplementary allowance was paid;

  (b) where the payment was by way of such increase or additional allowance as aforesaid, the Minister may make, in respect of any amount by which the sums becoming so receivable are treated as reduced, such adjustment in account or payment into the Unemployment Fund, the Pensions Account, the Pensions (Scotland) Account, the Special Pensions Account, or the Special Pensions (Scotland) Account, as appears to him to be requisite.

  (3) Sub-section (1) of Section three of the Workmen's Compensation (Supplementary Allowances) Act, 1940, shall have effect with the substitution for the words "Any employer against whom a claim for supplementary allowances is made may by notice in writing require the workman to make a declaration in such form as may be prescribed by the Minister of National Insurance and containing such information as may be necessary for the purposes of this Act as to any children in respect of whom allowances are claimed" of the words It shall be the duty of an employer against
  1400
  whom a claim for supplementary allowances is made by notice in writing to require the workman to make a declaration in such form as may be prescribed by the Minister of National Insurance and containing such information as may be so prescribed as to any children of his," and it shall be the duty of an employer to transmit to the Minister a copy of any declaration made to him by a workman under the said Sub-section (1).
  (4) The committee of management of, or other person administering, a scheme duly certified under Sub-section (1) of Section thirty-one of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, by the Registrar of Friendly Societies may submit to the Registrar proposals for amending the scheme with respect to the benefits there under in respect of children, and the Registrar, if satisfied that the effect of amending the scheme in accordance with the proposals will not be to render the benefits under the scheme (after discounting any additional benefits arising as a result of contributions by the workmen) less favourable to the -workmen than the benefits provided by the Workmen's Compensation Acts, 1925 to 1943, may amend the scheme accordingly, and the certificate given by him in respect of the scheme shall continue to apply to the amended scheme.—[Mr. Hore-Belisha.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  8.7 p.m.
  The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  It would perhaps be convenient to the House if I were to make a statement on the two new Clauses which appear in my name on the Order Paper. On the Committee stage of this important Measure, which my right hon. Friend and predecessor so creditably introduced, many suggestions and criticisms were made. In the natural course of events these would have been carefully and sympathetically considered, particularly where promises were given, before any further stages of the Bill were taken. It so transpired, however, that the Government was changed, the impending Dissolution was announced, and in consequence the prospects of survival of this Bill became meagre. Discussions were held, strong representations were made to the Government from all quarters, and as a result it has been found that by artificial respiration we can keep this Bill alive. I am very glad of that, not only for my right hon. Friend's sake, but for the sake of those who will ultimately benefit.
  How do these two new Clauses fit into the Bill? The Bill itself provides universally for every family which includes

  1401
  two or more children an allowance in respect of each child in the family other than the elder or eldest at the rate of 5s. a week. To that provision there are no exceptions. Every family in Great Britain will benefit, whether the breadwinner be at work or not. This Bill, however, was introduced by my right hon. Friend only as a part of a comprehensive scheme, and it is very difficult to judge it except in the wider context. When that more comprehensive scheme, described in the White Papers, is. in operation, anomalies will have been removed. There will have been a consolidation of all the benefits under the insurance code. It was always intended, and has been repeatedly stated, that the benefits to the second and subsequent children in every family will then be payable under this Bill, whereas under the other insurance schemes which will then, we hope, be consolidated, increased benefits will be given to the insured adults and their first children. It is in that framework that we must look at this Bill. In some cases the improvements of the more comprehensive scheme have been anticipated. That is the case, for instance, with unemployment insurance.
  In 1944 the benefits for single men were raised from 20s. to 24s., for a married man from 30s. to 40s., for the first child the payment was increased from 4s. to 5s., for the second child from 4s. to 5s. also and for the third child from 3s. to 4s. Therefore, the ultimate advantages contemplated by the comprehensive scheme have already been anticipated in that case. Likewise with Workmen's Compensation. When the late Home Secretary introduced the Bill which increased the children's allowances he specifically stated that the intention was that the increases should fit into this Bill when it was introduced. The Widows', Orphans' and Old Age (Contributory) Pensions Act is to be entirely remodelled. In the meantime, under this Bill the children's allowances are increased in respect of the second and subsequent children from 3s. to 5s. Therefore it is not unreasonable that the first Clause that I am introducing should reiterate the principle, which was clearly enunciated in the White Papers and accepted by the leaders of all parties, that there should be no duplication. It will be seen that the intentions of the White Papers have been forestalled in some measure by this Clause. We stand
  1402
  upon that principle and I do not think that anyone falling under the Clause is put at a disadvantage.
  It was on the second Clause, the old Clause 13, that the major criticism came: Fears were expressed because it began with these words:
  "The Minister may make Regulations for the reduction or withholding of an allowance under this Act in respect of a child for whom an allowance or other addition to emoluments is being paid by the Navy, Army, Air Force and certain other Services."
  It was felt that His Majesty's Forces would be deprived of benefits which were coming to other sections of the community. The Government take the view that the Forces are as much entitled to benefits as any other wage-earners. They are indeed wage earners engaged in the most honourable, and at this moment the most indispensable, of all professions. It is on that footing, therefore, that they will receive these allowances or equivalent benefits in addition to any allowances which are paid to them by the respective Departments which preside over their fortunes. They will get this as an addition. It is a mere matter of chance that the soldiers' or sailors' pay is divided up into packets and distributed as between the man, his wife and his children, and the proportions in which that distribution is made are equally fortuitious. To discover what a soldier is paid you must look at the conditions as a whole. That brings in at once the consideration that it is part of the terms of his engagement that, if he be killed or wounded, his dependants should be cared for by payments from the State. We therefore include in this Clause as entitled to allowances, not only the soldier and his dependants but also his orphan children. I know that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) and others feel, particularly if we are going to give a considerable benefit to war orphans, it is anomalous that we should leave in Clause 12 the civilian orphan on a much lower basis. It is the intention of the Government to give 12s. to that orphan instead of the present 7s. 6d., but we cannot accept the Amendment to leave out that Clause because it would mean recommitting the Bill, and there are so many benefits in it that we will not jeopardise its passage.
  Mr. Speaker:We cannot discuss Clause 12 now.
  Mr. Hore-Belisha: I only wanted to say that I was aware of the anomaly. The benefits which will result under the Clause are as follow: The serving soldier's first child will continue to receive 12s. 6d. His second and subsequent children will receive 17s. 6d. each, or an equivalent benefit of 17s. 6d. The first child of a sailor's, soldier's or airman's widow will receive us. and his second and subsequent children 16s. each. The 100 per cent, disabled soldier's first child receives 7s. 6d., and now the second and subsequent children will receive 12s. 6d. each, and, by analogy, the child of a civilian casualty will also receive 12s. 6d. for the second and subsequent children. The orphan will receive 18s. 6d. if it qualifies as a member of the family. If it is the first child it will receive 13s. 6d. as now, and, if the second, third or subsequent child in the family, 18s. 6d. So the Government has more than met the desire of the House, and I hope hon. Members will accept this new and forthright Clause which confers these benefits without any question on the Service man or woman and his or her dependent family.
  There are two periods envisaged in the Bill. In the first, which is an interim period, the Minister must be satisfied that the relevant Department is paying these allowances in addition to the present allowances, either in the form prescribed by the Bill or in some other form which gives an equivalent advantage for the family, in order that the purposes of the Bill may be fulfilled. They may be the paying authority, but I must be satisfied that the soldiers' and sailors' children get the full benefit under the Bill, and the House itself must be satisfied, because before the allowances can be withdrawn the House must approve that withdrawal by affirmative Resolution. So there is a double safeguard, and there is no doubt that the children will get the benefit.
  There is an ultimate period envisaged when I receive a certificate from the Treasury that the pay has been revised, because it is contemplated in the end that all second and subsequent children in the State should come under the provisions of this Bill. That will mean a revision as between the basic pay and the family allowances in certain departments. We have extended this Clause beyond its original scope. We have for instance included the orphan, who was excluded
  1404
  before. We have left out the police and firemen on the de minimis principle. There are only about 1,000 of each, and if a few duplicated pensions are paid for a while to a few people it does not matter, because these pensions are also to be revised, as are others, in the light of this Bill. I beg to move the first Clause standing in my name.
  Mr. Speaker:I would remind the House that these two new Clauses may be discussed together.
  8.21 p.m.
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I have read the two new Clauses on the Order Paper with a great deal of care, and I have listened to the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman has given, and I am sure that he will agree that this is an exceedingly difficult and complicated subject. Clause 13, with which the main change is principally concerned, was dealt with pretty fully by the House in Committee, and on all sides views were put forward representing a fair measure of unanimity and a desire to see considerable changes made in the Clause. Speaking for myself and, I think, for those who sit with me, I can say that we welcome the decision of the Government to bow to the wishes of the House expressed in Committee and that the Amendments which are embodied in this new Clause therefore commend general assent. As I understand your Ruling, Sir, I can to a slight extent discuss the other new Clause, but any remarks I make with regard to the rest of the Bill must be brief. I think, therefore, that I can best meet your wishes and the views of the House by putting into a few words my general attitude and the attitude of the Opposition on this question.
  This is a question on which there has been considerable agitation in the country for many years and which culminates in this Measure, and though the Bill is very important in itself, it is, nevertheless, only one piece in the picture of social insurance. Not only is it only one piece, but all the other pieces have not been before the House so far in any shape or form. Indeed, some of them are probably still in the making. The nature of the grand plan as a whole, therefore, cannot be fully appreciated, because, until all these pieces

  1405
  in the jigsaw puzzle have been put together, the House cannot envisage the picture as a whole. If time had permitted, those of us who sit on these benches would have liked to present our views at greater length as to the precise shape of this particular piece which is to fit into the whole plan. If our views had found favour with the House and the Government, particularly on Clauses 12, 13 and 14, the Government would, no doubt, have amended the Bill in accord with our suggestions.
  But the fact from which none of us can escape is that we have not time to expound our views now. We are working to very close time. The twelfth hour, not of the clock, but of the Session and of this Parliament, is in the act of striking, and, therefore, in order that the Bill may be placed on the Statute Book before the Dissolution, I am prepared to say, speaking for the Opposition, that we will assent to the Bill being carried in the form in which the Government are now asking us to carry it. We must then wait until the other sections of the social security scheme are fashioned in order that, together with this piece, the other pieces may make up a tidy and satisfactory whole of which this House and the country can be reasonably enamoured. It is in that spirit that I hope the proposals of the Government may be accepted, in order that this Bill, which is greatly desired by the country as a whole, whatever minor points there may be which could be improved and which the Minister himself has said the Government will, no doubt, consider before the whole scheme is introduced, may be carried on to the Statute Book before the Dissolution takes place.
  8.28 p.m.
  Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: I want to express my satisfaction that this Bill has been saved and to point out what I believe to be the moral of this incident. As so often during the course of this Parliament, Measures have made good progress until we have come up against the problem of the Forces. Over and over again the Government have stumbled when they have reached that point. In the long Debate which took place recently, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Sir W. Jowitt) was in charge of the Bill, there were three
  1406
  or four hours of heated controversy, all because the Government refused to realise the feeling on all benches that the Service man must have fair play in all these Measures. I am glad that some sort of agreement has been reached on this admittedly difficult problem of non-duplication. It is doubtful whether there is any hon. Member who feels that the ideal solution has been reached.
  My own view is that these new Clauses represent a complicated, almost clumsy, method of dealing with the matter; but, at any rate, it is a method of sorts, and, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) has said, we have now reached a stage in the history of this Parliament when we cannot afford to look a gift horse in the mouth. It is much better that this Bill should reach the Statute before the Dissolution and the end of this Parliament, imperfect as we feel it to be. I should like to congratulate the new Minister on his appointment and to thank him for the lucid exposition he gave of these complicated Clauses. I am glad that almost the last Bill which we are passing is this one and that it is new assured of a passage to the Statute Book. I agree with the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh that there are many pieces of the jigsaw yet to be fitted, and I am sure that when the Government and the right hon. Gentleman return in a few weeks time to the Treasury Bench, reinforced and refreshed by their contact with the electorate, they will press forward to that desirable end.
  8.30 p.m.
  Miss Rathbone: I, like previous speakers, welcome this solution, because I feel it would have been a great misfortune if this Bill, to which millions of people have been looking forward so eagerly, had got so far and had then fallen down and its passing had been postponed. We are all making great sacrifices in accepting the compromise, but we are glad that a possibility of getting the Bill through should have been arrived at by agreement between the parties.
  I only desire to say a word or two on the Clause. I regret that the principle of duplication should have been applied to contributory civilian widows. I do not wish to discuss the other cases which are dealt with in what used to be Clause 14

  1407
  of the Bill, but I think the unemployment section is more difficult. Let me remind the House of the position as to the contributory widow. She is a widow who gets her present modest pension by virtue of the previous contributions of her husband, her employer and perhaps herself, so that five-sixths of the pension she has hitherto been paid has been paid out of contributions. What advantage does she now obtain from this Bill? She keeps 10s. for herself and 5s. for the child—they are not affected by the Bill—but the 3s. she gets under the contributory pensions scheme for second and subsequent children is now raised to 5s. so that she is 2s. better off for each child after the first one. That is a very poor result from benefits which are paid for by the general taxpayer. When we consider that the soldier's wife, who is much more liberally dealt with under this new Clause, already gets 12s. 6d. for the first child, the civilian wife would be a millionaire if she had been allowed to get 8s. for each of the later children. I wish some concession could have been made to the widows, but now we must look to the new Insurance Act to remedy this injustice.
  8.33 p.m.
  Colonel Viscount Suirdale: I would like to follow my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Holder-ness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) in congratulating the Minister on this Clause which affects the Forces in particular. Many of us have felt very strongly about this question of Service pay. I must confess that when the Clause was withdrawn I did not think it possible that the Minister could re-introduce any Clause of which I and some of my hon. Friends would approve. When I first read the Clause my misgivings were not entirely allayed because I found it quite incomprehensible, but after reading it several times and discussing it with the Parliamentary Secretary I began to see the light. As I understand it, the children of those who have been killed and injured will get this extra 5s. while they are of a proper age, and the children of those still serving will get it until there is a complete re-organisation of the terms of Service pay and allowances. When that time comes we may have something to say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. However, that will be a different
  1408
  problem. I feel entirely satisfied and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this rather strange Clause.
  8.34 p.m.
  Mr. T. J. Brooks: In spite of the general feeling of satisfaction concerning this Clause, it is hard for the ordinary layman to understand these discrepancies. I understand this was for the benefit of all the children in the whole of the country. It has been said to-night that it is part of the picture of the whole scheme. The hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) mentioned the case of the widow who, I think, has been harshly treated in the past, and she will only have her money made up to 5s. The unemployed people who are unfortunate enough to be out of work are not to receive these benefits. True, their money will be made up, but they will not get the benefits. One appreciates the fact that benefits are going to the Forces, but the unemployed man is only to be made up to 5s. at the worst part of his life. How are we going to explain to the industrial worker, the miner and so on, who, while he is receiving full wages of £5 or £6 a week, will receive family allowances—no one complains about that because it will be for the child—but who, when he falls on evil days and receives a bad injury which may last for years, must live on 30s. a week? In the past they have had to apply for poor law relief and we do not want that to happen again. The workers of the country will not understand why they are being left out. I have been in public life for many years, and I have never known the time to be opportune for any big scheme of reform. It appears that the same applies to this Measure. While I appreciate the distance we have gone there are a few anomalies which ought to be remedied.
  8.37 p.m.
  Sir Percy Harris: We ought to be satisfied that this Bill has been saved. Obviously, with the present Parliament coming to an end, there has had to be some give and take, and but for that this Bill would not have been accepted. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not contend that this is the last word on a very difficult subject, but it is of satisfaction to all of us, and especially to those like my hon. Friends who have devoted their lives

  1409
  and have been pioneers in this matter of family allowances and who have had to stand up to criticism, that in the tenth year of this long Parliament we should have saved a Bill which contains so much excellence in principle.
  Mr. Speaker:I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are not discussing the Bill. We are discussing the Clause.
  Sir P. Harris:It has been shown that where public interest is concerned we can by ingenuity and good will get a Clause of this kind accepted by general consent, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his skill in getting us all together.
  8.39 p.m.
  Mr. Naylor: Like other hon. Members, I welcome the fact that agreement has been reached in regard to the acceptance of the new Clause, but I would remind the House and especially the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) that this agreement has been reached only under duress. The Prime Minister clearly stated last week that unless the Opposition were prepared to accept the new Clause as it would be presented to the House the Bill would be dropped.
  Mr. Hore-Belisha: Might I interrupt? I cannot allow that to be said. There was no duress at all. This Bill was introduced by the late Government. Hon. Members in all parts of the House came to the new Government and asked whether, despite the shortness of time, we could get the Bill through. We did the best we could with good will on all sides, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) has said. There was no duress.
  Mr. Naylor:I do not know whether my right hon. Friend was present at Question time when the Business of the House was being discussed and when the Prime Minister, in referring to these Clauses in the Bill, said most clearly that unless the Opposition and the House were prepared to accept the Amendment as it would be presented to the House the Bill would be dropped.
  Mr. Hore-Belisha: After discussions had taken place. Really it is very wrong
  1410
  to allow such an impression to go out. There has been complete good will on every side. The Bill was originally backed by Members of all Parties. We have done our best to save it and made certain concessions, but there is no duress whatever.
  Mr. Naylor: We will leave the definition of that word on one side, and I will not press that word in the vocabulary of the right hon. Gentleman, I will agree with him that agreement has been reached, with good will on both sides of the House, but nevertheless there was the fact of what the Prime Minister said. That remains in HANSARD and cannot be disputed and must have some effect upon hon. Members and right hon. Members on this side of the House [HON. MEMBERS: "On all sides"]. On both sides, if you like. I am not claiming that we on this side were in a more meritorious position than hon. Members and right hon. Members on the other side. I want to thank the Minister of National Insurance for the improvement he has certainly brought about by the agreement that has been reached. As a matter of fact the right hon. Gentleman has it both ways. He was on these benches when the Opposition compelled the Minister of the day to withhold the Clauses. Now he gives the other side the credit of having introduced these new Clauses. Whatever may be said about the merits of the Clauses, we can at least claim that the opposition to the original Clauses has been fully justified by the introduction of these Clauses to-night. I am pleased to think that the opposition which the original Clauses received on this side of the House has resulted in a very fair improvement in the conditions pertaining to the families of Service men. If we are sometimes looked upon as His Majesty's Opposition, we can say that at least we did our part in protecting the interests of the children of the families of Service men, and the House will recognise the merits of the Minister's performance this afternoon. I would like to join the right hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green in congratulating the hon. Lady who has been herself responsible for taking so much interest in this question, and I shall be glad if this Bill goes through with the two Clauses as amended.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. Collindridge: I rather object to the Minister putting the point that we are all involved in this question, and that it has been accepted through the usual channels. Let us be candid about the matter. From the beginning of this Bill many of us on this side of the House complained about the taking away of certain allowances. I want to put in a word or two on behalf of the worker in industry who is injured. I want the Bill and, because of the shortness of Parliamentary time, I will support the Bill and these Clauses. I shall support the Clauses rather than lose the Bill. I think we had better be frank about it, that we are doing this under duress. Men in my district when they are working in the pit and are fit and well can go to the colliery office and draw £5 or £6 a week. But when they are injured they draw compensation money, and as a consequence of the time lost they fail to receive a family allowance. Let us look at this in the proper perspective. How can you have men when they are fit and well and drawing wages higher than compensation receiving family allowance and yet deprive them of it subsequently, particularly when they know full well that the compensation is a part levy upon their wages? In short, due to the ascertaining system in mining they are paying the overwhelming share of the premiums that go towards their compensation.
  I said that we should support this Bill, but we had better be frank with the Government on this matter and the right hon. Gentleman in particular: whatever Members come back to this House we shall start, like Oliver Twist did, by asking for more as soon as we are returned. We cannot let these men who have accidents, and suffer shortage of income as a consequence, be deprived of the family allowance which by right is theirs. I am sorry to have to say this, but I believe there is an attempt here to split part of this nation by giving allowances and an opportunity for duplication to some and preventing it in the case of others. I am in favour of the Service men having duplication. The Service man gets his pension and I am in favour of his having this family allowance as well. Service men come back with pensions and find their way into industry, and I cannot for the life of me see why the very same calibre of man, but without pension, who
  1412
  enters industry and is injured should not be allowed duplication. We accept these Clauses and are glad of them and we support the Bill. We do so because many will derive advantage. At the same time that is not going to prevent many of us asking that the men excluded shall be brought within the scope of this particular legislation.
  8.50 p.m.
  Sir William Jowitt: It would be inappropriate if I were not to give my blessing to the compromise which has been arrived at in regard to these two Clauses. The right hon. Gentleman, as I know full well, has a very difficult topic here. Starting from the top, there is the Serviceman being paid 12s. 6d. for each of his children. If he is killed, his widow gets 11s. for each of the children, if he is injured and is a 100 per cent. disability he gets 7s. 6d. for each of his children, as, does the civilian pensioner, and it is very difficult for me, at any rate, to account for all these discrepancies—12s. 6d., us., 7s. 6d. I cannot, and I have never been able, to give the rhyme or reason for any of them. To come to the matter which is now dealt with in the first of the two new Clauses, the civil case and the workman's compensation case, in which at present 5s. is received for each of the children, but only until the end of 1946, when the payment in respect of children comes to an end. In the case of a man on unemployment insurance he gets 5s. for his second child and 4s. for his third. Then there is the widow who, under the Widows' Contributory Pensions Act, gets 5s. for the first child and 3s. for the second and succeeding children. Finally, there is the man who is sick and who needs a children's allowance as much as any of the categories we have discussed, but who gets nothing at all.
  The right hon. Gentleman has, therefore, inherited in his position an extraordinarily difficult problem, which has grown up independently and piecemeal, and is to be defended on no logical basis, whether one deals with the subject matter of the first or second of the new Clauses. Even to-night, if I may say so, I have traced a very considerable measure of apprehension about what these Clauses are doing. The hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander G. Braithwaite) said he was not a lawyer,

  1413
  and therefore he found it difficult to understand them. I used to be a lawyer, and I have found it exceedingly difficult to understand these Clauses. Having read them half a dozen times I am by no means sure that I now understand what they are about.
  I want the right hon. Gentleman to realise that we accept these Clauses, but do not let him think they remove blemishes from the Bill, because they do not. I would give to him here publicly the word of advice which I previously gave to him privately. I am certain that the trouble in connection with these Clauses largely arises from the fact that instead of starting with the main scheme I tried to bring forward family allowances and workmen's compensation first, in order that I might show quick returns. Misapprehension which has been expressed in many speeches, even to-night, as the right hon. Gentleman will realise, is due to the fact that Members of this House cannot see the setting of the whole as he and I know it, because it has not been disclosed, and they do not know it. Therefore I hope that between now and the results of the Election, which is a good many weeks ahead, the available time will be used to get ready the main scheme, so that we may see this picture as part of a comprehensive whole.
  Therefore, I find" myself assenting to the two new Clauses. Family allowances Bills have a habit of following each other in rapid succession, and though I assent to the Clauses I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to think that if I had a mischievous strain in me I could not make a good deal of trouble for him, even at this stage.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
  NEW CLAUSE—(Adjustment in case of children for whom equivalent benefits are provided under provisions relating to the Services and to war injury.)
  (1) The following provision shall have effect as respects allowances under this Act which apart from such provision would accrue during any period before such date as may be certified by the Treasury as the date on which a revision has taken effect of the scales of emoluments and other benefits to be paid in respect of the service of a member of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown (including such nursing or other auxiliary service as may be prescribed), that is to say, if the
  1414
  Minister is satisfied that provision has been made, by an authority by whom allowances or other additions to emoluments in respect of that period are payable in respect of any children by reference to such service as aforesaid, for the giving in respect of those children and of that period of benefits, in addition to those allowances or other additions to emoluments, equivalent to the benefits conferred by this Act in respect of those children and of that period, he may make regulations for withholding the allowances under this Act which would otherwise accrue in respect of those children during that period.
  (2) The preceding Sub-section shall apply in relation to a revision of the scales of benefits to be paid—

  (a) in respect of the disablement or death of persons who have served in any of the said forces, or

  (b) under any scheme made by virtue: of the Injuries in. War (Compensation) Act, 1914, the Injuries in War Compensation Act, 1914 (Session 2), the Injuries in War (Compensation) Act, 1915, the Government War Obligations Acts, 1914 to 1916, the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1939, or the Pensions (Navy, Army, Air Force and Mercantile Marine) Act, 1939, either as originally enacted or as amended by the Pensions (Mercantile Marine) Act, 1942,

  with the substitution for references to allowances or other additions to emoluments payable by reference to such service as is mentioned in the preceding Sub-section, of references to allowances or other additions payable by reference to such disablement or death as aforesaid, or tinder any such scheme as aforesaid, as the case may be.
  (3) Regulations made for the purposes of this Section shall be of no effect until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.—[Mr. Hore-Belisha.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  8.56 p.m.
  Mr. Hore-Belisha: As I did not take any part in the earlier stages of the Bill I wish, to say two or three words, if the House will permit me. I noticed a tendency, even in my right hon. and learned Friend, to attribute to me some credit for the new Clauses and for the Bill. There is no such credit attaching to me except for one Clause. The first Clause which I moved was identical with the Clause which my right hon. and learned Friend had been compelled to withdraw. I am therefore somewhat surprised: that he should come here and publicly avow that by the exercise of ingenuity he could pick holes in it. It is a pity that he did not exercise that ingenuity before he presented the Bill.

  1415
  But my purpose is not to make a retort to him on that small matter but to give him, as I desire to, his full credit for this Measure. It is true that I have been able to modify it, with the approval of the Government, and to extend the benefits of one of the Clauses, but the Bill is nevertheless his child. I may have given it a little tip on the road to school, but I have not done more than that. He may always be proud to feel that he introduced to the House of Commons this very important measure, which is a milestone in the history of social reform. Its full magnitude is not perhaps realised. I am particularly glad for his sake that we were able to save the Bill. It will always, I think, be borne in mind, when the Coalition Government which has just expired is referred to, that one of its principal Measures was this Bill. Not only did the late Government win the war in Europe, but it passed on to the Statute Book many important measures of legislation of which this is not the least important.
  I would like to say what many hon. Members have found pleasure in saying previously, that the hon. lady the Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone) may feel very proud when the Royal Assent is given to this Bill. She has done many years of hard work to popularise an idea which was sometimes looked upon with scorn. Hers, therefore, must be a large part of the credit. I can only hope that this Measure will bring comfort and relief to many families in this Realm.
  8.59 p.m.
  Group-Captain Wright: We must all feel a great deal of satisfaction that at long last we are going to pass the Family Allowances Bill, and make it become an Act. As one who has had the privilege of working in very close liaison with the hon. Lady the Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone) for some years in pressing for this principle to be adopted, and who therefore has had an opportunity of seeing at close quarters the indefatigable work she has continued to put into this matter for so many years, I would like also to point out what a very large measure of thanks is owing, not only by this House and the country, but particu-
  1416
  larly by the mothers of the country, to her for the work she has done.
  I have noticed that there has been a slight tendency, no doubt owing to the fact that a General Election is close upon us, for some of my hon. Friends on the Opposition Benches to claim the credit for all the good parts of this Bill and to disclaim any opprobrium for the parts which are not quite so good. It would be a great pity for them to bring party politics into this matter; if one looks back a short time, one will find that the Opposition would not be wise perhaps to try to take credit for this. I would remind the House that it is nearly three years since the hon. Lady and I put down a Motion, which was signed by over 200 Members of this House, asking for exactly the terms which have now been granted in this Bill. Most of the names were those of Conservative Members, and in refusing the demand the Minister at that time made his chief point the fact that he thought there would be considerable opposition from the trade unions. I am only pointing out that had we at that time had the same full measure of support from the Socialist Party as they are giving us to-day, no doubt we should have had family allowances some years ago.
  Mr. Naylor:When did this take place, and how large was the Labour Party here at that time?
  Mr. Speaker:The hon. and gallant Gentleman was talking outside the Bill. He must talk inside the Bill on the Third Reading.
  Group-Captain Wright: May I just say that it was only just over two and a half years ago, and that the hon. Gentleman no doubt knows what the size of his party was in the House at that time?
  Again I do not want to raise controversy, but we had the most astonishing speech to-night from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He started by congratulating the Minister on the introduction of this Clause, which the Minister now tells us was in fact the Clause of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and then he proceeded to say that, although he was a lawyer, he did not understand it. My own feeling is that the Clause is quite clear, and that it will go a very long way to meet this difficult problem. I think the House should really feel very

  1417
  happy that we have gone a long way towards putting this Measure on the Statute Book, with, a great deal of good will and with such a large measure of agreement. I, like many hon. Members, do not care for this Bill very much, but I am glad that we have got our toe in the door, and that we have now accepted the principle. I have not the slightest doubt that many of us who have worked for the cause of family allowances in the past will, if we are returned to this House after the Election, carry on this work in future as we have done in the past. We must all agree that, having started on this road, we shall eventually very much improve the conditions, and make family allowances something really worth while.
  9.5 P.m.
  Mr. Graham White: I do not rise to resume any of the arguments which have taken place during the discussion on this Bill, which has been brought to its final point. Neither do I wish to go into the history of the matter, except to join with other hon. Members who have referred to the satisfaction which we all feel that this work, on which my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) was the protagonist for a long time, almost alone in this field, has been brought to success. It is not a complete success, it is true. There is no Bill, I think, connected with our social security system which has ever passed this House with complete satisfaction to everybody, and I think that is true of this Bill, but, on the other hand, there has, in previous Measures in this Parliament, been a considerable measure of agreement, and I hope that will be the case with this Bill.
  9.6 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I should like to express the gratification which is felt, I am sure, by everybody in the passage of this Bill, which goes back to the early days of the hon. Lady's fight for this cause. It does seem to me that there is still a place in English politics and in English political life for those rare persons like the hon. Lady who has fought this fight, and the hon. and gallant Member for Erdington (Group-Captain Wright), who had to fight very much against his own party to get acceptance of this principle; and when I think of the fight which the hon. Lady has put up, it
  1418
  seems to me that we ought to join, united, to-night in a tribute to one who has for 30 years fought a battle and finally won it.
  9.7 p.m.
  Miss Rathbone: I am really immensely touched and grateful for all the kind things said by nearly everyone who has spoken in this Debate—the Minister, the hon. and gallant Member for Erdington (Group Captain Wright), the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) and the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White). It makes me feel a little ashamed, although it is certainly true that I began this struggle a long time ago. I found the other day a pamphlet in which I was pressing, in rather timid and veiled terms, for a scheme of family allowances. It was dated 1912. I began still more actively after the last war, when the movement grew and spread. I would like to say that too much credit has been given to me, and I would like to refer to other people who joined in the fight. It is quite true that the majority of the workers have, from the first, and quite naturally, been women. Some of these women have already passed away without seeing the fruit of their labour. Many of the women, in quite humble positions, have done the donkey work, the hard clerical work and going round to meetings, but we have, as well, had distinguished men friends. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir W. Beveridge) was one of my first converts, and I wish he was here to-night. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Erdington has really been magnificent, for, when the support of his party was not forthcoming, it was largely due to him that he brought them round. We have had friends in every party and in every creed, and I never knew a question which cut so much across party differences, and, very often, very deep differences between people.
  It is naturally a very great joy for me to see the end of the first stage in this fight, because I do want to make it clear, although it might seem rather ungracious, when somebody is being congratulated upon her baby, to point out the defects in the baby. Yet I feel I must point out that this baby is a very little one. We feel that it will have to be a good deal fattened and cossetted before it reaches its proper stature. To point out its defects, the whole thing is on too small a scale.

  1419
  Five shillings a week for the second child may just tip the balance in homes where they want another child, but it is not going to do much to induce that general flow of larger families which—and I do want to make this point—is essential if this country is not gradually to sink into the position of a second-class Power.
  I am often astonished to see how many people—not just spinsters like myself who might be expected to be indifferent to what happens to our country 30 years hence—but how many people who are parents, whose children themselves, may live to see a fairly far distant future, seem to think that, because a steep decline in our population is not due for 30 or 40 years, they need not bother about it. Everyone who is proud in his heart to be British must feel that much as they honour Switzerland, Sweden and other minor Powers, they do not want Great Britain in future to be in the same class. I must not enlarge further on that theme.
  There are many other respects in which we feel that this Bill, this Act as we shall soon be able to call it, will have to be a bigger Act before it does its work. I would like to draw attention to one Clause in it which was not amended—Clause 24—which lays down the extraordinary rule that no child is to have an allowance unless it is the child of someone born in Great Britain. This is going to have a bad effect on the reputation of this country unless regulations are adopted by the Minister which will enable him to get rid of that unjustifiable restriction and extend the purview and interpret the Clause, so that naturalised aliens who have done good service, and people who happen to have been serving in India or some other country when they were born, are not to be excluded. I know that it was the intention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the former Minister to draw up regulations which would be really generous, and I hope it will be one of the first cares of the right hon. Gentleman who sits opposite. I must not detain the House longer. We are all anxious to part, but I would only say that this is, to my mind, a great day, because it lays down a great principle. In early days I used to describe meetings of employers and employed, landowners and rentiers sitting round a table competing for their share in the national income with a woman coming
  1420
  from behind and holding out her hand, saying, "I am the mother, the future citizens and workers depend on me; where is my share? "This Bill gives the mother through her children her share, although it is only a very little share so far.
  9.14 p.m.
  Sir W. Jowitt: I would like to join in the general chorus of congratulation to the hon. Lady the Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone), and I would like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister upon the very favourable reception which his Bill has had from all quarters of the House. With the exception of the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Erdington (Group-Captain Wright), all the speeches have been speeches which have not tried to capitalise party interests and have been friendly to the scheme. I think there has been a great deal of misapprehension about this matter. Even to-night, the hon. and gallant Member for Erdington did not seem to realise that there were two new Clauses which had been introduced into the Bill, one of which was identical with Clause 14 of the previous Bill and the other a new Clause. It was, I think, obvious to everybody, except the hon. and gallant Member, that when I said the Clause was difficult to understand, I was referring to the New Clause and not to the Clause in the previous Bill for which I was myself responsible.
  All I want to say to the right hon. Gentleman is this. He will shortly have his Bill with the general good wishes of all parties. Now comes the question of getting on with the job. He has a considerably difficult task in order to construct his machine to get this Bill in operation, and we on this side of the House shall, if we are here, be patient with him for a time. However, we shall want to be satisfied that at the earliest practicable moment, when he has been able to construct his machine and get his list in order, that payments under this Bill begin to be made and we shall not want to be held up by any high-flown or high-falutin' economic theories. As soon as payments can be started, we shall hope that he will start them. I wish him, therefore, good luck in getting on with the job and, when we come back, if he is there and we are here, we shall be friendly, but determined to see that no time is lost to make this Bill an effective instrument of social well-being.
  Sir Joseph Nall: it is really refreshing to hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Sir W. Jowitt) that he expects that my right hon. Friend will be in charge of this business after the General Election. [Hon. Members: "No."] That is the first quite candid expression of opinion we have had from the Opposition side of the House as to what is likely to be the result. [Hon. Members: "No."] I only rise—
  Sir W. Jowitt:Will the hon. Member give way? I thought I made it quite plain that I said "if" the right hon. Gentleman is there. I think it is a pity to mislead as plainly as that.
  Sir J. Nail: But "if" at least expresses expectation.
  Mr. Speaker:The question which side gets the majority has nothing to do with this Debate.
  Sir J. Nall: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, if I have transgressed the Rules of Order. I thought it desirable to say that I certainly shall not oppose this Measure. I realise it is right that it should be passed at the present time, in order, at least, that we should ascertain the result of it to see whether it is a principle which should remain permanently on the Statute Book. However, I think it is right to remind the House what a well-known historian wrote in a book quite recently, that it is because we forget our history, that we often have to re-live it. It appears to be forgotten that towards the end of the 18th century a system of family allowances was introduced, under the auspices of the then existing Poor Law, which reduced wages to a level much lower than they had been for many years, and it was in the light of that experience that for many years the trades union movement in this country has not been at all friendly towards this matter of family allowances.
  Mr. Speaker:I moist interrupt the hon. Gentleman again. On Third Reading we discuss what is in the Bill, not matters outside the Bill. On Second Reading one can be as wide as one likes, but on Third Reading it is quite narrow.
  Miss Rathbone: In case that piece of quite astonishing history should go down in the pages of HanSard, may I ask
  1422
  the hon. Gentleman when was the system of family allowances introduced at the end of the last century?
  Mr. Speaker: That would extend the Debate outside the scope of a Third Reading. The hon. Lady cannot do that.
  Sir J. Nail: I only say that we all pass this Bill with acclamation to-night because it will, at least, do some good for the time being. For that reason alone it ought to be passed. For the rest, it is repeating history, and it will remain to be seen whether history repeats itself.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  INTERNATIONAL SITUATION
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pym.]
  9.20 p.m.
  Commander King-Hall: On 13th May last I was speaking at a small village called Burscough in my constituency on the international situation and I said, in my concluding remarks, that we did not stand alone in 1940 to save democracy in order to change our ideas, in 1945, as to what democracy meant. On that particular evening the Prime Minister was due to broadcast to the nation, so we had arranged that his speech should be relayed into the hall. Five minutes later the right hon. Gentleman made his national broadcast, and I am bound to say that I rather preferred his 1940 wavelength to his 1945 wavelength. That evening he was broadcasting on his 1940 wavelength. In that national broadcast the Prime Minister said:
  "On the Continent of Europe we have yet to make sure that the several and honourable purposes for which we entered the war are not brushed aside or overlooked in the months following our success, and that the words 'freedom, democracy and liberation,' are not distorted from their true meaning as we understand them. There would be little use in punishing the Hitlerites for their crimes if law and justice did not rule, and totalitarian or police governments were to take the place of a German invasion."
  As I watched an English audience listening to those words I could not help taking my mind back to Sunday, 3rd September, 1939, when I listened to another Prime

  1423
  Minister broadcasting to the nation from Downing Street, and saying:
  "It is the evil things we shall be fighting against, brute force, bad faith, injustice, oppression and persecution, and against them I am certain that the right will prevail."
  Many pages of history have been written, many great and terrible events have taken place in the period between those two broadcasts, and if I had a little longer than I have to-night, I would like to say something about some of the things that have happened in that period. But I want to mention only one which, I believe, has never yet been mentioned in this House. Many glorious things have happened, many great mistakes have been made, but one mistake was made which, I think, has never been referred to in this House. I do not think any Member will accuse me of not realising the importance of the work of the Royal Navy, or of not paying tribute to the work which it has done in this war, but I am bound to point out—in case it ever happens again—that it really was a shocking state of affairs that we started the war in 1939 so inadequately prepared to meet the submarine menace, in view of what happened 25 years ago, in view of the many warnings which the Naval Staff had, and the fact that the German submarine menace had, a few years before the war, been built up as a result of the Naval Treaty signed with Germany.
  I only mention that because we are living in a rough and rugged world at the present time. I think I have a right to mention it, because it so happens that their Lordships of the Admiralty gave me a gold medal in 1919 for an essay on "The Future of Submarines in Naval Warfare." In that essay I said, in the plainest possible terms, that the Navy ought never to be without convoy sloops and small aircraft carriers, and that over the desk of every staff officer there ought to be printed the words "April, 1917–735,000 tons sunk in one month by submarines." There was no excuse for that unprepared ness, and I hope that point will be borne in mind in the future.
  Now I want to get on to other things. I had a word with the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and he told me that he would be satisfied if I sat down about five minutes before the end
  1424
  of the Adjournment Debate. We are at the end of a chapter in world history and in the history of our country, and it is a chapter in which the name of Parliament will be written very large. I think our children's children will call this a great Parliament when the thing is seen in perspective. I am frankly very sorry that the passing of this Parliament has been accompanied by what one might describe as bickering between the doctors and the undertakers, because I think in its later years it has really reflected in a very fine way all that has been best in the spirit of this country, and reflected the greatness of the people of this country in the shape of the national unity which has been shown in this Parliament.
  I am certainly making my last speech in this Parliament. I think it has been an historic privilege to have been allowed to serve as a Member in this war Parliament. Like other hon. Members, I shall have to await the verdict of my constituents before I know whether I can sit here again. Before going into the electoral fight, I feel it to be my duty—and that is why I am venturing to detain the House now—to stand up in my place and issue a warning to any hon. Member who is good enough to listen to me and to anybody who takes the trouble to read these words in Hansard. That warning is implicit in those two broadcasts from the two different Prime Ministers which I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. It is a warning that we may mistake military victory for total victory. It is a warning that we may mistake the means for the end. It is a warning that we, in probing and playing about with these mud pies of party politics, may wreck that basic British national unity which—I do ask hon. Members to believe me when I say it—I feel most sincerely with my heart and my head is the greatest single hope which the world can see in front of it to-day. I feel that, unless we bear those points in mind, there is a danger that we may fall short of measuring up to our national responsibility. During the past few months, under the auspices of the Government, I have been privileged to travel rather widely. I have been in Russia, in the Middle East, in Italy, France, Belgium and Western Germany. I have not time to tell the House all that I have seen and heard in those places. I must content myself with saying that as far as

  1425
  Russia is concerned, there is there a vast collection of republics inhabited by 200,000,000 people, covering one-sixth of the world's surface, a great military Power, fabulously rich in raw materials; and it is absolutely certain that unless the Anglo-Russian Treaty can be transformed from a formal document into a living reality, into something which is a genuine understanding rooted in the feelings of the two peoples, until that can be done, I cannot feel sure that peace is secure. I will come back to that point in conclusion.
  The second point I would like to put before the House is this. In the Middle East, if I may coin a phrase, the Bedouins have begun to come to town. That is significant. For centuries these Arab peoples have been like rivulets disappearing into the shifting sands of the desert, but now there are very evident signs that they are coming together into a broad stream of unity which will begin to make a contribution of great significance to the ocean of world politics. I need not tell the House what that means in strategic, political and economic facts. It is very important. Finally, in Western Europe anybody who has been there will agree with me that there are economic disorder and confusion which, I am perfectly convinced, will erupt into very serious political trouble in the next six months if very energetic steps are not taken to protect the common man in Western Europe from the real miseries which winter is bringing towards him in her arms at this very moment.
  That is the contemporary background against which we must look at events, that is a very sketchy outline of the uncharted sea across which we have to shape our course. We must ask ourselves what must be our guiding principle in deciding where we will go and how we will get there. I believe the simple answer to that is to take as our principle the cause for which we fought and won the war in Europe, and the cause for which we are fighting the war in the Far East. In parenthesis, I spent two years in Japan, and I do not think it is at all wise to count on the Japanese war being over, at the very earliest, till the end of next year.
  That cause for which we have fought this war in Europe must be our guide and the more widely spread the belief in the free way of life the more secure peace will be. Peace is absolutely secure be-
  1426
  tween the nations of the British Commonwealth, not because one is stronger than another but because we all hold on to certain principles. I think peace is secure between the United States and Great Britain very much for the same reason, but it is no use preaching the virtues of the free way of life to men who have no food in their stomachs and no houses over their heads, or proper clothing on their bodies. It is waste of time. Western Europe is rapidly becoming safer for dictatorship than at any time during the last 100 years, because the common man demands the elements of civilized life before it is of any use talking to him of the spiritual benefits of the free way of life. There is a great reconstruction work needing to be done in Europe and, in order to begin to do that, the first thing we have to do is to make up our minds what to do about Germany. That is the great problem. Economically, everything depends upon the output of coal from the Ruhr and the Saar. This is vital to the economic life of Europe at present. That is one of many facts linked up with this question of what we are going to do with Germany.
  I will not touch upon another aspect of the question, Anglo-French relations, which are also of the greatest importance in relation to the work of reconstruction. I must leave that on one side because I want to come to the real root of the matter, the most important of all the questions, which is Anglo-Soviet relations. When I was in Russia, Marshal Stalin told us to be very frank in our talk, and he talked very frankly and easily. He said plainly he hoped to come to London after the war. We put the question straight to him and he said, "Yes." I wish he would come now. He would get a very great welcome if he did. Whether or not one supports the Prime Minister in this country in his domestic policy, a great many people feel, as a constituent of mine put it to me last Saturday night, who is not a supporter of the Prime Minister, and who said, "Why should our old man do all the travelling?" Many people feel that, irrespective of whether they support him or not. That may not seem a very big thing to Stalin. I want him to know—the Russian Foreign Office study HANSARD very carefully indeed: they are practically "Friends of Hansard"—that this kind of thing, whether or not he comes over here and gets the

  1427
  welcome that, he would get, has a real bearing on the warmth of feeling between the two people.
  We want contact with the Russian people, and I have plenty of evidence that they want contact with us. Our paper over there, the "British Ally," prints 50,000 copies, sells for two roubles retail, and fetches 30 roubles second-hand, and every copy is torn and tattered, so much has it been read and re-read. I wonder whether the House knows that there are 53 broadcasts a week in English from Russia to Great Britain, and there is not a single broadcast from England in Russian to Russia. No doubt hon. Members know the extraordinary position of newspaper correspondents in Moscow. For them, there, one kind of news and one only—news which has appeared in the Russian Press. They are not newspaper correspondents, but simply interpreters and translators of the Russian Press. Take the question of the communications by mail, I asked that question myself of the Marshal. I said, "I want to correspond with friends I have made in Russia but what can I do when it takes seven weeks for a letter to get from London to Moscow? Cannot we have an airmail service that gets there in a day? "Marshal Stalin said he would be prepared to be sympathetic. There is the vexed question of the complete exclusion of the Press of our country from Eastern Europe. We do not know what is happening. I am not making sinister reflections. I am saying that according to our way and free view of life we rely on newspaper correspondents of different points of view; on many correspondents who can know and see and report what is happening. We do not know what is happening in that part of the world.
  Having said that, let me say this on the other side of the picture. Nothing could have been more absolutely complete than the freedom of the British Parliamentary delegation in Russia. We were shown everything, and we could ask any questions and go where we liked. I was delighted to hear the Prime Minister say, in replying to a Question of mine after Business the other day, that the Marshal had approved very warmly of the notion for the interchange of students. I hope that the Foreign Office are following that up actively. There are many contradic-
  1428
  tions in Russian policy in this matter, and there is no doubt suspicion and, let me add, justified suspicion. To any Russian who remembers his history, of the intervention and the cordon sanitaire, of course there is suspicion, and justified suspicion. But we also have our complaints. Many Russian students said to me, in January, 1945, "When are you going to start fighting in the West?" and they did not put it politely. They did not mind when I hit back by saying, "Why did you make a pact with the Fascist beast in 1939 and give them oil so that they could bomb us?" We had quite a lively discussion. If we are to get any peace these old controversies must be buried and put in the archives. We must make a fresh start.
  I do not think we will get anywhere with the Russians by trying to pretend that the general set-up in Russia is democratic as we understand that word. I notice that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) made a fine distinction the other day by saying that there is an economic democracy, such as they had in Russia, and another thing called political democracy, such as we had here. I am not an able lawyer like he is, but that is really a sort of legalistic lechery. No real distinction can be made on those lines. I recommend the right hon. and learned Gentleman to have a talk with some members of his political party who went to Russia and ask them what they think of some of the economic arrangements in that country. Having said that, I want to be fair and assure the House that my whole impression was that a high, almost unanimous percentage of the Russian people are perfectly content with the existing subordination of the freedom of the individual to the needs of the State. It is, as they see it, a high degree of patriotism, and I was satisfied that they were satisfied with it. All I am saying is that I am convinced that that kind of thing would not satisfy a number of people in this country.
  The chief conclusion I have come to, after trying to study democracy and writing and talking about it in the last 20 years ever since I left the Navy and since I have been in the House—and I would like this to be my last word in this Parliament—is that democracy is a way of life, and we must get into our heads

  1429
  that it is a positive and dynamic creed. Since 1919 I have sometimes felt that we have almost been ashamed of our democratic faith. We have hesitated over saying what is right and wrong in the world in a way which I cannot believe Mr. Gladstone or Palmerston would have done in their day. They did not hesitate to say what things in the world were wrong, and the British people backed them up. If there were pogroms against the Jews, for instance, there were mass meetings in all the provincial towns. When we look back on those concentration camps which rightly shocked people the other day, we ought to admit frankly that there was no mystery about them in 1935–36. The facts were known in this country. I am not prepared without my reference books to quote which Minister it was, but I very well remember a Minister of the Crown saying in a speech in the country, "Yes, it is a very serious state of affairs, but it is outside our frontiers and it is not our business what goes on over there." It is always the business of this House whenever and wherever an injustice in the world takes place. That does not mean that we can take active steps about it, for we have to be practical; but we can say what we think about it and public opinion of this country expressed through Parliament has still got a great weight in the world.
  We must do two things. We must show by practical example to the world that in these islands we can preserve a free way of life and at the same time solve these difficult 20th century economic problems. There is the question of unemployment, for instance. It is no good talking about the free way of life and the benefits of democracy if there are 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 unemployed. We have got to show that we can have this freedom of speech, association and so forth and also solve these problems. Lastly, we have got to carry abroad our message of the free way of life. We must make it clear by every means in our power, by wireless, by writing and by encouraging visits to and from this country, what we mean by the free way of life, and we must make it clear that the principles in which we believe are unchallengeable and of universal application. It does not matter about the colour of a man's skin or his religion or race. We have got to show that it is our mission in life by practical example, by argument and persuasion to
  1430
  preach this gospel all over the world until it is firmly established in the heart of every man, and then peace will be secure.
  9.41 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Dunglass): My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Commander King-Hall) quoted, in support of his general theme that we should be vigilant in defence of freedom, speeches made by two Prime Ministers;—the first, which I have reason to remember well, on the day of the outbreak of war, when Mr. Chamberlain rallied a united nation to fight against evil things, and another speech which is fresh in the minds of hon. Members, made by the present Prime Minister when he said in effect that the war would have been fought in vain if these evil things should still remain with the peace. There is another speech, or a message which we should all read when we speak on these subjects, which the present Prime Minister sent to the Italian people on 23rd August last year, which was perhaps the most penetrating analysis which has lately been made of what I might call the title deeds of democracy.
  In between the speeches of these great men many more humble people have sustained these principles and have fought for them. These principles, which embody the idea that we are fighting for freedom and our determination to win liberty for the human race, have sustained the ordinary people of this country in the great tests which the war brought to them. They have sailed the seas with our sailors, they have been with our armies in the field and they have ridden the skies with our airmen. I doubt if a civilised nation in these days could stand the bestiality of war unless it was confident that every shot which was fired carried with it the promise of liberty, freedom and justice, International relations are human relations and cannot be conducted on the level of the angels, not even at San Francisco, but there are certain principles in which we believe and which we wish to see established and commonly observed. If I might name them in a sentence, they would be these: first of all, the renunciation of the use of force in international disputes and restraint in the use of power. If I might properly refer an Independent Member of this House to a party manifesto, perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman would

  1431
  read the recent manifesto issued over the week-end, when he would see that we wish to see power used with restraint and for high purpose. The second principle for which we have fought, and which we wish to see maintained, is the respect for rights and interests of other countries, and, thirdly, a habit of keeping faith in international dealings. We wish, to see those principles adopted as the minimum standard in international dealings, and, if they are adopted—and not until they are adopted—shall we really see peace and progress.
  If I may turn from the general to the more particular remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend, the Government are only too well aware of the appalling conditions which prevail in Western Europe, and they are only too well aware that economic rehabilitation must be the basis of political stability. We, and other Governments concerned, are determined to take the necessary steps to bring all the economic relief which is possible to those countries which have been so sorely tested and tried. My hon. and gallant Friend turned to Russia and to Anglo-Russian relations, and he raised several points. He made one with which I find myself in considerable sympathy because I have always felt that the real obstacle through history to the friendship of the British and Russian peoples has been the ignorance of each of the other, and anything which can be done to give to the people here a better knowledge of Russia, or to the people of Russia a better knowledge of this country, will receive the backing of the Government.
  My hon. and gallant Friend raised the question of the facilities given to the British Press in Russian-occupied territory, and he said what everybody knows is true, that these facilities hardly exist. On this side, we give every facility to the Russians, but on that side the facilities are not open to us. I believe there is nothing which would pay a bigger divi-
  1432
  dend for Russia than to allow objective, truthful reporting, because nothing would more quickly kill the spate of rumour which comes from Eastern Europe at the present time than the truth that could be given by impartial newspaper correspondents. I hope very much, therefore, that, shortly, reporting will be allowed into the area of Europe under Russian occupation.
  My hon. and gallant Friend also raised the question of the interchange of students between the two countries. If anything of that sort can be arranged, the Government will be only too glad to give facilities. I have hopes, too, that the British Council may be able to do good work in putting over to the Russian people something of the British way of life. And, lastly, my hon. and gallant Friend said—and properly—that this was a time when, above all, we wanted a united foreign policy upon the principles of which all parties could combine. I am thankful to think that these issues of foreign policy are not going to be brought into the General Election. All parties, for instance, have recently combined at the San Francisco Conference in an all-party deputation.
  Looking farther ahead, I would like to say that if a democracy is expected to sustain an intelligent long-term foreign policy, then it can only do so if it knows the facts. I hope, therefore, that all parties will combine to see that the people get to know the true facts of any situation, and then and then only can they judge where true British interests lie.
  It being half an hour after the conclusion of Business exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), Mr. Deputy-Speaker adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order, as modified for this Session by the Order of the House of 3oth November.
  Adjourned at Ten Minutes to Ten o'Clock

  DEMOBILISATION (POLICE WAR RESERVE SERVICE)
  DEMOBILISATION (POLICE WAR RESERVE SERVICE)
  INTERNATIONAL SANITARY CONVENTIONS
  INTERNATIONAL SANITARY CONVENTIONS
  VALIDATION OF WAR-TIME LEASES ACT
  VALIDATION OF WAR-TIME LEASES ACT

Preamble
The House met at two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

THE LATE EARL OF ONSLOW.
2.5 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD WOOLTON): My Lords, it is with great regret that your Lordships will have read in the Press this morning the sad news of the death of Lord Onslow, lately Lord Chairman of Committees in your Lordships' House. Others of your Lordships with far longer experience than I can speak of the valuable work which the noble Earl performed in the execution of his very responsible duties as Lord Chairman. He brought to that office not only the legacy of his father's previous tenure, but a long and varied experience of public affairs seen from many angles and from many Departments. He had served in the Foreign Office, and in the Diplomatic Service abroad. From Lord-in-Waiting he had passed successively through the offices of Civil Lord of the Admiralty, Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, to the Ministry of Health, to the Board of Education, Under-Secretary of State for War, and Paymaster-General. Moreover, in such spare time as the tenure of these posts allowed him, he had taken a prominent part as Chairman or member of several important Committees and Commissions, the principal of which was the Royal Commission on Local Government of 1923, of which he was the Chairman.
He brought the fruits of all this widely varied experience to the service of your Lordships' House, when he was first appointed Lord Chairman of Committees here in 1931. To this office he was reappointed Session after Session until last year, when in 1944 increasing ill-health compelled his retirement. During the previous two years he had fought with indomitable courage against the recurrent heart trouble to which he has now succumbed. Your Lordships will remember that, even after his resigna-
528
tion, when we had but little hope of ever seeing him in his place here again, he returned for a last brief period of activity, apparently much restored, and spoke to us in several debates with much of his old vigour. And now the long and unequal struggle has ended, and we can but express our personal sorrow and sense of loss at his passing, and our sympathy with his widow and his family.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I wish with my noble friends to associate myself with what the Leader of the House has said about the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. With many other members of your Lordships' House I have on a great many occasions received most friendly help from him. I knew him mainly as Chairman of Committees. One knows that he had behind him a ripe experience and a wide knowledge of procedure and he was at all times a very valued and helpful adviser, as I am sure many of us found on several occasions. Apart from that, he often brought to our discussions an entirely independent and exceedingly well-informed view. He was especially wide minded and alert when matters of a constitutional character were involved. He had, too, as many of you know, an intimate knowledge of foreign affairs, especially in some countries. In many ways he brought to the service of the House the resources of a full mind which was always at the disposition of those of us who had to consult him, as many of us did privately, on business of the House. I am quite sure that we all wish to join with the noble Lord in his expression of sympathy, and we mourn the loss of a man who was a most disinterested, right-minded, and valued public servant.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, it was only a little more than a year ago that we expressed our gratitude to Lord Onslow for his long and devoted service as Chairman of Committees of this House during a period of no less than thirteen years. Although he was able to resume some attendance here after his retirement, it was plain, nevertheless, that his health was failing; and now he has left us. He touched life at many points— the Army, the Foreign Office, diplomacy, Government offices; but especially it will be for his service in this House that his name will be remembered. His long public career was marked by a single-minded devotion to duty, and he gave a

529
fine example of the traditions of British public life. To his widow and family we offer our deepest sympathy.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD STANMORE): My Lords, as Lord Onslow's successor as Chairman of Committees I should like to add my word of regret to those which have already been spoken. During the last fifteen months I have constantly come across instances of the valuable work he did as Lord Chairman and the many reforms which he initiated. His memory will long be treasured by all those connected with his work.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WESTON-SUPER-MARE)BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (DONCASTER) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (IRWELL VALLEY WATER BOARD) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.

FINANCE (No. 2) BILL.
2.11 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of the Finance (No. 2) Bill. If your Lordships have provided yourselves with a copy of the Bill, you will be struck by its slim and graceful appearance. The explanation is that it is not the main Finance Bill of the year at all, but merely contains a few provisions of the main Bill which it is either necessary to pass now or just as well to pass now since they are quite uncontroversial. The Finance Bill that was introduced in another place after the Budget Resolutions had been adopted and was printed on the 3rd May is what you would expect, in these modern days,
530
a Finance Bill to be: that is to say, it is a volume of over fifty pages of print, it has a very large number of clauses, and I think several Schedules, and is interesting reading to those who like reading that sort of thing. The present Bill, however, is very attractive because of its brevity.
There is very little left in our system of taxation which requires to be annually renewed by Statute. In the old days, when some of us were younger, we used to be taught that there was one direct tax and one indirect tax which were a matter of annual enactment, and it was alleged that this was for the purposes, among other things, of securing an annual meeting of Parliament and of establishing the control of the House of Commons over the system of taxation. As a matter of fact, there are other very good reasons why the House of Commons should control such things, and nowadays there is no need to provide that Parliament should meet every year— it meets nearly all the time. It still is the case, however, that the Income Tax Act has to be annually renewed, though the Tea Tax has not, and the most important clauses here are Clauses 3 and 4 which provide for Income Tax continuing in this present fiscal year at the present rate, and then the following clause, No. 4, which provides for what might hereafter be authorized in the way of Surtax or Supertax. I might perhaps just observe, in order to remove a passing anxiety, that though in connexion with the Surtax the figure of £1,500 is mentioned, the Surtax, as some of your Lordships will remember, only begins now at £2,000, and the lower figure does not, in itself, indicate a change of policy hereafter. Authority was needed, however, to start at a lower figure, and the decision will be taken later by Parliament as to the figure—not lower than that—at which the Surtax will in fact start. The other provisions are of a technical character, important to those they may affect, but not so important to others.
The first clause, which deals with the Customs Duty on hops and the like, has to be enacted now because the present provisions are provisions for four years at a time. It started in the year 1925, and four times five is twenty. If you add twenty on to 1925 you will find that 1945 is the year when there has to be another

531
four years' jump. The provision under Clause 2, regarding the Purchase Tax, is a useful provision because it may be that certain relief will be needed in the case of goods which, though not marked with what is called the "Utility" mark in some cases, may be marked in some other authorized way. Subsection (5), which increases the standard profit in certain cases for the purpose of the Excess Profits, is really designed to give additional help to the small trader. He is not to be compelled, in the calculation of his excess profits, to start at the minimum figure at which he often started before, because, in any event, there will be added to that minimum figure one-tenth of the difference between that figure and £12,000.
Lastly comes the provision in Clause 6 which varies the present statutory provision as to the permanent annual charge for the National Debt. The Finance Act passed, I think, at the time when the present Prime Minister was at the Treasury, fixed that figure at £355,000,000. The effect of it was that if you did not require as much as that to pay the permanent charge on the National Debt, you had at least to set aside that much. That was the limit, unless, indeed, the charge was more, when the larger charge had to be met. That figure has really passed out of the area of practical reckoning and it is better, therefore, to adopt the higher one of £465,000,000, which I am informed is very much like the amount which will be needed in the present year for meeting fixed debt charges. Those are the objects of the Bill. I feel sure your Lordships will pass it with alacrity, if only because of its brevity.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Lord Chancellor.)
2.18 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I can assure the Lord Chancellor that we shall offer no opposition to this slender and handsome Bill which he has introduced. I have only one observation to make. Since the long sickness of my noble friend Lord Arnold, his mantle has fallen on my shoulders and I shall go through the form of initiating the small debate which your Lordships devote to perhaps the most important Bill of the year, the Finance Bill. This time I want to make a suggestion for the Bill that will follow
532
this. The Lord Chancellor said that this is an interim, temporary measure and that some Government will presently have to draw up the real Finance Bill. Whatever the result of the forthcoming appeal to the country, I am at this moment addressing certain Cabinet Ministers and I venture to suggest that some consideration should be given to using our arrangement of taxes to encourage exports. I particularly address myself to the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, because he is still, I understand, in charge of reconstruction, and if it is his duty to look into these matters perhaps he will consider this point.
The system of differential taxation in this country is unpopular, particularly with regard to Income Tax, but with regard to excess profits perhaps it might be possible to consider those firms which are in the export trade and give them some rebate or allowance. In most cases it is far more difficult—and it will be especially so in the years ahead of us—to carry on the export trade, with all its risks and uncertainties, than it is to cater for the home market; and some encouragement, we suggest, should be given to those manufacturers and merchants who are engaged in the export trade to compensate them for this extra risk and trouble. Particularly in regard to excess profits, if there could be some tempering of the wind to the shorn lamb it might give a fillip to our export trade which would be of great value to the whole nation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I say, in reply to the noble Lord, that I will see that his suggestion is considered in the proper quarter?
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.

HOUSING (TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION) BILL.
2.20 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD WOOLTON: My Lords, that the Government should have to ask your Lordships to consider the present Bill and at this time in the life of this Parliament is a measure of the urgency and difficulty of the housing situation with which we are faced. In October last the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act was

533
passed into law, and we have now begun the production of temporary houses under this Act and the flow of houses will steadily increase throughout the summer. We realized that one of our main difficulties was going to be the provision of sites for these houses and the Act of 1944 made special provision for the acquisition of land for that purpose. At an early stage, however, it became quite clear that special difficulties were going to arise in a few of the most completely built up and bomb-damaged areas in this country, particularly in London, Manchester and Birmingham. The amount of land of any description in these areas which has not been built upon is necessarily small. Moreover, if one uses land which has been acquired for the provision of permanent houses and puts temporary houses on it, it means that permanent houses cannot be built on the land for something like ten years. We find ourselves in the same position if we put temporary houses on bombed sites.
The position in the County of London illustrates the matter very well. The London County Council and the Metropolitan Borough Councils have found sites for 10,301 temporary houses out of their allocation of 12,000. Two thousand of these sites are on London County Council housing sites outside the county, so that 8,301 have been found within the county. There remains, however, a balance of 1,700 sites which cannot be found in London without blocking some other development and these sites accordingly will, if your Lordships pass this Bill, have to be found on parks and open spaces. Open spaces have the incidental advantage that in some cases they are fringed by roads which have the necessary services under them and the land is already in the possession of the local authority. Thus we save time in the legal processes of acquiring the land and we probably save from two to four months in development work.
Now may I say a word as to the existing law and the alteration that the present Bill will make? Under Section 143 of the Housing Act, 1936, parks and open spaces can be appropriated for housing purposes only by a Provisional Order unless other land is given in exchange that is equally advantageous to the public. The procedure by Provisional Order is of course protracted. Under the Bill the
534
Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Health will be enabled, for a limited period of two years and subject to important safeguards, to authorize a local authority to use for temporary houses an open space vested in them. The Bill contains a number of important limitations on the use of that power by the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Minister of Health. The first is that the Health Ministers can give the authorization only on the application of the local authority. Obviously no local authority will lightly make an application for the use of an open space for this purpose.
Then authorization can only be given if the Minister of Town and Country Planning certifies that he is satisfied that this use of the land is "expedient in the public interest in consequence of the emergency that was the occasion of the passing" of the Rousing (Temporary Accommodation) Act, 1944, "and in the particular circumstances in which the authorization is sought." The Minister of Town and Country Planning proposes to issue a certificate only after a special survey of the area of the local authority, bringing under examination all possible sites, and only after he is satisfied that there is no alternative land available, having regard to sound planning considerations. I think the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, will be satisfied that here at any rate we have taken full recognition of the proper powers of this new Minister. Even where that certificate has been given in respect of a particular area of land, it is still within the discretion of the Health Minister to decide that on balance the authority could do without the houses or have a smaller number of houses. All my observations upon the Bill seem up to now to be an apology. The truth is that none of us like this idea of putting houses upon open spaces and we are only doing it under the greatest pressure of emergency. Finally, the Bill is of short duration. Authorization can only be given during a period of two years from the beginning of the Act. The authorization cannot be for more than ten years and there is a definite provision that the land is to be reinstated at the end of that period.
May I now refer to some anxieties that were expressed during the Committee stage in another place? The first was lest the houses should not be removed

535
from open spaces when the authorization to use the land expired, and the second was that the local authority after the removal of the houses might neglect to reinstate the land. It has been suggested that the Minister of Health should take power to act in default. The inclusion of such a power is outside the scope of this Bill as imposing a charge on the Exchequer. In any case such a power is unnecessary. The Minister already has power under Section 2 (1) of the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act, 1944, to remove the houses and any Minister of Health would have the strongest reasons for taking all necessary steps to enable an open space to revert to its original purpose as soon as the right to use it for another purpose expired. As regards reinstatement, any local authority who neglected to reinstate the site after it had been cleared by the Minister— and such cases would surely be extremely rare— would be under the strongest pressure both from their own ratepayers and the committee of the council responsible for open spaces. The Minister of Health also has strong powers of persuasion in these matters.
As regards the cost of reinstating the land, a local authority can require the Minister of Health to remove the temporary houses at any time afterten years from the passing of the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act, 1944. The Government appreciate that this might involve expenditure on the local authority which would not arise in the case of ordinary sites, and my right honourable friend is prepared to modify the normal terms on which temporary houses are made available to local authorities so as to ensure that the total expenditure which the local authority is called upon to bear in respect of temporary houses will not be increased owing to the use of open spaces including cost of reinstatement.
Your Lordships will, I am sure, wish me to indicate the position with regard to commons. Only those commons which are either invested in the local authority or are at their disposal come within the scope of this Bill. The great majority of the commons vested in local authorities are vested as public open spaces and all common rights have in fact been extinguished. There may, however, be a few rare cases where a common vests in the local authority and the common rights
536
are still exercisable. The Minister of Health will not approve any proposals submitted by a local authority which involve the disturbance of existing common rights. Then in regard to rights of way the Bill provides that any right of way over the part of an open space which is used for temporary housing shall cease to be capable of being exercised. No public right of way will be stopped up except where an equally convenient or alternative right of way is provided.
As I said, we regret the necessity to introduce this Bill. At the same time it should not be thought that the provisions of the Bill will involve a widespread spoliation of the open spaces which are so necessary for our densely populated towns. It has been estimated that the number of temporary houses in the whole country which are likely to be put on open spaces will number between 7,000 and 8,000. Moreover, a number of the open spaces which will be used have never been properly laid out as parks. Many have been used during the war for war-time purposes, such as the siting of anti-aircraft batteries, and it is that sort of area, and in particular the fringes of that sort of area, which will be used. With the provisions of this Bill so carefully restricted as they are to give the maximum possible protection against the misuse of open spaces, and with the Bill providing as it does an opportunity which will enable us to get some of these temporary houses situated in the areas that want them most and where the local authority have expressly asked for these provisions, I hope your Lordships will be pleased to give the Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a —(Lord Woolton).
2.33 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I am sure it will be with the utmost reluctance that this House will give this Bill a Second Reading. The towns and cities of this country are so ill provided with open spaces that none of us in this House would wish lightly to take steps which would alieniate existing open spaces from their use as such, but it must be admitted that the demand for housing accommodation is so clamant that even this drastic step must be contemplated. The local authorities, including the London County Council, have with very grave misgivings

537
and much regret taken the view that powers of this kind should be conferred upon local authorities in the hope that they will only be used where all chance of obtaining alternative land has been exhausted. In London the position is particularly acute. We are already ill provided with open spaces for our great population and what open spaces we have, including some of the most beautiful parks in any city in the world, are so mal-distributed that they do not provide for the population generally those lungs and those facilities for open air recreation to which they are entitled. It is precisely in those areas of London where open spaces are most needed that most of these temporary houses are needed. Unfortunately, it will fall out that if any of the London open spaces have to be used it will be those which can be ill spared in the over-built, congested areas of the East End and the south-east of London.
I think that both the Minister of Health in another place and the Lord President of the Council in your Lordships' House are a little too optimistic as to the ability of the London County Council to find in its open spaces suitable sites for 1700 temporary dwellings. I would remind your Lordships that considerable inroads have already been made on the open spaces of London for war purposes. I am not complaining of that. It was inevitable that if a gunsite were needed in a London park, permission had to be given for that gunsite. In the result over 1,400 acres of London open spaces excluding the Royal parks, have been given over to military and civil defence occupation. It may well be said that that occupation has already ceased, or will soon cease; but the land will not therefore become available as an open space on the morrow of evacuation. It will take several years to put back the cricket pitches, the football pitches, the tennis courts, the shrubberies and the gardens of rest. During all that time the London public will be denied the use of 1,400 acres of open spaces. Moreover, quite properly, some 700 acres in addition have been given over to allotments. No one can say what the future policy of this country generally will be as regards allotments, but in any case the land at present being used for that purpose is not available and will not, I
538
apprehend, for some time be available as open space.
So, as I have said, already considerable inroads have been made on the open spaces of London, and the Minister of Health in another place was a little inaccurate, if I may say so, in his figures as to the availability of local authority open spaces in London. He said there were some 8,000 acres of public open spaces vested in the local authorities. I think that is an over-statement. That 8,000 acres includes 1,900 acres constituted by the Royal parks. They are not vested in the local authorities and they are not proposed to be dealt with by this Bill. Moreover, 500 acres of Wimbledon Common, which is exempt under this Bill—I make no complaint about it, I am simply stating the fact—is included in that 8,000 acres, as are also some 350 acres constituted by the London squares, and it is not proposed—I hope, at all events— to appropriate the London squares for this purpose. Therefore, when those adjustments are taken into account, the acreage of open spaces vested in local authorities in the County of London is no more than about 5,500 acres, and out of that 5,500 acres, as I have said, some 2,100 acres have already been alienated — not permanently, I know— for purposes other than recreation and restful enjoyment.
In order to provide accommodation for 1,700 temporary dwellings, we shall need to remove some 800 allotments. It is not a case of just walking into the park or open space and saying: "Here is some open land, we can put temporary dwellings up here." This must be fringe land. It must be land near the existing services; land near the existing roads and streets. Therefore, you are limited to what I have described as fringe land, the depths of which must be from sixty to one hundred feet, and we shall have the gravest difficulty, though acting with the best will in the world, to find sufficient accommodation for 1,600 or 1,700 dwellings, which, as I have said, will mean removing some 800 allottees. That is on the footing that London needs only 12,000 temporary dwellings. The revised allocation for London, as at the 18th May, is 15,000— not 12,000. If 15,000 temporary dwellings are ultimately allocated — as it is to be hoped that they will be — then we shall need additional land for

539
some 4,700 temporary dwellings, which will mean, in total, not 170 acres in strips all over the place, but 470 acres.
I confess that I do not share the easy optimism of the Minister of Health that it will not be necessary to consider the use of some portions of the Royal parks for this purpose. I have no desire to see any park defaced by temporary dwellings, and I do not believe that any member of your Lordships' House has. But, I do not see, in the face of the admitted urgency that exists, why the Royal parks — so described merely because they were acquired by the State and are maintained by the State— should be exempt, and other open spaces should not. There is nothing sacrosanct about the Royal parks. Several of the parks now vested in local authorities were at one time Royal parks. Victoria Park, in the East End, which serves Hackney, Bethnal Green, Shore-ditch, Mile End and Stepney, was until 1877 maintained, as it had been acquired, by the State. And it was a Royal park. Kennington Park until 1887 was a Royal park; so was Battersea Park. Now it is the case that the large remaining Royal parks, like Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens, are situated in areas and districts much better provided with open spaces than many of the districts which surround, say, Victoria Park or Battersea Park, or the parks which we shall have to encroach upon to provide these sites.
It seems to me to be something of an injustice that the more fortunate districts of London, where the Royal parks are situated, should be able to retain unaffected, unimpaired and unreduced their open spaces, whereas the less fortunate districts, the overcrowded districts, that great agglomeration termed sometimes, by way of reproach, the East End, should have to sacrifice some of their very scanty and very spare open spaces. I hope, therefore, as the London County Council said in its letter to the Minister as far back as December 22 last, that if this power is to be given to use open spaces, then the Royal parks may be considered from the point of view of their making their contribution to meeting the clamant need which exists for housing.
I was glad to have a repetition of the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health in another place, that the Government
540
would bear the cost of reinstatement. The local authorities will be much obliged to the Government for that assurance. I only want to enter this caveat, if I may, that I hope that neither the Ministry nor the Exchequer will be too niggardly when they examine the costs of reinstatement. Reinstatement of an open space as a playing field or as a cricket pitch will always take at least two years, and will sometimes take very much longer. Much money, much attention and much work have been given for many years by the local authorities, not only in London but in the provinces as well, to developing their open spaces to a proper state for use as playing fields or as places of rest. It will take years to reinstate those which have been used for military and civil defence purposes, and it will take years to reinstate those which will be used for the purpose of temporary houses. The cost will not be merely the capital cost at the time that the dwellings are removed, but will also include the wages of park staff, perhaps for years afterwards, for rolling, tending, sowing, cutting and all the other activities which combined go to make a good playing field or cricket pitch. I hope, therefore, that the Ministry of Health and the Exchequer will, in discharging the assurance which has been given, discharge it—I do not say in a wasteful way but in a liberal and responsible fashion, having regard to the circumstances and to the cost of reinstating an open space to its original purpose.
I regret as much as any member of your Lordships' House that the first step in the replanning of London, a replanning which, includes the provision of much more open space for the citizens of London, should have to be, in the circumstances, to ask this House to pass a Bill to enable existing open spaces to be encroached upon; but the fact is that the housing problem is so acute that I do not believe there is any alternative.
2.53 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I share to the full, as I am sure all your Lordships will, the deep regret expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, and by the noble Lord, Lord Latham, that a Bill of this character should be needed and should have to be introduced into your Lordships' House. It is only sheer necessity that would induce Parliament to pass such a measure. If it had been

541
any financial consideration which had been advanced in support of it, not for a moment would that have been listened to; for the value of our parks and open spaces is beyond all price. Noble Lords on these Benches must, however, in the circumstances most regretfully support the passage of this Bill.
As to the Royal parks, I do not find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Latham. It is not only a question of the comparative needs of the inhabitants of the quarters that surround the Royal parks and of the inhabitants in the East. End and in the south of London with which we are concerned; there is another consideration which comes in which is of very great importance, and that is the dignity and the seemliness of London as the capital of Great Britain and of the Empire. London is a centre which attracts great numbers of visitors from the Dominions, from the Colonies, from the United States and from all other countries. Owing to the neglect of past generations, it in many respects falls short of the dignity and greatness which properly belong to so august a capital; but certainly the parks in the centre of London are a remarkable feature of the city, which to a great extent redeem many of the other districts of London. It would be most regrettable if round Hyde Park, Kensington Gardens, Green Park, St. James's Park or Regents Park there should be erected for a period of ten years a number of temporary houses. That, I think, would be very detrimental to the status and prestige of London.
It is hoped and expected that in the corning years the number of visitors to Great Britain will be enormously increased, particularly with the possibility of cheap air travel from America and from other parts of the world. It may be that this industry of tourism will develop to a degree unimagined at the present time. It may, indeed, develop sufficiently to be an important factor in the economics of Great Britain. In these circumstances, I think that this fact should be taken into careful consideration, and the matter should not be dealt with solely from the point of view of the needs of the comparatively poor and the comparatively wealthy parts of London, though I realize to the full the cogency of the argument from that point of view advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Latham. Perhaps the
542
noble Lord, Lord Woolton, when he replies, will specifically state, for the information of the public, that this Bill does not apply to the Royal parks. That is clearly the case, because it applies in terms only to the parks vested in local authorities; but the general public may not be aware of that, and I do not think that the noble Lord mentioned the point in his introductory observations. It would remove possible misapprehension outside if it were stated in terms that the Royal parks are not affected by this Bill.
There is one other point on which I should like to address your Lordships. This Bill provides, and quite rightly, that all these temporary houses are to be removed within ten years at the latest. There is, however, a great danger in legislation of this character, which is passed more or less under duress and which is subjected to a time-limit, that when that limit is reached the conditions of that day may render it difficult to fulfil it. There may well be a movement in 1955 to ask Parliament to pass another Act to amend the Bill which is now going through your Lordships' House so as to extend the period of ten years and to remove that limitation. By that time, of course, the housing problem may have been solved. Perhaps your Lordships will consider, though from varying points of view, that that will depend largely on the result of the forthcoming General Election, in which, apparently, the noble Lord, Lord Latham, shows physical symptoms of having recently taken part!
Let us suppose, however, that the housing problem is not solved by then, and that to pull down these houses might involve the eviction of some thousands of people who would find it very difficult at that date to obtain other accommodation. A somewhat uneasy situation might then arise. I would suggest that it should from the outset be made quite clear that such a situation should not be allowed to arise, and that all these local authorities who will receive permission to erect these houses should definitely be regarded as under an absolute obligation to make such provision that at the end of these ten years these houses will in fact be removed, and that no request will be made for an extension of the period. In this House to-day I think we should make it clear and put it on record that we pass this Bill with great reluctance, and on the clear understanding that the ten-year

543
limit is meant to be a real statutory limit, and that it must be observed when the testing time arrives ten years from now. With those observations, I for one reluctantly support the Second Reading of this Bill.
2.59 p.m.
THE EARL OF CAVAN: My Lords, after the reluctance which has been expressed not only from the Front Bench but elsewhere in regard to the passing of this Bill, I have no hesitation in saying that I think that it is a horrid little Bill, so horrid that I look on it as a pill rather than a Bill, and, however much sugar may be used to coat it, although it has to be swallowed I regard it as medicine. As things are, I can only ask the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Town and Country Planning to extend a sympathetic and protective arm to the very few playing fields that are in existence in the neighbourhood of the great cities. They are essential to the safety of the children of this country. Further, I would ask for that protection especially to the King George's Fields which, as your Lordships will remember, were subscribed for by public money in memory of King George V, and of which two other members of your Lordships' House besides myself are trustees.
There is one thing which I personally quite fail to understand, and that is why it is necessary that these sites for the erection of houses should have to be inside the boundaries of great cities. We have been told for some time past that it is the desire of town and country planning authorities to spread houses out into the country, and not make congestion worse congested. I fail to see why advantage cannot be taken of the surrender of aerodromes where you have perfect runways, electric light laid on, water laid on, all ready. I hope that the local authorities may have their attention drawn to the possibility of the use of these sites outside the boundaries of great cities, so that there may be no serious threat either to Royal parks or to the intensely valuable and not too numerous playing fields that are situated within them. Then I think the shocks that undoubtedly will be administered to the public by the passing of this Bill may be greatly lessened, and it is only because of the Bill's necessity that I would venture to support it.
3.2 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, like the noble Lord who has just sat down, I very deeply regret the necessity for this Bill, and I should like to give an answer to the question which the noble and gallant Earl has just asked. In my view the reason why it is necessary to have housing on open spaces in London is that the previous Government— and noble Lords opposite are as much concerned in this as noble Lords on this side— neglected to take the first steps towards a housing policy, which was to have proper land legislation. The late Government failed to tackle that problem. They paid lip service time and again to the fact that they intended to go in for decongestion, dispersal, and redevelopment, but they did not really do anything serious about it because it was too controversial. What is going to happen in that regard now remains to be seen. I am glad to see that the Prime Minister's manifesto has put into the forefront, or, if not in the forefront, has given a very respectable amount of prominence to the intention to deal with compensation and betterment and the location of industry. That is there; I am delighted to see it. But if that land policy had been recognized as what it is— namely, the first step to a proper rehousing policy— two or three years ago, then I think this lamentable necessity might have been avoided. That was not done, however, and we are faced with the necessity of this temporary housing in open spaces.
What has interested me about this discussion is that, although we all dislike this Bill, we are all apparently agreed that it is necessary, and I think my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill did make good his case. The strength of that case is, I think, really known only to those of your Lordships who have been dealing with this housing matter at close quarters for a good many years. The strength of the demand for housing has still to make itself felt. Only one item in the discussion has proved controversial, and that is the question of whether or not the Royal parks should be included within the scope of this Bill. I am bound to say that I entirely agree with what fell from my noble friend Lord Samuel in every respect but that one. I found myself unable to accept his arguments about not

545
including the Royal parks. My Approach is not quite that of the noble Lord opposite, who said that Kensington Gardens and Hyde Park were situated in areas much better provided with open spaces than certain other areas. Well, of course, any area that contains Kensington Gardens and Hyde Park is bound to be better provided with open spaces than others, because those are the best open spaces in London.
LORD LATHAM: That is what I said.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I thought there was an implication that other places should have a share in those open spaces. I think the noble Lord is going to be on my side tomorrow, because I have already given notice that I intend to move an Amendment to this Bill to bring the Royal parks within its scope. Having given that notice, I do not think it would be proper to develop the point to-day, because this is a debate on the principle of the Bill. But the reason for the necessity is that there are certain boroughs in London—I will not particularize because I think my noble friend opposite may have other examples to bring forward— which cannot find even the few sites required for the number of temporary houses they want. Whatever the number may be, there are certain Metropolitan boroughs which cannot find their quota without impinging on the Royal parks. The case will have to be debated tomorrow, and I do not say more to develop it now. Subject to that, I am quite certain it is right that your Lordships should pass the Bill to-day.
3.8 p.m.
LORD HARMSWORTH: My Lords, I venture to intrude on your Lordships' attention for a few moments because this is a subject in which I have been very greatly interested, and indeed actively concerned, for perhaps thirty or forty years; I mean the general subject of parks, open spaces and playing grounds for the people of this country. With all the other noble Lords who have addressed the House, I join in deprecating the necessity for introducing a Bill of this kind. I am not at all sure, however, that the Government, in framing their Bill, have taken all the steps they might have taken to render it of a temporary character. For as certain as we are assembled in this House to-day I am convinced that ten
546
years hence, twenty years hence— and far longer than that— these temporary houses will still be encumbering parks and open spaces. It will be excessively difficult to remove them, and if the cost of removing them is cast on the local authorities my impression is that they never will be removed.
The Government could take charge of the cost of removing these houses, especially having regard to the fact that, as I understand, they will be the property of the Government. Certain assurances were given in another place the other day. Assurances by Ministers, of course, have no enduring quality, and I believe I am right in saying they need not necessarily have any effect on Courts of Law. But I think it would strengthen this position in regard to assurances if my noble friend on the Front Bench, with the immense authority that attaches to his position and his office, would reinforce these assurances of the intentions of the present Government so that at all events they would be on record in both Houses of Parliament.
I hope I am not out of order in saying that the activities of the Government, with their legislation, have caused more anxiety during the last few months to those interested in the open spaces of this country than at any period in all my association with that movement. It would be out of order if I were to discuss the Requisitioned Land and War Works Bill, which was a positive menace in its original form to practically every open space in the country. Fortunately the Government have yielded to representations in Parliament and to a considerable amount of pressure from outside, and have very largely remedied the defects which made that Bill, in my judgment, one of the most unfortunate (having regard to the subject we are discussing) that has ever been introduced into Parliament. The time will come, I think, if it has not already arrived, when Parliament should lay it down as a principle for the guidance of Government Departments and local authorities that they will have no chance of laying hands on a public common or an open space without the express sanction of Parliament given in each instance, and not necessarily merely the sanction of the Minister. This is an enormously important subject and, as has been pointed out before, it is a great pity that in these days of reconstruction and

547
rehabilitation after the war, our own Government, within the last two or three months, have proposed to take measures inimical to all the best interests of open-air life and recreation in this country.
3.13 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, I rise not to say anything in the least controversial on the subject of this measure which has been described as a pill. I think it is a pill but, after all, pills are sometimes a very necessary part of sustenance which human beings have to take. All I wish to point out is a purely legal matter of which perhaps the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has not thought. There is a question with regard to whether commons should ever be taken unless all common rights have in fact been extinguished, and in regard to that the Government are willing to give a very definite assurance. I only want to point this out. There are commons in the country with regard to which nobody knows whether all the common rights have been extinguished or not, and there are also commons in which there may be a very few people interested—I have known cases in which there was only one person left with common rights at all. I would venture to suggest to the noble Lord that the promise that he gives might be, so to speak, limited in this way: that he would not approve— he can speak, I suppose, only for himself— a proposal which involved the disturbance of existing common rights unless there were very few commoners (who could be dealt with) or unless it was impossible to ascertain whether there were any commoners with rights still subsisting. It is a very small matter but it might, in some parts of the country, be very important.
3.15 p.m.
LORD WOOLTON: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount who has just sat down for advising me to make that limitation to the somewhat general words which I used. I do accept that limitation to the assurances that I gave. The noble Lord, Lord Harmsworth, says that Ministers' assurances do not have the force of law. I am glad they have not, because if we were to clutter up the Courts of this country with Ministers' assurances through successive ages the judges might find themselves in a very difficult position.
LORD LATHAM: So might the Ministers.
LORD WOOLTON: I did make my introductory remarks on this Bill longer than I would otherwise have done because I wanted to give this assurance. The noble Lord was good enough to say my words carried some weight with some people. I wanted to give this assurance on my own behalf as well as on behalf of my right honourable friend the Minister of Health, who gave it substantially in the same sort of words, either himself or through his Parliamentary Secretary, in another place.
Now I come to another assurance. The noble and gallant Earl, after all he has done for the playing fields of this country, asks that they shall be protected. This question was raised in another place; and there I thought the Minister went just as far as ever he could go to give that assurance to the Playing Fields Association. If you add to that assurance the fact that the Minister of Town and Country Planning has also to be satisfied, then I think the noble Earl can rest assured that playing fields will only be taken in the most dire necessity.
After all, none of us like this Bill. No one, including myself, has spoken a word in favour of the Bill except to say that here is a balance of disadvantage. Are we going to leave people without homes, or are we going to leave some people with less open spaces than they otherwise would have? On that balance of disadvantage I think we have all come to the conclusion, regretful as we are, that this Bill should pass. My noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh is quite right in saying he has given a different explanation from the explanation I would have given, because I was a Minister in the last Government. Of course there has been one other factor that has been involved besides the negligence of the last Government, and that was that little incident of the war, which did come in and make it necessary for us to have all these temporary houses. That probably is one of the factors that the noble Lord has taken into consideration. I do not propose to say any more on the subject of Royal parks, other than, in reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, to say that it is true that Royal parks are not included in this Bill, which is a Bill that deals

549
with open spaces in the possession of public authorities. Obviously we are going to have another discussion to-morrow on that subject, on the Committee stage.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (BOUNDARY COMMISSION) BILL
3.20 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
LORD WOOLTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the House be put into Committee on this Bill. In doing so will you allow me to fulfil a promise I made on Friday to the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, about the Commissioners? This is the reply which I hope you will be good enough to allow me to read. As regards the Commissioners it may be desirable to start with a negative. It is not intended that they shall be selected to represent the interests of any particular type of local authority. The preliminary conversations which the Minister of Health had with the Local Government Associations disclosed a general desire that the Commissioners should not be regarded as advocates or even arbitrators appointed by parties, but that they should be as far as possible selected for their capacity to take a broad view. Indeed the Associations, very wisely, expressed the unanimous view that they should not be consulted in the appointment.
As is stated on page 14 of the White Paper, the aim must be to secure the best possible design of local government areas in the future and not merely to adjudicate on the merits of conflicting claims. It is contemplated that three of the Commissioners will be appointed on a part-time basis; that the Chairman shall give the whole or the bulk of his time to the work of the Commission, at any rate in its earlier years; and that the Deputy Chairman shall give at any rate a substantial portion of his time. As Chairman the Government would hope to obtain a person who would enjoy the confidence of all sections of local government, and indeed of Parliament and the public— broadly speaking, a person of judicial calibre and outlook. Beyond these
550
general observations it is not practicable for the Government at this present moment to make any statement, but the House can be assured that the Government's intention is to place on the Commission persons whose record, experience and outlook are such that Parliament can feel the fullest confidence in their capacity and impartiality. I hope the noble Marquess will regard that as a tolerably satisfactory answer to the question he addressed to me and to which I promised to reply at this stage. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Woolton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly: Bill reported without amendment.

DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
REIGATE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (IRWELL VALLEY WATER BOARD) BILL.
Reported, without amendment and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
  TIMBER SUPPLY.
  TIMBER SUPPLY.