Sitting of 5 July 1949

Preamble
The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  SOUTHAMPTON HARBOUR BILL
  As amended, considered.
  Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) suspended; Bill to be read the Third time forthwith.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  MOUNTBATTEN ESTATE BILL [Lords]
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Major Milner): I beg to move, "That the Order of the House [30th June], that the Bill be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 12th July, be read and discharged."
  The House will wish to know that I have been informed by the Parliamentary agents for this Bill that the promoter does not intend to proceed with the further stages. In those circumstances, I think hon. Members would agree that the proper course is to discharge the Order for Second Reading.
  Question put, and agreed to.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL INSURANCE

    Contributions (Prosecutions)
    Major Guy Lloydasked the Minister of National Insurance how many inspectors are employed by his Department in checking stamp contributions to the insurance scheme; and how many prosecutions for failure to contribute have been instituted since 5th July last.
    The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): The number of
    1934
    inspectors appointed is 764. The checking of stamp contributions is only one among many duties carried out by these officers. The number of prosecutions instituted since 5th July, 1948, for failure to pay contributions, including contributions due under the former Insurance schemes, is 320.
    Major Lloyd: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many people have failed to enrol to date? Has he got the information?
    Mr. Griffiths: If the hon. and gallant Member will put that question down I will give him all the information I can.

    Personal Case
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of National Insurance if he is in a position to announce a decision on the claim to maternity benefit and attendance allowance of Mrs. Ward, about which the hon. Member for Stafford wrote to him on 31st March.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I wrote to my hon. Friend about this case on 7th May. I am looking into a further point which has now arisen, and will write to him again as soon as possible.
    Mr. Swingler: Can the Minister say how soon this decision will be made, as this constituent of mine has been waiting since 9th March for a decision on the claim?
    Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend knows that this raises a very difficult problem. I hope to let him have the answer in the next few days.

    Widows' Pensions
    Mrs. Jean Mannasked the Minister of National Insurance whether he will consider providing that widows in receipt of 10s. weekly and 55 years of age or over, who have doctor's certificates that they are unfit to work qualify for 26s. weekly pension now and without waiting until they are 60 years of age.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: As a temporary, transitional, arrangement special provision for increase of pensions to 26s. was made for such widows who were incapable of self-support at 5th July, 1948, irrespective of the date of their husbands' death. The right to claim under this arrangement

    1935
    expired on 5th January, 1949. Fifty-seven thousand widows benefited.
    I cannot undertake to extend the provision to include widows, not covered by the permanent provisions of the Act, who did not apply within the period allowed or did not become incapable of self-support until after 5th July last.
    Mrs. Mann: Does my right hon. Friend realise that a widow of 55 who did not apply may not have applied because she wanted to test her physical ability to go out to work; that many of them did so test their physical ability and found they had grave physical disabilities and are now prevented from getting this increased pension? Does he not think it very unfair to the woman between 55 and 60?
    Mr. Griffiths: We made this arrangement as generous as we could. There is a limit to the amount of restrospective action I can take under the Act. There was an opportunity for them to claim for six months. I am sorry, but we cannot extend it beyond that period.
    Mrs. Florence Paton: Is it not possible for these women to seek the assistance of the National Assistance Board and so secure the help they need in that way?
    Mr. Griffiths: Yes; 85 per cent. of widows before 5th July last year, who were getting the 10s. pension, are in employment.
    Mr. Mathers: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that sufficient publicity was given to the rule which covers these pensions?
    Mr. Griffiths: The fact that we have awarded the pension to 57,000 is clear proof of that it was generally known.
    Mrs. J. Mannasked the Minister of National Insurance whether his regulations provide that widows over 55 years of age and in receipt of supplementary allowance from the Assistance Board to bring their 10s. pension to 26s. weekly will qualify for 26s. pension when 60 irrespective of this assistance from the Board.
    Mr. J. GriffithsA widow pensioner who was over 55 on 5th July, 1948, can qualify for a full retirement pension from age 60 subject to the satisfaction of
    1936
    specially modified contribution conditions of which I am sending my hon. Friend particulars. The receipt of assistance in supplementation of a 10s. pension does not affect such a widow's rights at 60.
    Mrs. Mann: Would my right hon. Friend acknowledge that if a widow between 55 and 60 has a daughter teaching and a son teaching, it completely nullifies any benefits she may get from the Assistance Board because she is subject to a means test?
    Mr. Griffiths: I would like to see that question on the paper.

    Aged People (Assistance)
    Mr. Tom Brownasked the Minister of National Insurance if he will now give serious consideration to the revision of the National Assistance Regulations (Determination of Needs), 1948, No. 1334, made on 22nd June, 1948, which came into operation on 5th July, 1948, in view of the inadequacy of the scales contained in the regulations to meet the needs of the old people of this country.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary informed the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) on 3rd May, any alteration in the present regulations, which were approved by this House as recently as 16th June, 1948, and came into force on 7th July, is a matter in the first instance for the National Assistance Board. The Board have informed me that they recently reviewed the position in the light of representations made to them by deputations, including representatives of old age pensioners' associations, but do not consider that there are grounds at present on which they would be justified in recommending increased rates.
    Mr. Brown: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the present scales are adequate to meet the needs of the old people, in view of the rising cost of living?
    Mr. Griffiths: The scales which we submitted to the House in June last year, and which were approved by the House, showed a substantial improvement upon the scales that obtained previously. I would remind the House too, that the conditions under which assistance can now be awarded have been eased and

    1937
    improved considerably as compared with what they were before that time. The matter is one for the Assistance Board and they have said that, having examined the position carefully, they do not at present recommend any change.
    Mr. John Paton: While agreeing that there has been considerable improvement over what existed previously, is it not a fact that experience over the last 12 months has shown that the scales are inadequate to give the old people the comfort in their old age which they have well earned?
    Mrs. Castle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the regulations provide for people who have no resources whatsoever apart from the supplementary pension; that in those cases every penny counts, and that the recent small increases in the price of food alone cause hardship? Will he not reconsider the regulations?
    Mr. Griffiths: It is necessary to correct the impression given by my hon. Friend that this assistance is payable only to those who have no resources at all. Indeed, we have established a standard which provides for persons who have resources beyond the supplementary pension.
    Mrs. Castle: But does it not include people with no other resources?
    Mr. Griffiths: It may, but this House has always regarded it as essential in a scheme of this kind to provide not only for people with no resources at all, but to establish a standard of need which is the highest in the world.
    Mr. Brown: On a point of Order. I beg to give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Edinburgh
    Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchisonasked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed men capable of undertaking clerical work who are at present on the register of disabled persons in Edinburgh.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): Twenty-two, of whom only a few are fully experienced clerks.
    Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Would it not be possible to employ these men in Government offices in Edinburgh in place of married women? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider it?
    Mr. Isaacs: That is another question, which I will look into. On that matter I can say that three disabled persons were discharged from Government service and three other disabled persons were taken on in their place.
    Sir William Darling: As we have a very indifferent postal service in the City of Edinburgh could not these disabled men be employed to supplement it?

    Ex-Officers, Indian Army (Business Training)
    Mr. Bramallasked the Minister of Labour if he will now extend the scheme for business training for ex-Regular Army officers to retired officers of the Indian Army.
    Mr. Isaacs: The training offered under the scheme has already been extended to such officers, but I have no authority to bear the cost in these cases.
    Mr. Bramall: Will my right hon. Friend look into the case of a constituent of mine who was informed by his Department that this scheme did not apply to him because he was an ex-officer of the Indian and not of the British Army?
    Mr. Isaacs: I will certainly look into that, but probably an answer was conveyed to my hon. Friend's constituent before a decision was reached.

    European Volunteer Workers, Ruthin
    Sir Henry Morris-Jonesasked the Minister of Labour how many European volunteer workers at Pool Park Camp, Ruthin, Denbighshire, run by the Young Men's Christian Association as an agricultural hostel, have recently refused all work offered them; what pay do they receive; what have they paid for their board and lodging; and what is the nationality of those who have refused to work.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): There are at present five European volunteer workers of Polish-Ukrainian nationality who, since 27th May, have refused

    1939
    all agricultural work offered them locally on the ground that they are dissatisfied with living conditions at this Y.M.C.A. hostel. No pay or other allowances have been received by these men since 27th May, and the men concerned have not made any payment to the Y.M.C.A. for their board and lodging for this period. Our local officers are in consultation with the Police with the view to securing compliance with the conditions on which these five men were permitted to enter the United Kingdom.
    Sir H. Morris-Jones: Is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman reconsidered the terms and conditions of service of some of these men? Is it not the case that during last winter several of them were unemployed and were paid the full scale of agricultural wages for the whole winter? Why should they be paid the full scale of agricultural wages when they are unemployed?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: My view is that the Ukrainians whom we have recruited have proved to be some of the best workers we have had in this country from foreign parts. As to the second point about their being paid agricultural wages during periods of unemployment, these men are in the employment of the agricultural executive committee, and it is for that committee to determine the conditions under which wages are paid to them.
    Sir H. Morris-Jones: Why should they be in a better position than unemployed British agricultural workers who are in similar circumstances?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: If the hon. Gentleman will give me further details about that matter I will look at it, but the present impression is that if these men are unemployed they receive nothing at all.

    Coal Industry
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to increase the manpower in the pits.
    Mr. Isaacs: Coalmining continues to have first call on all available manpower, and my officers are instructed to offer employment therein to all suitable unemployed men.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that a prominent member of the Scottish
    1940
    Coal Board has said that to achieve efficiency in the coal mining industry it will be necessary to get rid of 60,000 workers? Would the Minister approve of that statement or repudiate it, in view of the necessity for workers in the coal industry?
    Mr. Isaacs: First I would like to see the statement and, secondly, I would like to know who made it. As far as the call-up is concerned, the House may be interested to know that out of 29,434 persons recruited in the first 24 weeks of this year, 12,561 were adults who had not previously worked in the mines.
    Mr. Gallacher: If I send the Minister the name of the official, and the actual statement, will he see that it is repudiated?
    Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. I will see that it is looked at, and I shall want to weigh it up.
    Sir John Mellor: Is not the Control of Engagement Order a deterrent to recruitment?
    Mr. Isaacs: No, I do not think so at the moment.
    Colonel Clarkeasked the Minister of Labour why, in view of the decline in the number of men entering the coal mining industry during the last two months, the scheme for getting foreign workers into the industry has now been closed.
    Mr. Isaacs: I understand from the National Coal Board that the industry could not at the moment readily assimilate any additional foreign workers. Some 17,000 have already been taken into the mines.
    Colonel Clarke: As it is known that there are foreign workers available who could be trained and as there is a shortage of workers, to which the Minister has just referred in answer to another Question, cannot this policy be reversed, or is there some reason for not doing so?
    Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. It is purely a question of what might be called the internal industrial machinery. There is no objection to taking these men. It is a question of taking them when openings become available for them.
    Mr. McCorquodale: Does the Minister mean that the scheme might be re-opened at some future date if the necessity arose?
    Mr. Isaacs: There is that possibility, but at the moment we have not contemplated restarting recruitment overseas. It is quite likely that with the ebb and flow of different industries in this country foreign workers may become redundant in some industries and become available for mining.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that it is still the policy of his Department to increase the manpower available generally in the mines?
    Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir, in accordance with whatever may be the requirements of the Coal Board.

    Sugar Distribution
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the unrest among trade unionists who handle sugar distribution because of the decision of Messrs. Tate and Lyle, Limited, to use political propaganda on their packets distributed under the food rationing regulations; and what action he proposes for dealing with the situation.
    Mr. Isaacs: The reply to the first part of the Question is, "No, Sir." The second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: If I bring to the Minister's notice some communications which have reached me regarding a feeling of disturbance among trade unionists will he please look into this matter? Is my right hon. Friend aware that a great many people who, like myself, have a financial interest in this firm, are very shocked by the attitude of the directors in using their privileged position, which they have obtained largely as a result of State subsidies, to put over this political propaganda?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not in the original Question.
    Mr. Keeling: Is the Minister aware that any unrest among trade unionists is utterly trivial compared with the unrest among the general public at the prospect of socialised sugar?
    Mr. Isaacs: All I can say is that had there been any unrest amongst the trade unionists I think I should have heard of it.
    Mr. Symonds: Will it not equally be open to employees of the distributing trades themselves, in turn, to stick on to these same packets labels advocating nationalisation?
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Owing to the fact that the public interest is considerably involved in regard to this Question, I give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.

    Hostel, Coventry
    Mr. Edelmanasked the Minister of Labour what are his intentions concerning the future of Whoberley Hostel, Coventry.
    Mr. Isaacs: As there are over 1,000 vacancies in the seven industrial hostels maintained by my Department in the Coventry area, the Whoberley Hostel, which has a capacity of 635 places, is shortly to be closed and the residents transferred to the other hostels. The premises will be disposed of by the Ministry of Works in accordance with the usual procedure.
    Mr. Edelman: Apart from the personal hardship caused by this decision, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the dispersal of large numbers of workers away from the neighbourhood in which they work will reduce their productivity? Will he give this matter further consideration?
    Mr. Isaacs: I cannot accept the suggestion that because the men may have to travel slightly further to work their productivity will be affected. This particular hostel has been chosen as it is the one which will cause the least inconvenience to the residents who go to work. As far as practicable the wishes of any person removed about going to any other hostel will be considered, and he will be helped wherever possible.

    Hotels School, Scotland
    Sir William Darlingasked the Minister of Labour in view of the fact that the Scottish Hotels School, Ross Hall, is a recognised school for training, what assistance he gives to those who seek to avail themselves of its resources.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Students at this school may, if eligible, receive the normal grants under the Further Education and Training Scheme.
    Sir W. Darling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the only school in Scotland for the training of hoteliers, whose business it is to deal with the tourist trade, and should it not, therefore, command a little more attention than some other places of education?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I thought I gave the hon. Gentleman the assurance that any student who is eligible under the scheme is qualified to go there and to get assistance.

    Cinema Industry (Dispute)
    Mr. W. J. Brownasked the Minister of Labour on what date he was notified of the existence of a dispute, as to the employers' right to select staff in the cinema industry, arising out of the arrangement by which unions in this industry act as Employment Exchanges; on what date the issue was referred for arbitration to the National Arbitration Tribunal; and when it is anticipated that the hearing of the case will take place.
    Mr. Isaacs: A trade dispute regarding the operation of an agreement between organisations of employers and workers in the cinema industry concerning the selection of staff for employment was reported under the Conditions of Employment and National Arbitration Orders on 24th February, 1949. Endeavours were made to promote a settlement, but without success, and on 11th June the dispute was referred for settlement to the National Arbitration Tribunal. I understand that the Tribunal will hear the parties on 10th August.

  NATIONAL SERVICE

    Skilled Workers (Call-up)
    Mr. Collinsasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the shortage of workers skilled in the making of spectacle lenses, he will consider granting deferment of call-up for National Service to skilled workers who remain in the industry.
    Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. It is the Government's policy not to grant deferment of call-up on industrial grounds except in the basic industries of coalmining and agriculture.
    Mr. Collins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most of the young men in National Service are grossly underemployed through no fault of their own, and does he not think, therefore, that there is a case for enlarging the trades to which exemption should be applied, particularly when their products are so badly needed?
    Mr. Isaacs: I cannot accept the implication in the first part of that supplementary question, but young men of 17½ years of age cannot be accepted as skilled workers in this industry.
    Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: Would it be a reactionary point of view to suggest that if there is an issue between makers of spectacles and the interests of national security, the latter should come first?
    Mr. Collins: Is my right hon. Friend unaware that these young men will have had at least three years' training and are, therefore, considered as skilled workers?
    Mr. Isaacs: I cannot accept that, if they have left school at 15 years of age, and at 17½ are eligible for call-up, they commence training as soon as they leave school.

    Conscientious Objectors
    Major Tufton Beamishasked the Minister of Labour what information his Department has collected to account for the fact that during the war years.77 per cent. of men who were called up for the Armed Forces registered as conscientious objectors, while between 30th June, 1945, and the end of 1948 the percentage registered as conscientious objectors was only.18 per cent.
    Mr. Isaacs: None, Sir.
    Major Beamish: Will the Minister bear in mind that it was not my intention, in asking this Question, to cast any aspersions on genuine conscientious objectors, such as Quakers, for whom I have always had the utmost respect?
    Mr. Isaacs: The hon. and gallant Member asked what information we had collected. We have not collected any information, but it must be borne in mind that among the 8,000,000 called up were men of all ages between 18 and 40, and that the 1,000,000 called up are young men of 18 years of age, which may make a difference.

    Youths (Dismissal)
    Mr. Awberyasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that youths between the ages of 17½ and 18 years are being dismissed from their employment before being called for National Service; and since such action enables employers to evade their obligation for re-instatement at the expiration of the service period, whether he will consider introducing legislation to prevent it.
    Mr. Isaacs: I have received very few complaints of this kind, but if my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind I should be grateful if he would let me have particulars. The dismissal of an employee by reason of his liability for National Service constitutes an offence under Section 50 of the National Service Act, 1948. The point is, therefore, covered by existing legislation.
    Mr. Awbery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these young men are told that if they become apprentices they can get deferment and be reinstated in their jobs after they leave the Forces but that if they do not choose to become apprentices they are usually dismissed about three months before they are called up for service?
    Mr. Isaacs: That would be rather good evidence of interference with the purposes of the Act, and I should like to have particulars of any such case.

  COST OF LIVING
  Major Guy Lloydasked the Minister of Labour whether he will cause to be published in the Ministry of Labour Gazette, in connection with material there published on average earnings of industry and wage rates, a regular tabular statement of the period of work required for the purchase of those articles of food and clothing which enter into the cost-of-living index.
  Mr. Isaacs: I regret that the material necessary for such a calculation is not available.
  Mr. Marplesasked the Minister of Labour what social benefits are included in the cost-of-living index.
  Mr. Isaacs: I assume the hon. Member is referring to such payments as
  1946
  insurance contributions, payments to pension funds, and payments of Income Tax in so far as they are necessitated by the requirements of social benefit schemes. The answer is they are not taken into account in the calculation of the interim index of retail prices.
  Mr. Peter Freeman: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, when this information is provided for any comparable statistics such as the United Nations cost-of-living index, attention will be called to that fact, so that there may be access to the relevant statistics?
  Mr. Isaacs: I will look into that point and see what necessary information can be given, but I think the position was made quite clear in the original report of the committee which made the recommendations.

  SCOTLAND

    Potato Crop
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsleyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the estimated labour requirement for gathering the 1949 potato harvest in each of the counties of Aberdeen, Kincardine and Angus; and the sources, in detail, from which he proposes to meet this requirement.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): The estimated labour requirements, additional to the regular farm staffs, for the 1949 potato harvest in the Counties of Aberdeen, Kincardine and Angus are 8,300, 4,000 and 11,600 respectively. It is proposed to meet this requirement from adult workers recruited by farmers; labour in the employment of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, including unemployed workers specially recruited; local children; Aberdeen and Dundee children transported daily and billeted children from Glasgow.
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Can the Secretary of State say what proportion of the school labour can be found by the normal exemption procedure and what proportion has to be found by the closing of schools?
    Mr. Woodburn: Where schools are required for billeting children who come from elsewhere such schools, naturally,

    1947
    must be closed for educational purposes during that period. It is difficult at present to say what are the proportions.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the drawing upon Dundee and Glasgow for children for these three counties will not prejudice the needs of Fife when its turn comes to have them?
    Mr. Woodburn: Fife can usually be depended upon to look after itself.
    Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister very carefully scrutinise these children to ensure that no incipient Communist encourages Kerr's Pink to go red?
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsleyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the acreage under potatoes in each of the counties of Aberdeen, Kincardine and Angus in the years 1939, 1948 and 1949.
    Mr. Woodburn: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the information:

    —

    1939 Acres

    1948 Acres

    1949 Estimated Acres

    Aberdeen

    …

    7,364

    21,298

    18,600

    Angus

    …

    20,625

    28,453

    26,300

    Kincardine

    …

    4,608

    9,718

    8,300

    Mr. Thornton-Kemsleyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he has given to county education authorities in each of the counties of Aberdeen, Kincardine and Angus regarding the desirability of again splitting the holidays in schools under their management to provide for autumn closing during the period of the potato harvest.
    Mr. Woodburn: I have no power to require local authorities to grant split holidays, but in May I expressed to all education authorities the hope that split holidays would again be given in those areas where it is necessary to use schools for billeting. In addition, a specific request has been made to Kincardine County Council to consider the use of six
    1948
    schools as billets for Glasgow school-children.
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Was not that specific request made on 14th June, and does that not contradict the earlier answer given to me by the Secretary of State when he said that in certain areas schools must be closed?
    Mr. Woodburn: I see no contradiction between the two answers.

    National Health Service (Foreign Seamen)
    Mr. Keelingasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many seamen on ships visiting Scottish ports from abroad have ordered free spectacles, false teeth or wigs with a view to delivery at the time of the ship's next visit; and whether he intends to stop this practice.
    Mr. Woodburn: It is estimated that not more than two dozen pairs of glasses have been supplied to foreign seamen visiting Scottish ports. I know of no dentures and certainly there have been no wigs. I do not consider that any action is called for.
    Mr. Keeling: Can the Secretary of State say whether this method whereby foreign seamen can milk the British taxpayer is, in fact, being followed?
    Mr. Woodburn: This nation is the greatest seafaring nation in the world, and we are hoping to arrange reciprocal treatment for our seamen when they go abroad.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the Secretary of State give the statistics for wooden legs?
    Mr. Woodburn: No, Sir.

    Bankruptcies
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons were declared bankrupt in 1948 and 1938; and how many of these were farmers.
    Mr. Woodburn: The number of persons declared bankrupt by the Courts in Scotland in 1948 was 41, including three farmers; the corresponding figures for 1938 were 177 and 11 respectively.

  PENSIONS WELFARE OFFICER, WALES
  Mr. Goronwy Robertsasked the Minister of Pensions if he has now considered the possibility of appointing a Welsh-speaking Welfare Officer for North Wales; and if he will make a statement.
  The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Marquand): Yes, Sir, I am arranging for the appointment of a Welsh-speaking Welfare Officer at my office in Wrexham. A travelling Welfare Officer who speaks Welsh is already attached to that office.

  FIELD-MARSHAL VON MANSTEIN (TRIAL)
  Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for War what steps he is taking to see that the provisions of the Geneva Conventions requiring a field-marshal to be tried by field-marshals is carried out in the case of Field-Marshal von Manstein.
  The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Michael Stewart): I am not aware of any such provisions in the Geneva Conventions, but in any case the provisions of the Geneva Convention of 1929 which relate to judicial proceedings against prisoners of war deal only with offences committed during detention as a prisoner of war and are not therefore relevant. Field-Marshal von Manstein is to be charged with war crimes under the provisions of the Royal Warrant of 14th June, 1945.
  Mr. Stokes: Is it not the case that Field-Marshal von Manstein is still nominally a prisoner of war? Section 63 of the Convention lays down that he must be tried by his equals, and Section 62 says that he must have an advocate of his own choice.
  Mr. Stewart: Even if the Geneva Convention were relevant—and I have pointed out that it is not—it would still only require that he should be tried by field-marshals unless, having due regard to the public interest, a sufficient number of them was not available, and it is unlikely that they would be.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: Is there any reason why the War Office should refuse the request of Field-Marshal von Manstein
  1950
  for the assistance of British counsel for this trial?
  Mr. Stewart: That is quite another question.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Raincoats
    Mr. Frederick Leeasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will arrange for an issue of light raincoats for summer wear for the Army.
    Mr. M. Stewart: For financial and other reasons, it is not practicable to add a raincoat to the soldier's order of dress. The number of occasions on which a light raincoat could be worn in the summer over battle dress in lieu of a greatcoat would be limited, and would not suffice to justify provision at the expense of public funds.
    Mr. Lee: Will my hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend to try, in present conditions, marching around with a big pack on his back and wearing a greatcoat? Perhaps he will then consider the matter in a more sympathetic way.
    Mr. Stewart: I have had some experience of that kind, but I do not think that my right hon. Friend will guarantee the continuance of the present weather conditions for any considerable period.
    Mr. J. Paton: Will my hon. Friend consider, as an alternative, borrowing an idea from the Chinese and letting troops use umbrellas?

    Surplus Books
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for War if he will take steps to speed-up the disposal of books which are unwanted by the Army and urgently needed by public libraries.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Steps are already taken, in conjunction with His Majesty's Stationery Office, to ensure that there is no avoidable delay in the disposal of books surplus to Army requirements.
    Mr. Swingler: Will my hon. Friend investigate this position? As, at the end of the war, his Department had 1,750,000 books in their possession and has since disposed of 250,000, while, during that time, the Army has been reduced from

    1951
    three million to 420,000 men, does this not this constitute a prima facie case against his Department?
    Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend has already said, in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend, that we have looked into this matter, and disposed of a number of books. If my hon. Friend has in mind a particular demand which is unsatisfied we should be glad to look at it.

    Reserve and Auxiliary Forces
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Secretary of State for War what were the strengths of the various sections of the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces of the Army, including the Militia, as on 1st January, 1938.
    Mr. M. Stewart: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the information given on pages 9 and 68 of Army Estimates, 1938.

    Royal Military Academy (Entry Examination)
    Major Tufton Beamishasked the Secretary of State for War if he will make arrangements for the General Certificate of Education to take the place of the present Civil Service examination as the means of testing the educational knowledge of potential entrants to the Royal Military Academy.
    Mr. M. Stewart: The possibility of using the General Certificate of Education instead of the present examination conducted by the Civil Service Commissioners is under consideration.
    Major Beamish: In considering this, will the Minister bear in mind that there is very little, if anything, to be said for forcing boys to specialise before they go to the Royal Military Academy, and that that may be one of the major deterrents against boys entering the Army in the numbers in which they used to?
    Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir.

    Compensation Claims, Burma
    Mr. William Teelingasked the Secretary of State for War in view of the fact that his Department has only been authorised to settle the claims for loss of effects in Burma of officers and men who were serving overseas in the British
    1952
    Regular Army on 3rd September, 1939, what is being done as regards compensation for loss of effects for those who went overseas after that date.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Compensation for the loss of effects in Burma by officers and men of the British Regular Army has not been limited to those serving overseas on 3rd September, 1939. In the case of those who proceeded overseas during the War compensation has, however, been limited to the clothing, kit and equipment appropriate to active service.
    Mr. Teeling: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us why it has been limited to that amount? Many officers and men have lost considerably more of their own effects, such as cameras. Is that likely to be included in the £10 million for private and business firms in Burma, which is about to appear in the Supplementary Estimate?
    Mr. Stewart: This is not a matter which affects Burma alone. If the persons concerned proceeded overseas after the commencement of the war, it made it not unreasonable that the compensation should be limited to equipment appropriate to active service.
    Mr. Teeling: Is nothing at all to be done for the people who have been told in letters from the hon. Gentleman's Department that other Departments are dealing with the matter? Is anybody dealing with the matter?
    Mr. Stewart: I have already explained the arrangement which is being made. There is the possibility of considering whether we ought to take the date of the beginning of the Japanese War rather than of 3rd September, 1939.
    Mr. Teeling: We are now in 1949.

    Service Engagements
    Mr. A. R. W. Lowasked the Secretary of State for War how many other ranks, showing non-commissioned officers and warrant officers separately, completed their regular engagements in 1948 and in the first half of 1949, respectively; and of those how many have re-engaged.
    Mr. M. Stewart: During 1948, 4,386 other ranks completed their original period of Colour service and 1,404 extended their service to complete 12 years'

    1953
    Colour service. In the same year, 568 other ranks completed 12 years' Colour service and 2,230 re-engaged to complete 22 years' service. I should explain that as a soldier can extend his Colour service or re-engage at varying periods before his service is due to end, I cannot say how many of the 4,386 and 568 to whom I have referred actually extended or re-engaged respectively. The comparable figures for the first quarter of 1949 are 761 and 292, and 178 and 662, respectively. Separate figures for warrant officers and non-commissioned officers are not available.
    Mr. Low: Do not the figures just given show that only about one-third of the non-commissioned officers and warrant officers, on whom the Regular Army must rely for its efficiency, have chosen to reengage? Is not this a very disquieting situation?
    Mr. Stewart: For the reason which I have given, that conclusion cannot be drawn from the figures.
    Mr. Lowasked the Secretary of State for War how many other ranks, showing existing non-commissioned officers and warrant officers separately, will complete their regular engagements in the years 1949, 1950 and 1951, respectively.
    Mr. M. Stewart: It would not be in the public interest to give the information asked for in this Question.
    Mr. Low: Was not similar information given at least one year ahead by the hon. Gentleman's colleague the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty the other day?
    Mr. Stewart: Yes, but the terms of engagement are different there and, consequently, the security problem is not the same.

    Officers (Swords)
    Major Beamishasked the Secretary of State for War what are his new regulations regarding the wearing of swords, and what arrangements he has made to enable officers to obtain swords in future.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Approval has been given for the resumption of the wearing of swords by Army officers on suitable
    1954
    ceremonial occasions. The rule is permissive and not obligatory. Corps or regiments will make their own arrangements to provide the swords required.
    Major Beamish: Is it not a very untidy procedure that the rule should be permissive and not obligatory? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that regimental swords now cost between nine and 12 guineas, which is beyond the purse of the junior officer? Should not this matter be tidied up and arrangements made for the provision of swords at reasonable prices if they are to come back?
    Mr. Stewart: I realise the expensiveness of swords. That is why it has not been possible to make it an obligatory rule at present.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Will those who do not wish to carry a sword be allowed to carry a bow and arrow?
    Mr. F. Lee: Will my hon. Friend re-lease some of this money to pay for some light raincoats for the troops?
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend has misunderstood me. My answer made it clear that we are not spending money on this matter.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a well-made bow and arrow costs considerably more than a sword?
    Mr. Stewart: My experience does not go as far back as that, but I will accept the hon. and gallant Gentleman's assurance.

  WAR MEDALS AND DECORATIONS
  Mr. A. R. W. Lowasked the Prime Minister whether approval has been given for the issue of the General Service Medals for service in Palestine by any persons other than those provided for in the White Paper, Command Paper No. 7254, of November, 1947.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Yes, Sir. His Majesty has approved proposals for the grant of the General Service Medals to certain further categories for service in Palestine and the waters adjoining during the period 27th

  1955
  September, 1945, to 30th June, 1948. A short White Paper on the subject is available in the Vote Office.
  Mr. Low: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer will give great satisfaction to all who have watched the services of these men in conditions of great difficulty and hardship?
  Mr. Lipsonasked the Prime Minister what additional delay in issuing medals would have been caused by having the name and number of the recipient inscribed on each one of them.
  The Prime Minister: There would have been considerable delay, probably amounting to a year or more.

  FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN
  Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Lord President of the Council by what authority are £770,000 being spent on a fun fair in Battersea Park; and to what extent is the taxpayer involved.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley): I have been asked to reply. A Supplementary Estimate covering the estimated expenditure of £770,000 on the Festival gardens in Battersea Park was presented on 29th June, and copies are available at the Vote Office today. The extent to which the taxpayer will be involved is dependent on negotiations now in progress with the London County Council, who expect to contribute a proportion of the total expenditure.
  Sir W. Smithers: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend—to whom I put the Question and who I am sorry is not in his place—how, in view of the economic and financial crisis to which this Government have brought us, they can have the temerity to incur an expense of over three-quarters of a million pounds on a fun fair? Will he also ask the Lord President whether he will be there as an attraction, as an "Aunt Sally"?
  Mr. Wilson Harris: Will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to prevent any hon. Member of this House from appearing in the "Prehistoric Peeps" section of that fair?
  Captain Crookshank: How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to impress the gravity of our financial situation upon the people of this country if the Government are prepared to ask for sums for this purpose?
  Mr. Whiteley: That may be all right in a Debate. I was simply asked a Question, and I have given the information in response to that Question.
  Mr. Henry Strauss: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this scheme threatens the characteristic beauty of Battersea Park, which largely depends on the uninterrupted simplicity of the grass acres along the river?
  Mr. Berry: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this and other attractions will help to bring many foreign visitors to this country, and that these visitors will bring hard, currency, which is badly needed?
  Commander Noble: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much of Battersea Park will be used for this fair?
  Mr. Whiteley: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put that question down we will give him the information.
  Sir W. Smithers: On a point of Order. In view of the increase of squandermania on the part of the Government, I beg to give notice that I shall endeavour to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Tax Arrears (Interest)
    Mr. Houghtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount collected for the year to 5th April, 1949, in interest paid on unpaid Income Tax, Profits Tax, and Excess Profits Tax, under the provisions of Section 8 of the Finance Act (No. 2) 1947; and whether he can make any estimate of the administrative costs of levying this interest charge.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): The interest collected last year on arrears of Income Tax, Profits Tax and Excess Profits Tax amounted to about £60,000 and on arrears of Surtax to £20,000, making a total of £80,000. The levying of interest

    1957
    is part only of the process of assessment and collection and it is not possible to make any estimate of the administrative cost. I should add that the purpose of the interest charge is to encourage people to pay promptly and to the extent that it does so the amount of interest collected must be small.

    Tax Payments (Mistake of Law)
    Sir John Mellorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a copy of the circular issued to Departments by the Treasury concerning their retention of money paid under mistake of law.
    Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: Do I understand that Government Departments assert their right to retain money collected under this mistake of law? If so, is not that repugnant to public policy?
    Sir S. Cripps: If the hon. Member will read the answer given, I think, last week and the document, he will see what is the position.

    Gold Price
    Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the great disparity between the price of gold for monetary purposes fixed at £8 12s. 3d. per fine ounce under the International Monetary Fund and the free market price of £22 10s., he will take whatever steps he may consider necessary to obtain a revision of the price fixed under the International Monetary Fund so as to accord more closely to free market prices.
    Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. I cannot accept the inference that the price of gold in certain limited markets is a true indication of the price for monetary gold.
    Mr. Stokes: Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the free market price would probably be a great deal higher than £8 12s. 3d. per fine ounce? Is not it one of the first provisions of the International Monetary Fund that members are bound to follow a policy which will ensure full employment? As the United States is clearly not doing that, surely that alone is cause for revision.
    Sir S. Cripps: The price is, of course, fixed by the United States Treasury, and not by the International Monetary Fund.
    Mr. Stokes: Is not my right hon. and learned Friend aware that he is entitled to revise it, if members of the Fund do not live up to their obligations?
    Sir S. Cripps: The Fund cannot revise; it is up to the United States Treasury.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Does not the Chancellor think, particularly in view of the position in South Africa, that it would be most wise for him to press for some revision of the gold price?
    Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir, not at the moment.

    Business Expenses
    Mr. H. D. Hughesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether subscriptions by industrial firms to the organisation known as "Aims of Industry" will be regarded by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue as a legitimate business expense for taxation purposes.
    Sir S. Cripps: Claims for the allowance of these subscriptions as deductions in computing the profits of the subscribers for the purposes of Income Tax (Schedule D) and Profits Tax will be dealt with according to the general principles governing such deductions, which are that subscriptions are deductible only to the extent that they are applied to expenditure which would have been admissible as a deduction if incurred by the subscribers themselves. As I explained in reply to questions by my hon. Friend on 18th January last, subscriptions or donations by traders for political purposes are not permitted to be deducted in computing profits.
    Mr. Hughes: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this allegedly non-political organisation is, in fact, an under-cover agent for Tory party propaganda of the most vicious kind; and will he instruct the Inland Revenue to watch with especial care this type of organisation, which is afraid to show its true colours?
    Mr. Gallacher: M.I.5 wanted.
    Sir S. Cripps: The Inland Revenue will duly watch, as it is their duty to do.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that what the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. H. D. Hughes) has alleged cannot be

    1959
    the case, because this body asked me to give a talk on the nationalisation of steel when I was an Independent and, when I became a Conservative, informed me that they did not wish to have me as a speaker?
    Sir S. Cripps: I fully sympathise with them.
    Mr. Houghtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will ensure that the Income Tax aspects of the growing commercial practice of charging entertainment as a business expense will receive the attention of the Committee on the Taxation of Profits, recently appointed.
    Sir S. Cripps: The Committee will no doubt take note of my hon. Friend's desire that they should consider this question.

    Israel, Sterling Balances
    Mr. Ivor Thomasasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of the sterling balances held by the State of Israel; and what is the origin of these balances.
    Sir S. Cripps: I regret that I cannot disclose figures of the sterling balances of individual countries. The main origin of Israel's balances was British military expenditure in Palestine arising out of the 1939–45 war.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: Is not it rather strange that this should be accumulated before we have even recognised Israel de jure? Is there any similar accumulation on the part of the Arab part of Palestine?
    Sir S. Cripps: The accumulation was, of course, under the original Palestine Government which was then in operation in the country which was then Palestine. As a successor State the present Government of Israel takes over the debt.

    Dollar Leakages
    Mr. Harold Daviesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an estimate of dollar leakages in the sterling areas from May, 1948; and the principal causes of these leakages.
    Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir, it is not possible to make such an estimate with any accuracy. The principal cause is the world's shortage of dollars.

    Capital Issues Committee
    Mr. Ronald Chamberlainasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent guidance or instructions have been given to the Capital Issues Committee in reference to bonus issues.
    Sir S. Cripps: None, Sir. The Committee continue to have discretion to recommend consent, or if the application appears unnecessary or unreasonable, refusal to any such issue.
    Mr. Chamberlain: Is the Chancellor aware that the last instruction was complete prohibition? Is he also aware that there has been a very great spate of these bonus issues since the 10 per cent. duty was removed, and does he think that in the present state of economic stringency there should be an outpouring of what his predecessor called "sheer money for jam"?
    Sir S. Cripps: I do not wish to enter into the arguments in the course of a Question and answer, but I cannot agree with the hypothesis of the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Chamberlain: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's predecessor did.

    Post-War Credits
    Mr. Piratinasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now consider repaying post-war credits to persons whose income is no longer sufficient to make them liable for Income Tax.
    Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. The difficulties of extending special treatment in cases of hardship have frequently been explained in Debate.
    Mr. Piratin: While that may be true, does not the Chancellor agree that here is an example of how the difficulties can perhaps be overcome? In view of the fact that it is easy to see which people do not pay Income Tax and are, therefore, receiving a very low rate of pay, could he not make this exception?
    Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir.
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the number of cases of hardship existing, he will make available to the National Assistance Board the sum of £2,000,000, to be allocated to such cases against the

    1961
    surrender of post-war credit certificates, the value of which could be recouped by the Board when the recipient reached the statutory age.
    Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Is the Chancellor aware that this proposal is a very simple solution to a most difficult problem, and that it would not involve legislation or inflation? Would he not agree that now is the time to give some satisfaction to people who think that they will not live long enough to get their post-war credits?
    Sir S. Cripps: I hope they will all be falsified in their expectations; but this would be administratively quite impossible.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Would my right hon. and learned Friend discuss the matter with me and the National Assistance Board?
    Sir S. Cripps: I should not like to waste the hon. Member's time.

    Horse Race Totalisators
    Mr. Granville Sharpasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a detailed statement of the reasons for his decision not to impose a tax on the turnover of the racecourse totalisator.
    Sir S. Cripps: Pool Betting Duty is not levied on horse race totalisators because they are set up by the Racecourse Betting Control Board which, unlike the authorities in control of greyhound totalisators, is a non-profit-making body and contributes its surplus revenue to the benefit of horse racing generally. Future policy must await the Royal Commission's recommendations on betting and gambling generally.
    Mr. Sharp: How can my right hon. and learned Friend justify that reply in view of the fact that only about £60,000 was spent last year in improvements?
    Sir S. Cripps: I did not state how much was spent. All I said was that the surplus revenue was spent for that purpose. The reason why it was only £60,000 is because that was the surplus.
    Mr. Sharp: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that last year out of the stakes of £26 million, nearly £24 million
    1962
    went back to those who invested their money? How is that justified in our present state of affairs?
    Sir S. Cripps: That raises the general question of betting.

    Anglo-Argentine Agreement
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the technical financial clauses of the Anglo-Argentine Agreement, recently concluded, are not to be published in full.
    Sir S. Cripps: There are no financial clauses in the Anglo-Argentine Agreement, signed on 27th June, 1949, which will not be published.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Is the Chancellor aware that Sir John Balfour is reported as having said that two technical clauses would not be published? Can he say how that statement corresponds with his answer today?
    Sir S. Cripps: I cannot say what Sir John Balfour has or has not said. All I have said is accurate.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Is the Chancellor saying that all the financial and technical clauses of this agreement will be published?
    Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Piratinasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the increased prices for meat we are undertaking to buy from Argentina in percentage of current purchases; and what will be the extra amount to be passed on to the consumer.
    Sir S. Cripps: The average price for beef, mutton and lamb is 28.74 per cent. more than the price under the Andes Agreement. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the statement on subsidies which I made in my Budget speech.
    Mr. Piratin: Is not the Chancellor aware that the question does not ask whether the principle is to stay? He has merely referred me to the principle,. which I remember well. Can the Chancellor say what the amount will be?
    Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir.
    Mr. Piratin: On a point of Order. I should like you to note, Mr. Speaker, that

    1963
    I put down this Question last week to the Minister of Food. I received a telephone call from an official in that Department, who said he thought the Treasury should answer the Question. I discussed the matter over the telephone, expressing the view that the Minister of Food should answer. Now the Chancellor answers the Question, and says that he cannot give me the information. Are we not allowed to get information in this House?

    International Monetary Fund
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount borrowed by His Majesty's Government from the International Monetary Fund; what rate of interest has to be paid on the sums so borrowed; and what sums His Majesty's Government propose to repay during the current financial year.
    Sir S. Cripps: Three hundred million dollars. The rate of interest chargeable is laid down in Article V, Section 8 (c) of the Fund's Articles and differs for purchases made at different times, varying at present from nothing to 1 per cent. His Majesty's Government will, of course, make any repurchases which are required under Article V, Section 7 (b) and (c). It is not possible to forecast what repurchases, if any, will be made under Article V, Section 7 (a).
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Can the Chancellor say what additional burden there will be if this debt remains for some period unpaid? Does the rate of of interest go up?
    Sir S. Cripps: If the hon. and gallant Member will look at the original Articles of the Fund, he will find the provisions there.

    Savings Centre, Dorking
    Mr. Toucheasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the observations of the Chairman of Surrey Quarter Sessions regarding the lack of supervision at the Dorking Savings Centre in a recent case, where the supervisor pleaded guilty to the conversion of £1,500 and where it was stated that the supervisor, who had no previous experience
    1964
    of bookkeeping was entrusted with the handling of a quarter of a million pounds without any supervision or adequate audit; and if he will make a statement on the subject.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have received a full report on this case. There was admittedly a failure to secure adequate supervision and checking at the Dorking Savings Centre but this was due to a failure of the local machinery rather than of the general arrangements for the control of these centres. The whole question of selling centres is now being reviewed by the National Savings Committee in conjunction with officers of my Department, and any weaknesses disclosed by this case will be dealt with.
    Mr. Touche: Was not the auditor who came from London unqualified, deaf and, as counsel suggested, dumb?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Unfortunately, his advice was not followed. We must remember that much of this work is done by voluntary workers.

  E.R.P. (SURPLUS COMMODITIES)
  Mr. Piratinasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish an up-to-date list of all articles that have been declared by the United States of America to be surplus commodities for the purposes of the European Recovery Programme and which, in consequence, this country is unable to buy outside the United States of America with European Recovery Programme dollars.
  Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir. I will, with permission, circulate a list of such items in the OFFICIAL REPORT. There have been added to the list given by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, in reply to the hon. Member on 10th of February last, peanuts and rosin.
  Mr. Piratin: While thanking the Chancellor for that reply, and looking forward to seeing the full list in the OFFICIAL REPORT, may I ask whether these additional items which the United States Government are introducing will in any way disturb the possibility of our bilateral agreements with other countries?
  Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir.
  Mr. Gallacher: In view of the statement made by the Prime Minister that Communists were trying to upset the country's economy, will the Chancellor repudiate that we are trying to do him out of a job which he is doing for——
  Mr. Speaker: The Question asked only that a list should be published.
  Following is the list:
  Dried eggs, potatoes and potato starch, certain types of dried prunes and raisins, certain types of wool, flax fibre, linseed and linseed oil, peanuts, turpentine, alyce clover seed, tobacco and rosin.

  PAKISTAN (COMMODITY PURCHASES)
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the fact that Pakistan has had to buy steel outside the sterling area, as no other supplies were available, and coal and textiles because prices in the sterling area were too high, and in view of the drain such purchases must make on sterling area reserves, he will make a statement on the steps to be taken to remedy this situation.
  Sir S. Cripps: Trade and financial discussions are at present proceeding with representatives of the Government of Pakistan, and I am not in a position to make any statement.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Is the Chancellor not aware that statements of a grave nature were made that a number of primary commodities, such as steel, textiles, and so on, had to be bought outside the sterling area because they were not available in this country? Is he not aware that it is this sort of drain which is aggravating our present position?
  Sir S. Cripps: We have an arrangement with the Government of Pakistan that neither of us will make any statement on these negotiations while they were proceeding.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: This is not a question of negotiation; it is a question of fact. Is it not true that the fact that steel and other goods have to be bought outside the sterling area has
  1966
  resulted in a most unwelcome drain upon us?
  Sir S. Cripps: Obviously, whether or not Pakistan has had to do something is not a question of fact, it is a question of opinion.

  EX-PRISONERS OF WAR (CREDIT BALANCES)
  Mr. Dribergasked the Economic Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware of the continuing hardship to German ex-prisoners of war, now working in Britain as civilians, who are not permitted to draw the credit balances due to them for work done during their imprisonment except in Germany in marks; and, as some of these men have now no homes or relatives in Germany, and do not wish to return there, he will endeavour to arrange that they shall be paid here in sterling the money owing to them.
  Mr. Mitchisonasked the Economic Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that Mr. J. Orth has a credit balance of £24 12s. 9d., earned by work in this country as a prisoner of war; that Mr. Orth, having married an English wife and settled in Kettering, where he is employed in the boot and shoe trade, has no use for the money in Germany but needs it in this country; and what arrangements he proposes to make for the payment of the money due in this and similar cases.
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): Under present arrangements, payment of credit balances of all German prisoners of war is a German liability. To pay part of these balances in sterling would transfer some of the liability to the British taxpayer.
  Mr. Stokes: Is it not a fact that Western Germany is now in the sterling area, and does not that simplify the procedure?
  Mr. Jay: No, Sir. Western Germany is not in the sterling area.
  Mr. Mitchison: Will not the effect of this decision, if it is persisted in, be that men who are living and working in this country will never be able to get payment of what they have earned, and will not

  1967
  the Economic Secretary reconsider the matter in the light of the unfairness and hardship caused to the people concerned?
  Mr. Jay: I agree that this involves hardship to the people concerned. The trouble is that we have not yet found a solution which would not involve a burden on the British taxpayer. If we can find a solution we shall.
  Mr. Driberg: To what extent would there be a burden on the British taxpayer? Can my hon. Friend say how large it would be? In any case, to face the matter squarely, should not there be a slight burden on the British taxpayer, since these men worked well and hard in this country, producing food?
  Mr. Jay: The burden would be proportionate to the amount involved. There was an arrangement by which each country undertook this liability for its own nationals wherever they were prisoners of war. If we now undertook this additional burden we should be carrying a double burden, and that is the objection.
  Mr. Mitchison: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the payment of my own salary as a Member of Parliament imposes a burden on the British taxpayer, and is there any reason why the money earned by Mr. Orth in Kettering should not be paid to him when I continue to be paid my salary?
  Mr. Jay: Yes, because under the agreement this is a liability undertaken by the German authority. As I say, if we can find a solution we will.
  Captain Crookshank: Does the Minister accept the statement that there may be persons working in this country who can, under no circumstances, be paid? It so, that is a terrible allegation to make.
  Mr. Jay: No, Sir. This is a liability which arises from the period when these persons were prisoners of war, and it is only in so far as those payments are affected that the difficulty arises.
  Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Can my hon. Friend tell the House what sum would be involved if the point made by my hon. Friends is met?
  Mr. Jay: I cannot, without notice, give the total.
  Mr. Stokes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Section 34 of the Geneva Convention lays down that sums standing to the credit of prisoners of war shall be remitted to them in full by the detaining authority on their ceasing to be prisoners of war?
  Mr. Jay: There was an agreement between the Governments covering the period of the war.
  Mr. Driberg: If I put down another Question in a week's time will my hon. Friend undertake to make a much fuller statement about this, and to investigate the whole matter before then?
  Mr. Jay
  Mr. Driberg: Thank you.

  SURPLUS BOOKS
  Mr. Swinglerasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will circulate to all public libraries a list of the books received from the Service Departments by His Majesty's Stationery Office and remaining in stock and give them the opportunity to purchase direct.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): Yes, Sir, subject to the number of copies of each title being sufficiently large to justify such a course.

  CIVIL SERVICE (COMMUNISTS AND FASCISTS)
  Mr. W. J. Brownasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many cases of civil servants suspected of association with Communist or Fascist organisations, have been investigated by the committee charged with the task of dealing with such cases.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: The three advisers have considered 31 cases.
  Mr. Brown: Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea what is the relationship between those 31 cases and the number of civil servants involved in one way or another in Fascist or Communist organisations?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Normally, those who admit association with either Communist or Fascist Parties do not come before these advisers.
  Mr. Brown: May I put it differently? Is the Minister satisfied with the working of the security arrangements so far as Government Departments are concerned?

PERSONAL STATEMENT
Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to make a personal statement.
You will have noticed in yesterday's HANSARD, in column 1919, that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health is reported to have said, and I quote the words:
"In fact I have informed, through the usual channels, the Chief Whip of the Opposition that, because of their discourtesy on Friday morning in insisting that a Parliamentary Secretary is not good enough for them, and in Committee upstairs that a Parliamentary Secretary is not good enough for them, I shall not in such circumstances accept the obligation of being on the Bench to listen to a back bencher."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th July, 1949; Vol. 466, c. 1919.]
Mr. Speaker, as there was a certain amount of noise in the Chamber at the time, I did not clearly understand that I was being referred to, and therefore, the remarks in question went unchallenged.
I think it proper, therefore, to inform the House that, in fact, I received no such message, either from the right hon. Gentleman himself or through the usual channels.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): With the permission of the House, I would like to make my position on this matter quite clear. I have never taken the slightest exception to any back bencher being selected by the Opposition——
Mr. Speaker: We may not Debate this matter. The hon. Gentleman has merely said that he did not have notice, and that is where it must end.
Mr. Bevan: I was about to state the circumstances in which this arose. I
1970
asked my right hon. Friend the Government Chief Whip to convey to the Opposition Chief Whip my attitude with respect to this matter, arising out of the circumstances. I understand from my right hon. Friend that, in fact, he did not convey to the Opposition Chief Whip the message which I asked him to convey. In these circumstances, I apologise for having given rise to a misunderstanding last night, I assure the House that I am perfectly sincere. I understood that my right hon. Friend had done so; as he has not done so, I express my regret.

NAVY, ARMY AND AIR EXPENDITURE, 1947–48
Committee to consider the surpluses and deficits upon Navy, Army and Air Grants for the year ended 31st March, 1948, and the application of surpluses to meet Expenditure not provided for in the Grants for that year, upon Monday.
Appropriation Accounts for the Navy, Army and Air Departments [presented 18th January] referred to the Committee.—[Mr. Whiteley.]

BILL PRESENTED
  OVERSEAS RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT BILL
  "to empower the Treasury, under Section twelve of the Overseas Resources Development Act, 1948, to guarantee other charges, as well as interest, in respect of loans made to the Corporations established under that Act," presented by Mr. Creech Jones; supported by Mr. Glenvil Hall and Mr. Rees-Williams; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 162.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
"That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock."—[Mr. Whiteley.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [20TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  [MAJOR MILNER in the Chair]

  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1949–50
  Motion made, and Question proposed:
  "That a further sum, not exceeding £20, be granted to His Majesty towards defraying the charges for the following services connected with Education for the year ending on the 31st March, 1950, namely:

  £

  Class IV., Vote 1, Ministry of Education

  10

  Class VII, Vote 3, Public Buildings, Great Britain

  10

  Total

  £20"

  —[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

EDUCATION
3.36 p.m.
The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson): I am glad this afternoon to have the opportunity of presenting to the Committee the Estimates of the Ministry of Education for the current financial year. My only regret is that this Debate is taking place before my statutory annual report to Parliament is in the hands of hon. Members. I should like to apologise for the delay in publishing this report, but I can assure the Committee that it is not due to any lack of desire on my part. My Department has done its best to get the report ready in time for discussion in this Debate, but we have been prevented partly by printing difficulties and partly by the difficulty of assembling and analysing in time certain of the statistics relating to 1948 without which the report would be incomplete.
As hon. Members will appreciate, much of the statistical material for 1948 is not available in the Department until February or March, 1949. The figures have to be collected mainly from local education authorities and other outside bodies; and then, this year, the great amount of statistical work which is involved in assembling and analysing these statistics coincided with the statutory seven-yearly actuarial review which we have to carry out in connection with the teachers' superannuation scheme. We
1972
have done our best, and I had hoped that the report would be published by now. I think I ought to say that, before the war, it was never published until December. The fact that in those days there was not as much interest in it as there is today perhaps was responsible for these continuous and constant delays. As it is not yet available, I shall try to give a summary of the main features of my Department's administration before I sit down.
The Committee will have seen that the Estimates of the Ministry for 1949–50 amount to £181,986,282, and that they are again the highest ever for the Department and represent an increase of over £19 million over the corresponding figure for 1948–49. The total estimated expenditure for the year from the Exchequer and rates combined on education within the purview of the Ministry is nearly £273 million, an increase of over £27 million on the corresponding figure for 1948–49. For the most part these Estimates follow the same lines as those of previous years, but it will perhaps be for the convenience of the Committee if I refer briefly to the reasons for the main increases over last year's figures and to the new services which they cover.
First of all, the new services, These are only two in number—the Imperial Institute and the local food advice centres. The grant in aid for the Imperial Institute has now to be provided from my Department instead of from the Board of Trade, as in the past. This transfer merely follows on reorganisation of the functions of the Imperial Institute and their concentration on the educational aspects of its work. The local food advice centres have been transferred from the Ministry of Food to the local education authorities, who will operate them as part of their further education provision.
The main increases in expenditure to which I should refer are, first, the increased provision which has been made for further education, due partly to the inclusion under this subhead of provision for the Royal College of Art on its reconstitution as one of the grant-aided national colleges, and partly to the general expansion of facilities for further education, particularly in the technological field. Under subhead E, we have a net increase of rather more than

1973
£1,250,000 for scholarships and maintenance allowances. This is mainly needed for development of the further education and training scheme which is now at its peak.
By far the greatest part of the increase over last year—about £16,500,000 out of the total increase of £19 million—comes under subhead C, that is, grants to local education authorities. The increase in my grants to the local education authorities is partly due to the general increase in cost of goods and services, but mainly to the larger number of teachers employed. This increase, therefore, does represent progress in Government policy in implementing the 1944 Education Act, and will, I hope, meet with the general approval of the Committee.
As the increase in expenditure on education is mainly due to the increase in the strength of the teaching profession, the Committee would, perhaps, like me to say a few words, first about the training of teachers. I have no doubt that practically every Member of the Committee will agree that, in spite of the inevitable increase in expenditure which it will entail, the country cannot afford to staff its schools and colleges inadequately, either in numbers or in quality. Since the war we have taken effective steps to increase the supply of trained teachers to provide for four things: first, the raising of the school-leaving age, which retained in the schools—it did not bring into the schools—an additional 330,000 children; secondly, the elimination of unqualified teachers—since the war no unqualified teachers have entered the profession except on a strictly temporary basis; thirdly, the improvement of the ratio of teachers to children which in the end, of course, will mean smaller classes.
It is very encouraging to me to hear so much nowadays about the evil of very large classes. Of all the things we have to do to improve our system of education, there is no doubt that a reduction in the size of classes is the most important. We have a long way to go, but it is worth remembering that the average size of classes for the country as a whole is slightly smaller now than it was before the war. The 1939 figure was 33.6; the figure for January, 1949, was 32.9. Similarly, the pre-war ratio of children to teachers—29.5—was higher than the
1974
present ratio of 27.1. There is no method by which classes can be reduced in number except by the training of more teachers.
Some time ago, knowing that this question was a topical one, I asked a large gathering in London if they could suggest a method by which we could reduce the numbers in the classes without increasing the number of teachers. I received only one letter in reply, in which the suggestion was made that if we kept children out of school until they were six we could manage without so many hundred teachers, to which my answer is that if we keep them out of school until they are 16 we shall not need any at all. That is not an educational answer; it is simply playing with words. Finally, we have to provide many more teachers to cope with the increasing number of children in the schools. In 1953, on account of the rise in the birth rate alone, we shall have a million more children in the schools than we had in 1947.
We have had several discussions in this House about the emergency training scheme, and I shall not deal with this matter in detail this afternoon, but there are one or two words I wish to say about it. Last year when we had our Debate on the Ministry of Education Estimates, there was very naturally a good deal of concern about the position of many thousands of men who were still awaiting admission to the emergency training scheme. The Committee will no doubt remember that in order to make a speedy increase in the number of women teachers, we had to adjust the balance of the emergency training scheme and to extend the waiting period for the men. This year we are fortunately in a much happier position. At the moment, there are only about 1,700 men still waiting to start their training, and the last of these will get into college by about next April instead of autumn next year as we feared a year ago. For various reasons it has proved possible to increase the training of women without quite so much interference with the men as we had expected.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the disappointment of those men who have had to wait so long for training, but the waiting period has not, generally, been nearly so long as many people think. The longest period of waiting for any

1975
man between demobilisation and getting into college will be about two and a half years, and, in fact, this will only apply to quite a small number of those who come in at the end of the scheme. The great majority have had less time than this to wait. The emergency training scheme is now nearly at an end and will probably yield altogether about 23,000 men teachers and 12,000 women teachers. Of this total of 35,000, over 22,000 have already completed their training.
There has been a good deal of controversy in some parts of the Press about the quality of the emergency-trained teacher, but I want to say from my experience in visiting the colleges in which they have been trained and from visiting the schools in which they are practising, that I have no reason at all to alter the opinion I formed 12 months ago, that the material from which these teachers had been made was of the finest and that they are making, from the teachers point of view, a real contribution to the nation's need. I only hope that the remainder who are awaiting training are as good as those already trained. But it needs to be said that the 13 months' training of the emergency-trained teacher has been speeded up to such an extent, and the holiday periods cut down to such an extent, that the training period more nearly approximates to the two years of the normal training colleges.
Besides the emergency training scheme we have pushed on with developing the normal training facilities. Before the war the annual intake into the normal training colleges was 7,000. The corresponding figure for this year is 12,500 and in a year or two we plan to reach 14,000—double the pre-war rate. There were about 90 colleges working before the war. By the end of this year we shall have added 34 to that number.
It is worth while reflecting, for a moment, on what is involved in the opening of a new training college. It is not only a question of buildings—and these have been difficult enough—but, most important of all, of finding first-class staffs of principals and lecturers. Quite apart from the staffs of the 55 emergency training colleges which have been opened since the war, we have had to find no fewer than 500 staff for the permanent
1976
new colleges opened. Many of these lecturers have to be specialists dealing not only with the ordinary academic subjects, but also with more practical subjects such as music and art, and the theory and the practice of teaching, with special emphasis nowadays on the teaching of young children. I think we can justifiably congratulate the teaching profession on the fact that it has been possible to staff so many new colleges, many of which are already doing outstandingly good work. To a large extent the future of the country depends on the teacher training colleges and we are fortunate, I think, to have been able to staff them so well.
I should like also to refer to one or two of the main problems which still confront us in this field. There is still an urgent need to provide more women teachers. There are three main reasons for this. First the emergency training scheme, for obvious reasons, will altogether turn out about twice as many men as women. Secondly, the increase in the birthrate will hit the infants' schools first. The peak of the pressure on the infants' schools will come in 1953 and 1954. Generally speaking, men cannot be employed as teachers of infants. I know there have been suggestions that we should attempt to solve the problem in this way, but, again, I should like to say that all my experience teaches me that the younger the child the more confidence he has in the opposite sex to mine. Thirdly, the elimination of the unqualified teacher means mainly a demand for more trained women.
For these reasons we have had to concentrate in the last few years, and we still have to concentrate, mainly on expanding the training facilities for women. The number of men admitted to two-year training colleges this year will be nearly double the pre-war figure, but I believe there are more men seeking training than the colleges can take. We must, however, look first at the needs of the schools and the plain fact is that the need for further expansion of the training facilities for men will not come for a few years yet, when we shall need to train more men to cope with the pressure on the junior schools in 1956 and 1957 and on the secondary schools after 1960.
For women it is more nearly a question of whether there will be enough candidates for the number of places that

1977
are, or soon will be, available in training colleges. It is true that many candidates have failed to get into the colleges for which they have applied this year, but some of these may be weak candidates and others may still be found places in some of the newly-opened colleges which did not attract many direct applications. It is too soon to say just how this year's applications will work out, but it will be very surprising if any appreciable number of good candidates, certainly of those wishing to teach young children, are unable to get in.
In any case, we are planning to increase the number of places for women quite substantially again next year and the year after, and it would be useless to go on relying solely on what has hitherto been the normal source of recruitment, namely, girls stopping on at school until the age of 18 to take a higher certificate examination. We want as many of these as we can get but, even more important, we want to increase the number of girls stopping on after the age of 16 in secondary schools of all kinds, including modern schools, and taking courses of all kinds, suited to their capacity and interests. It is not a question of lowering standards but of devising courses and methods of selection appropriate to the girls' interests and to the work for which they are wanted.
I have recently set up a new national advisory council on the training and supply of teachers and I shall hope to receive from this body some useful advice about this whole question of the selection of students for training colleges. I know that this advisory body is one of many and sometimes, when setting up a new advisory body, I am tempted to think in terms of the old Methodist local preacher who was getting too far on in years for his task but who still wanted to be of service. The story goes that on one occasion, at a prayer meeting, he petitioned the Lord in anxious tones suggesting that he hoped he would still continue to be of use, if only in an advisory capacity. I know something of what is said sometimes about the advisory capacity, but in this field, I venture to suggest, perhaps more than in any other, a body of this kind can be of use, particularly if the individuals concerned are just as modest in their approach as the gentleman in the story.
1978
I have given a good deal of thought to another question which has troubled the House on occasions—that is, the question of graduate teachers. Some wild statements have been made about a "flight of graduates from the schools" but, considering all the post-war problems and the difficulties, I do not think the facts bear this out. In fact, the number of graduate teachers in the schools, so far from declining, is steadily increasing. I have not the figures for 1949 yet, but between March, 1947, and March, 1948, the number of graduate teachers increased by 5,000. This year the number of graduates taking a year's course of professional training is 2,600, compared with about 2,000 before the war. Next year it will go up again, to 2,900.
Of course, this does not provide for as big an increase in the number of graduate teachers as we should all like to see, and it is true that there have been difficulties with teachers of certain subjects, particularly teachers of science; but we have to remember that the post-war expansion of the universities has not yet made itself felt in the numbers of qualified graduates seeking posts. We are watching the position closely, but I think it is definitely too early yet to say that the teaching of science in our schools is in jeopardy through a lack of good graduate recruits to the teaching profession.
It has been suggested that inadequate salaries are the major cause of the reluctance of science graduates to apply for jobs in the schools. There is no doubt that competition from industry, including the nationalised industries, has been one of the factors, but we have to remember that industry has had to re-equip itself after the war; and I think we have to remember, too, that industry became what I might call "degree conscious" only during the war, and that the demand for degree students prior to the war in industry was really negligible. After a time, I should expect the competition which has been so keen in the last two or three years to diminish.
Meantime, the question of salaries for science graduates cannot be considered in isolation. It is part of the general framework of teachers' salaries which was fully considered two years ago, and as far as can be seen is likely to come up again in the near future. The question is one which, under the Act, stands

1979
referred to the Burnham Committee, and I should not be justified in intervening in its discretion. There is, therefore, no statement I can make today about teachers' salaries.
I must, however, pay a well deserved tribute, in which, I am sure, all Members of the Committee will join, to Lord Soulbury, who has recently resigned the Chairmanship of the Burnham Committee on his appointment to the Governor-Generalship of Ceylon. Lord Soulbury has had to discharge a most difficult task during the last seven years in presiding over the negotiations which led up to the last two reports, and he has fully maintained the high standard set up by his predecessors. I should like to take this opportunity of formally wishing him success in his new post, and of expressing my thanks, and the thanks of the education service, to him for the work he has done for us.
But, of course, we have to think, not only of the teachers, but of the classrooms in which the teachers will do their work. The two most important points about the educational building programme since the war are, first of all, that in about four years we have provided nearly 300,000 new school places, which is approximately equivalent to 1,000 new schools; and secondly, and more important still, that this has been achieved with a machine which had to be built up almost from scratch—I was going to say from behind scratch. During the war, when, of course, school building was at a standstill, local authorities disbanded their architects' departments; and once an administrative machine of this kind is demolished it takes time to build again.
Only this year are we, at last, getting to a position where the volume of educational building which local education authorities can carry out is approaching the volume needed to meet our commitments. The Committee will see something of the steady rise in the curve of activity in the following figures. At the end of 1946 local education authorities had less than £3,000,000 worth of building work under construction on the site. A year later, at the end of 1947, the figure was £12 million worth. In another 12 months it had more than doubled again to £27 million worth, and at this moment there is more than £36 million worth of work
1980
actually under construction on the ground. This includes 323 new schools. In 1949 alone we confidently expect local education authorities to have started work on school building valued altogether at nearly £50 million.
Mr. George Thomas: How many new schools are involved?
Mr. Tomlinson: Seventy per cent. will be primary schools. That is all I can say at the moment. Anybody can say of these figures that they are inadequate in relation to the need for new school buildings. The plain fact is that, quite apart from the damage and arrears of the war itself, we are faced with a number of claims all of which simply cannot be met at the same time, or in a short space of time. The first claim we have to meet is that of the million extra children coming into the schools in the next few years on account of the increased birthrate. To a large extent overlapping this demand are the needs of the many new housing estates which are being built. It is surprising how many housing estates are started without anyone's seeming to realise, until the houses have been built, that schools will be needed to serve the children living on the estates. In other words, our first commitment must be to provide school accommodation for the children of statutory school age.
It is impossible at the same time to carry out the vast programme of improvement and replacement which will be necessary in order to bring many, if not most, of our existing schools up to a reasonable standard. Probably something like 70 per cent. of our existing school buildings are more than 50 years old. In the past I have said many hard things about the conditions in some of these schools, and I am still prepared to say hard things about them, but it is of no use for people who tolerated them for years before the war to complain that they cannot be immediately replaced amidst all the current difficulties. But I should not like it to be thought that improvements and extensions to existing buildings do not figure at all in our current building programme. In fact, since the end of the war nearly £7,000,000 worth of work has been done by fairly small improvements and extensions, and more of this work is going on all the time.
The main problem which faces us in this field for the next few years is to

1981
achieve for the whole country the same standard of efficiency, speed and economy in both the planning and the preparatory work and in the actual building, as has already been achieved by some of the local education authorities. In many cases it is still taking too long to get the plans of a school drawn and approved, too long to get them from the stage of approval to the start of work on the site, and too long to get the school actually built. My Department has already done a good deal to streamline the administrative procedure for the approval of plans. There may well be more that we at the Ministry can do in this direction. Certainly there is a great deal that the local authorities themselves can do.
We are also very active in encouraging the development of methods of standardisation and prefabrication. Personally, I am convinced that in many parts of the country, though not necessarily in all, an increased use of methods of standardisation and prefabrication is essential if we are to carry out our vast building programme in a reasonable space of time. In the annual budget for education the expenditure on school building does not figure very largely because, of course, the cost of a school is spread out over a long period of years, but it is of the utmost importance that our school building work should be carried out as economically as possible in terms of money as well as in terms of labour and material.
At present the discrepancies between costs of comparable buildings in different parts of the country are too wide. We all have to do a great deal of thinking about how to reduce the cost of school buildings, without, of course, lowering standards. For several months now I myself have been waging an economy campaign—not the sort of economy campaign which used to be waged, an economy campaign directed to reducing expenditure on school building—but an economy campaign of the right sort, directed to getting more schools built for a given amount of money, labour and materials.
All the indications are that in 1949 over the country as a whole work will be started pretty well up to the limit of the planned programme. The 1949 programme was itself twice as big as the 1948 programme. The curve of activity will not continue to rise at this rate, but it will continue to rise to some extent
1982
over the next few years, and I believe that, provided proper attention is given to this question of real economy and efficiency, we shall be able to meet the most pressing of our commitments by 1952 or 1953. After that, as I have already indicated, there will still be a vast amount of work to be done to overcome the deficiencies of the buildings we have inherited and to provide for further advances.
In our efforts to provide more places in the ordinary schools we have not overlooked the needs of that important minority of children who are handicapped in one way or another. In spite of all the difficulties and of the very urgent needs for other kinds of school accommodation, since the war we have succeeded in establishing altogether 61 special schools and 24 boarding homes. The 42 boarding schools which have been opened, together with the 24 boarding homes, provide accommodation for rather more than 2,600 of these children. In addition, 19 day special schools have been opened, with accommodation for 400 children. This has been achieved almost entirely by converting existing buildings for the purpose, but most of those buildings make admirable special schools. I think that local education authorities and other bodies concerned can be congratulated on making so much progress in such a difficult period. We have, in fact, made far more progress in the past four years than in any previous comparable period.
Of course, here too we have still a long way to go before we shall have made adequate provision for all those children who are physically or mentally handicapped. But by means of the development plans which each local authority has prepared, and by means of conferences to encourage co-operation between local education authorities to deal with handicapped children on a regional or, in some cases, a national basis, we now have taking shape a large and well balanced programme which will, I hope, make much more progress possible in the next few years. Much of the work on the education of these handicapped children is still in the experimental stage, and so far as I know no one can yet define what amount of provision will ultimately be needed for some categories of handicapped children.

1983
The 43,000 or so children who are now attending special schools are less than 1 per cent. of the five million or more children for whom I am responsible. Nevertheless, I am sure it is the wish of the Committee that this relatively tiny group should receive the attention and care to which their disadvantages entitle them.
Mr. Cove: Can the Minister give us any information about the provision for backward children in Wales, or will the Committee be furnished with that information?
Mr. Tomlinson: If a statement can be made in the course of the Debate the Parliamentary Secretary will make it. I have not the figures divided up as between England and Wales, but I am quite certain that some portion of this provision is for Wales.
I am sure that it is the wish of the Committee that this group to which I have referred, though small in number, should be adequately catered for. I can assure the Committee that I consider it just as important to look after the wellbeing of this small group of handicapped children as to look after the remainder. A fortnight ago I had the privilege, for the first time, of attending a speech day at a blind school, and I can tell hon. Members that of all the tasks I have undertaken none was more difficult; and yet, having overcome the difficulty none gave me greater pleasure. To have to feel for the right hand of the boy with whom one is shaking hands, and then feel for his left hand in order to put his prize into it, tests the hardest of individuals; but the fact that seven out of ten of those boys had qualified for the higher school certificate showed that it was possible to do great things, even though so handicapped, given the will, and when provision has been made.
Now let me say a word or two about further education. So far I have been talking about the steps we have been taking to improve and extend educational facilities for our children. But we must not forget further education, which it is now the duty of the local education authority to provide for everybody above school leaving age who is able and willing to profit by it. Thanks to the passing of the 1944 Education Act, the Minister of
1984
Education can no longer regard his duties as being completed when he has made or sought to make provision for those whom we used to describe as "under school leaving age." I think the vision in the 1944 Act is that education begins with the nursery school and ends only with the grave. Therefore, provision has to be made for those who are willing and able to profit by further education.
Of all further education, I think the Committee realises that technical education is today perhaps the most important. There is no doubt that we have suffered in the past and are still suffering from the neglect of technical education in this country. I believe that the importance of proper facilities for technical education is more widely recognised now than it has been in the past. From the economic point of view it is vital to improve and extend our technical colleges. When the Ministry's annual report is available hon. Members will find there some very disquieting examples of the bad conditions under which technical education still has to be conducted in many parts of the country. We are taking steps to deal with this, but it is bound to be a fairly lengthy process.
In 1948 the Ministry approved final plans for technical education projects estimated to cost nearly £2 million in all, and another £3½ million worth of preliminary plans were approved. We have got to do our best to make sufficient resources available to develop this side of our work, which I believe is so essential to the future of the country. If industrialists generally became university-minded during the war and are seeking graduates for the higher positions, they have at the same time realised the necessity for an improvement in our technical education which corresponds with that same need. Meanwhile, I think we owe a debt of gratitude to the staffs of the technical colleges who are dealing now with more students than at any previous time, in conditions which are often unsatisfactory, but are nevertheless getting good results.
As evidence of this I should like to give the Committee some information about the numbers of national certificates awarded last year. In 1948 there were awarded practically 8,000 ordinary national certificates and just over 4,500 higher national certificates. The corresponding figures in 1939 were 4,000 and

1985
1,300. As the 1944 figures were practically the same as the 1939 figures, that means that in four years the number of national certificates awarded increased by 100 per cent. and the number of higher national certificates awarded increased by well over 200 per cent. A similar increase has taken place in the students passing the City and Guilds examination in craftsmanship. In 1948 twice as many passed these examinations as in 1938.
These are remarkable developments, and must give some encouragement to those who realise the contribution which technical education can and must make to increase productivity in industry. The number of students in the technical colleges, both full-time and part-time, continues to rise from year to year, and there is no doubt at all that the limit to this increase is set at present, not by the demand from industry and from individual students, but by the accommodation available. Among these students there continues to be a welcome increase in the number voluntarily released by the employers for part-time day studies. There are now something like 200,000 of these young people being released by their employers compared with 42,000 before the war. I hope that local education authorities will continue to do all they can to provide facilities to enable this voluntary movement to expand.
Mr. R. A. Butler: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion are under 18, because we never have been given that figure so far as I know?
Mr. Tomlinson: I should not like to say they were all under 18 without looking it up, but in the main they are.
There are too many uncertainties at present to make it possible to fix a day when attendance at county colleges can be made compulsory, as provided for in the Education Act, but we must make the best progress we can on a voluntary basis in the meantime, not only from the point of view of the country's economic position, but also in the interests of the individual youngsters themselves. We must always remember that these young people between the ages of 15 or 16 and 18 will never in later life be able to make up for the training they may miss in their apprenticeship years.
1986
I realise that several Members of the Committee are deeply interested in the question of the proper relationship between technical colleges and universities, and in the provision of proper facilities for the development of higher technological education. These questions are of outstanding importance, as I know only too well, and I am following with considerable interest the work which is being done by the regional academic boards to improve this relationship. I am also going ahead with the establishment of national colleges of technology wherever industry is prepared to co-operate. There are five open at the moment, and three more approved in principle. There are other problems yet to be solved in the higher technological field as the Committee is aware, but they are being considered carefully by the National Advisory Council on Education in Industry and Commerce in consultation with the University Grants Committee.
Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Could the Minister say what subjects the three colleges which are approved in principle are to deal with, or has that not yet been made public?
Mr. Tomlinson: Of the three which have been approved in principle but not yet established, one is a wool college. I forget for the moment what the other two are for, but the Parliamentary Secretary will tell the Committee later in the Debate. The one at Bradford is for wool. The only difficulties that remain outstanding are those as to the amount of support which is coming from the industry itself.
Mr. H. D. Hughes: Would my right hon. Friend say what support has been received by the colleges already working? I understand that the Foundry College, for example, is having some difficulty in recruiting students. Does that apply to the others?
Mr. Tomlinson: They are in the main what might be described as teething troubles rather than troubles which arise from the operation of the college itself. In the main, the employers in the industries concerned have co-operated to make possible the establishment of these colleges. The matter mentioned by my

1987
hon. Friend can be described as teething troubles rather than difficulties which are likely to be continuous. Until we get the proposals from this body that was set up for the purpose of examining the relationship between the university and these colleges, we must contain ourselves in patience to the best of our ability.
There is not much time left to talk about the development of adult education. It is worth noting that that part of the educational field has developed considerably since the war. The direct grants from my Ministry in this field are three times as much today as in 1938. In addition to this expenditure, there are of course many grants made by local education authorities to assist voluntary organisations and to provide their own classes. In addition to the five residential colleges which were running before the war, 17 new ones have been established since the war and these new colleges are doing good work. Valuable experiments are being made to discover the best sort of course to provide to meet the needs of the different areas.
I should like to say something about the question of access to universities. As hon. Members will know, there existed before the war a system of State and local awards to enable the most promising pupils to get to the universities. There were, in fact, 360 State scholarships and about 1,500 local awards a year in addition to the grants given to intending teachers. Since the war we have increased the number of State scholarships from 360 to 920, including the technical and mature State scholarships while the number that have been made available by local education authorities is more than double.
Since the war there has also been operating the Further Education and Training Scheme, under which some 77,000 awards have been made—not all, but a very large proportion of them at universities. It will give the House some idea of the enormous amount of work done in the awards branch and the accountant general's branch of my Department if I tell hon. Members that each term we have to pay out 58,000 instalments of grant to students in the further Education and Training Scheme and the Emergency Training Scheme, or
1988
holding State scholarships of one kind or another. The Further Education and Training Scheme is not yet at the end of its tether. We are still making new awards at the rate of two or three hundred a week for the academic year beginning next autumn. But the scheme will begin to fall off in the academic year 1950–51, and we have, of course, to look ahead and set about implementing the post-war policy of increasing the size of universities.
We have to meet the need for insuring an adequate supply of well qualified students to man the universities when the Further Education and Training Scheme comes to an end. Accordingly, I set up a working party to advise me on this. I have now considered their recommendations, which reached me at the end of 1948, and I should like to announce my decisions for the new academic year beginning in October. These represent only the first stage in carrying out the recommendations of the working party report. Our first task is to see to it that the assessment of grants is sensibly and adequately done. Every few years, we obtain from universities recommendations for a standard figure of maintenance on which our grants are based, and, as it happens, this year is the one in which the rates are to be revised. I propose, therefore, to take the opportunity of carrying out the recommendations of the working party given in Chapter IV of their report.
These recommendations, which will be put into effect forthwith, include a revision of the income scale for parental contributions on more adequate and up-to-date lines, the assessment of grants and contributions on the basis of a full year in place of the present system of distinguishing between term and vacation, larger children's and education allowances, and so forth. I hope in the future to be able to tidy up the grants to intending teachers, but I must do this by stages. In any case, I hope before long to abolish the system of four-year grants based on an undertaking by the individual teacher, which has been universally condemned.
My other main proposal concerns the number of awards. Here I should like to dispose, once and for all, of the idea that by increasing the number of awards

1989
I am depressing the standard of scholarship. The size of the university population is decided by the universities themselves, in consultation with the University Grants Committee and the Government. My task is not to determine the size of the universities but to ensure that qualified pupils up to the limits of the annual intake are not precluded from going to the university by lack of means.
One of the suggestions that is sometimes made is that the recent increase in the number of students at the universities involves a loss of standards. No doubt, owing to the increased numbers the universities have some problems of staff and accommodation, but I do not think there is any evidence that the standard of the students leaving the schools has declined. Some Members of the Committee may have noticed that a recent report by the Association of University Teachers referred to the great expansion which has taken place in the number of students in the universities, and said:
"It is generally agreed that the quality has been maintained in spite of schooling difficulties."
So far as it goes, that is an encouraging report and is some evidence that the expansion of the universities has not, at any rate yet, outstripped the capacity of the schools to provide them with adequately qualified students.
Mr. K. Lindsay: In the right hon. Gentleman's very important statement on this matter does he mean that students will receive a maintenance grant during the vacation roughly equal to the grant that they have been having during the term?
Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, it is spread over the year instead of over the term.
Mr. R. A. Butler: At the same rate?
Mr. Tomlinson: It is a little more money, but it covers the whole period, and is explained in the report of the working party. I have received other evidence from people high in the ancient universities that the present generation of undergraduates is more than keeping up the standards of their predecessors.
The working party recommended that the system of State scholarships and local awards should continue. I think that recommendation was sensible. In view
1990
of the fact that the further education and training scheme is still at its peak, there is not a case for any large increase in awards this year. In any case, it would be difficult to administer a much larger number of State scholarships under present conditions. I have, however, decided this year to increase the number of State scholarships by 100. I am glad to know that the vice-chancellors and the local education authorities are already in consultation about a procedure for local awards under which full weight will be given to the recommendations of universities on the merits of students.
There are other aspects of the department's work which I should have liked to, discuss, but time does not allow. I should have liked to talk about the school meals, service, the school health service, the youth service and other matters with which we are dealing day by day. I do not wish to weary the Committee, and so I will finish with a few words on a question which is always asked when education is discussed: "Are we getting value for our money?" The answer to the question depends entirely on our own standards of value. We have all to answer the question for ourselves. There are so many of what I call the dividends of education that are amongst the imponderables that they could not in any circumstances find a place in a balance sheet.
My idea of the purpose of education is to create people who have three qualities. We have often talked about threes in connection with education. There were the "three R's" which I was taught when I was a youngster. I could never understand why we called them the "three R's." Reading I could understand, but how writing and arithmetic came into that category not even the Private Member's Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick) convinced me. Then we have had other threes. During the long Debate on the Education Bill which became the 1944 Act we heard about age, ability and aptitude—the three A's.
I should like the Committee to think of the "three C's." The first of them is competence. If we can get an educational system that will lead in the direction of a competent nation, even from the material standpoint we shall have got value for our money. There are not

1991
enough of us to be incompetent, whatever the Opposition may think of the Front Bench. As a nation our competence must be developed and our education must produce competent men and women.
The second of the three C's is curiosity. I used to think that curiosity was something which had to be satisfied until a professor of Edinburgh University, speaking at a gathering at which I was present, convinced me that the last thing we should do with curiosity is to satisfy it. The only thing to do with curiosity is to keep it alive. The Father of the House often reveals the necessity of this to me when delving into the things that are concerned with the working of——
Earl Winterton: I suggest that 40 years ago we should have put Christianity first.
Mr. Tomlinson: I can assure the noble Lord that I have not forgotten it. Some people put the best things first, while there are others who leave the best things till the end. I would commend to Members of the House what I consider to be the greatly improved functioning of the educational system in that it keeps curiosity alive. The Question Paper of the House of Commons reveals every day this lesson of education, which certainly has been effective for hon. Members of this House. The more we can keep curiosity alive, which I believe is the essence of development in our young people, and retain that freshness of curiosity which is always wanting to know, the better it will be for us as a nation.
I mention thirdly not Christianity, but conscience. Some people ask, "Why not character?" The answer is because character can be either good or bad. Conscience is a development of that character which gives us the best, and I believe that if we are failing in this, we are fundamentally failing in everything so far as our educational system is concerned. I believe that these matters with which I have been dealing this afternoon, and which will be dealt with when I sit down, although they may relate to buildings, standards, or different types of schools, is of value or otherwise according to how we turn out young men and women at the end of their school life in
1992
relation to the importance and value of conscience and good character.
No one can easily sum up the efficiency of the educational machine, and whether it is producing those things we desire or not and whether we are getting value for our money or not. There has never been a time in my lifetime when, as a member of educational authorities, I have not encountered people who would not agree that we were getting value for money. Yet, to see, as I saw the other day in a school for handicapped children, people who had overcome the greatest difficulties as a result of training and had, as had those who had been responsible for the school, brought something of happiness into their lives, is to consider that we were getting value for all the money spent on that particular side of our educational service.
Perhaps I can give a quotation from a recent article which appeared in a well-known educational journal, and which I hope will give the Committee as much satisfaction as it gave me. In the leading article it was stated:
"With all their imperfections and their limitations, and in spite of the many and grave hindrances which obstruct them, the primary and secondary schools are doing a good job … And, whatever ill-informed or exasperated critics may allege, the present generation of young people are a credit to their endeavours. It is completely untrue to say that the boys and girls now coming out of our schools are less well educated than their forebears. They are much better educated. What has happened is not that the schools are doing their job less well, but that society has grown far more aware of the importance of education, and consequently of the deficiencies of the educational system."
Mr. S. O. Davies: Would my right hon. Friend arrange with his Parliamentary Secretary for the statistical data which he has given this afternoon to be broken down so that the curiosity of one not unimportant section of this Committee—the back benchers—may be satisfied before we leave this subject?
Mr. Tomlinson: Yes; I shall see that that is done.
4.43 p.m.
Commander Maitland: I am glad that the Minister has opened this Debate because we are at a great disadvantage in not having the statutory report before us. The length and great interest of the right hon. Gentleman's speech have shown how important it is

1993
that that report should be made to the House, particularly at a time when more interest is being shown in educational matters in letters to the newspapers and articles in the newspapers than I can ever remember at any other time during the years in which I have always looked for those things.
The Minister said that before the war the report was never out until very late. All I can say is that the Opposition must have been very bad in those days. The right hon. Gentleman must admit that we have certainly chased him to try to get the report out. I sincerely hope that the present position will not arise again and that we shall receive the report earlier. I suggest to the Minister that he should read the book "Their Finest Hour," by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), and he will see there the admirable minutes written by my right hon. Friend. Some minutes of that nature, perhaps beginning with that courteous but compelling word "Pray," circulating round the Ministry, might well ensure that we received our report rather earlier.
The Minister will not expect me to comment in detail on his statement. It was a very important one, particularly in regard to the University Working Party's report. Like the Minister we believe in this Debate in not having the best things first. My two right hon. Friends will follow me and their big guns which will be brought to bear will deal with the details of that report. We must remember that we are today debating education on what may well be the last day of summer. Tomorrow or the next day we have to face the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when we may find that we have to tighten our belts and face rather grim facts.
Accordingly, we have to look hard at these matters, not in any unfriendly way but to see that we are making the best of what we have available. Whether the Minister's party or the party to which I have the honour to belong is in power during the next year or so, it will be very difficult to provide all the money for all the things that all of us would wish to see done; and it therefore becomes even more important to see that the money we have is spent to the best advantage. In other words, it becomes a question at the moment of priorities.
1994
The right hon. Gentleman indicated some of those priorities, and I am grateful that he did so. I consider it to be the duty of the Minister at a very early date to face the country and tell it what are his detailed priorities in relation to the education problems about which we all know. The Minister mentioned, for example, the size of classes and the number of teachers. These are vital priorities, but they can be broken down. Just to leave them like that is to deal with them in too wide a way. The Minister must try to indicate more clearly whether he will put the emphasis on the primary, secondary, technical or other branches of education. It would be no use, and I do not think that the Minister would be doing his duty, if he attempted to give a little of something to everybody. If we proceed in that direction, we shall fail. I should like to comment on some of the real needs and then to make certain suggestions.
To take the question of building, it is obvious that if we are to reduce our classes that aspect of the educational programme is of vital importance. But are we justified in still maintaining and trying to reach the standard which we reduced by the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act? All of us want to see the standards of building kept high but we have to realise that although standards were rightly reduced by the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1948, a good deal has happened since then, and it may be necessary again to overhaul those standards. It is a difficult problem but it has to be bravely faced so that by economising in some cases we may be able to relieve the worse cases. The Minister has that point in mind, I know, and he referred to it. That must be the whole object of all the economies that we make.
I am glad that the Minister emphasised the importance of the primary schools. Of all the pressing problems which we have to face at the moment, overcrowding in primary schools is perhaps the most important, because primary schools are the basis of education. If, as the Jesuits used to say, you get a child really young, he can be got into the right ways. Every month and every year that he has to wait for his education to commence, it becomes harder for him ever to be able to assimilate the secondary education which

1995
is being prepared for him. Therefore, I was glad to hear—and we on this side agree entirely—that the question of priority in the primary schools is the most important and outstanding problem that we have to face at the moment.
One must face the fact that there are many children—some of them are in my constituency and there are others in many other parts of the country—who at this moment are not getting to school until they are five and a half years of age. I should like to know, when the Parliamentary Secretary replies, whether those numbers are increasing or decreasing. In other words, are we keeping pace with the bulge in the birthrate? Do we look as if we are going to keep pace with it? It is no good being complacent about it. I am not saying that the Minister was complacent, but it is essential that the people should understand the facts. They will have to pay considerable taxation to keep education on a proper footing, and they have an absolute right to know how their money is being spent and whether it is being spent, as they consider, to the best advantage.
Then there is the very worrying question which must be faced concerning teachers' salaries. The Minister indicated that under the Burnham system he had no responsibility, but he has.
Mr. Tomlinson Mr. Tomlinson indicated dissent.
Commander Maitland: I am sorry if I am wrong, but that is the impression I got. The Minister has a real responsibility. He can either accept or return the recommendation of the Burnham Committee, as I understand it. No Minister of Education should say that he, and he alone, is not responsible for the salaries of teachers in the long run. We must bring this problem into the open and face it. The Oaksey Report, recently published, focussed attention on this problem, and I should like to know what the Minister's views are. I should like to hear, not only his views about primary school teachers, but more in detail about his views concerning graduate teachers and those teachers who have got honours.
Mr. G. Thomas: I want to follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Is he now suggesting an increase in salary for teachers? I should like to know whether that is the point he is making.
Commander Maitland: The point is this. We want to know the full facts about this matter. We are not in a position to indicate whether at this moment the country can afford extra money for teachers or not, but the Government are in that position. We want to know, and the teachers have a right to know, the answer to that question.
Mr. Skinnard Mr. Skinnard (Harrow, East) rose——
Commander Maitland: I should like to get on, because the right hon. Gentleman was rather a long time.
Mr. Ralph Morley Mr. Ralph Morley (Southampton) rose——
Commander Maitland: Would the hon. Gentleman like to make a speech later? It would be much better.
When I was interrupted, I was saying that I consider that if we are to keep up the standards of our grammar schools, we have got to increase—and this is where I make a statement of opinion—the relative salaries of the graduates and the honours teachers, because it is no good trying to get equality of esteem by lowering the position of the grammar schools. The standard of the best must be maintained, and it is the duty of the country to see that that is done now. In no circumstances should we take any action at this moment in particular which would reduce the best which the country can produce, because if we do so we shall reduce our chance of getting through this extremely difficult time.
I now want to talk about the technical schools. I was very interested indeed in what the right hon. Gentleman said about them, although I must say that I thought his optimism was somewhat out of keeping with the reports which I have seen. I think we are in a very serious position in regard to our technical education, and in particular we need assistance in relation to technical equipment. I believe the Minister mentioned that point. I have a serious suggestion to make to the Minister, and I hope he will consider it.
The other day I had a letter from an important source in America indicating that in America we were somewhat criticised because they do not think that we have made the most of our technical education. Of course, they go in for it to a degree which we might consider excessive. I should like to draw the Minister's

1997
attention to the White Paper on Marshall Aid, particularly Article IV. It is Cmd. 7469. There it indicates that counterpart funds can be used for this purpose. My information is that if we did investigate the use of counterpart funds for the provision of technical equipment and technical schools and colleges, it might be very favourably received in the United States of America. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look into that point and see whether it is appropriate, and, if so, whether he can do something in that direction.
So far we have discussed matters all of which are ruled by finance. It is quite obvious that in these days much of our anxiety must turn on that point. How much more ought we to consider the actual standards of education that can be reached in this country? We must take tremendous care to see that we are teaching the right things in the right way and that we are creating the right kind of people. That does not cost anything; it just needs thought. The rest of my speech will be directed to that end and not to the £ s. d. end, and my hon. Friends who will follow me will possibly follow that line also.
The first thing I should like to know is whether the greatest use is being made of the inspectorate. In previous Debates—and certainly in the last two, I believe—I have plugged this point about the importance of increasing the inspectorate, and I am glad to know that the inspectorate have been increased in the last year. But is the best use being made of them? The right hon. Gentleman will know that the report of the Chief Inspectorate of factories is a most useful and interesting document. It deals with all the industrial problems, including disease, accidents and so on, and for those who are particularly interested in that field of work it is a most important report of which a tremendous amount of use is made.
I would not say that the inspectors' reports on schools are of the same nature, but there is a similarity. They must be confidential. If there is lack of faith and trust between the headmaster, the inspector and the staff, then a great deal that is good in the system falls to the ground. But surely there is no need for that confidence to be abused. Surely it would be possible—and my information is that this is not done—for reports to be gathered together, sifted more carefully
1998
and used in their own areas. It is obviously no good for a report on Birmingham to go to Lincolnshire. I believe that a great deal of good could be done in that way. I do not mean for a moment that the Ministry should interfere in what is the established principle of our educational system, that the individual genius of the headmasters is the best way to get the best out of our schools. We want to leave to the headmasters the actual methods of approach they use to get the best out of the boys and girls to reach the standards that are required.
I have never met a really good teacher who was not a first-rate learner. I have never met a teacher who was not ready to learn from every source available to him. I am perfectly certain that if the Ministry, working with the local education authorities, would try to produce something in the form of a report which gives leadership to the schools based on what the inspectorate are doing, it would be of considerable use to the educational system of the country. I think it would be particularly of use in the new modern schools. I expect that hon. Members opposite know far more about this than I do, but it is very difficult to know exactly where the modern schools are going. I think they are doing very well individually, but there does not seem to be an objective which the country knows about, which may be a good thing, but it is a matter I should like to consider more carefully. I believe that an exchange of information, which is what this really amounts to, would be particularly valuable to the modern schools that are, as it were, starting off on their very exciting experiment, so that we may know more about what we mean when we say that we are trying to provide a secondary education for all.
Mr. Skinnard: Does not the hon. and gallant Member think that the present method of district conferences is better than any statistical abstracts—the actual getting together of headmasters and teachers with the inspectorate and local education authorities which is now taking place?
Commander Maitland: That is something which is parallel to the idea I am putting forward. I do not think that it is either any better or any worse, but that the two ideas can be made use of equally successfully. At any rate, it is

1999
an idea I am throwing out as being worthy of consideration, although I may be wrong.
I cannot conclude without reference to one of the matters which has given hon. Members on this side great anxiety, and which does not encourage us sometimes to think as kindly about the right hon. Gentleman's regard for education as would otherwise be the case, and that is the Debates and arguments we have had about the school certificate. I am not going to refer to this matter for very long, because it has been threshed out on more than one occasion. It seems a very odd thing that whenever a primary school or secondary school headmaster's right to treat his pupils or his syllabus in the way that he wants to do is queried, there is immediately an outcry that the rights of teachers are being interfered with, whereas in this matter of the school certificate there is no doubt about it that in our grammar schools that right is being interfered with, to which we take grave exception.
There is another point to which I must draw attention. In several Debates we were assured by the right hon. Gentleman that this change had not been introduced to bring about that bogey of parity of esteem. I put a Question to the Minister recently asking him whether the name of the type of school which a child had attended would be shown on the general certificate, and I gather that he intends it should not be shown. I think that is entirely wrong and slightly dishonest. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] It is quite obvious that people will ask, so why not show it in the first place? On Monday, 16th May, there appeared an article in the "Daily Mail" on the question of the general feeling among parents in wanting their children to go to grammar schools—there is a rather natural dislike on the part of parents of the alternative. There is a statement here which is attributed to the Ministry. I want to know whether it is correct, because if so, it surely shows that parity of esteem was one of the objects of this change. The article says:
"The Ministry of Education thinks parents are over-anxious. Says the Ministry: When we get a good supply of new modern schools we believe a lot of the prejudices in favour of little Johnny going to the grammar school will disappear, especially after 1951 when the
2000
new general certificate of education will be introduced. That certificate will show what sort of a record the pupil had, but will not specify whether he or she attended a grammar, technical or modern school."
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Members opposite say, "Hear, hear," but it seems to me that it shows up the Debates we have had in a rather bad light. It seems to me that panty of esteem had a great deal more to do with it than we were led to believe. It is things like that which make us sometimes a little worried about the course education is taking.
Mrs. Middleton: Will the hon. and gallant Member explain why, when a selection is being made for a post between various applicants of equal qualifications, attention should be paid to the schools rather than to character and ability?
Commander Maitland: I cannot really answer that question because it seems to me that the answer is obvious. If a child has got a very good report from a grammar school, it is probably preferable, according to the sort of job it is, that he should have it. Why should it not be put on the certificate? I am afraid that we must agree to differ on that point.
Mr. Tomlinson: I am particularly anxious that we should not get a wrong impression about these things. I thought these suggestions were being kept out of our discussions and that we would argue the question purely on educational grounds. I have not found anything in the argument of parity of esteem. Why is the hon. and gallant Member anxious that the name should be on the certificate now, when it does not appear on the school certificate?
Commander Maitland: There is no school certificate in the case of a modern school.
Mr. Tomlinson: Oh, yes.
Commander Maitland: I must say that I think the name should be on the certificate; I think that would be the right thing to do. This statement which is alleged to have been made by the Ministry obviously makes it appear that that was the object, and if the statement is incorrect the right hon. Gentleman should deny it.

2001
We asked for this Debate because we consider that at this time education is perhaps our greatest defence against all the problems which are facing us. Today life is becoming very much more difficult. We have to face the feeling of some people that we are not keeping pace with it. If we do not keep up people's hearts and make them ready to live their own lives, however difficult they are, they may reluctantly give up and decide that they no longer have the desire to direct their own lives. If that occurs, it opens the door at once to Communism, which is the one thing we do not want, and through Communism it opens the way eventually to something which might be described as ant life. That is why we have had this Debate and why we regard this subject as being so important.
5.11 p.m.
Mr. Cove: I congratulate the Minister on his statement. Those who follow the results of his policy and actions in the educational world will be pleased at what he has already achieved. There has been very great progress. I am not alone, as a political partisan of my right hon. Friend in saying that. There is evidence of a non-political but expert character to sustain my statement. As a Labour Government and as a Labour movement we can be proud of our progress in all spheres of education. I want to put on record in the House of Commons the impartial opinions of Dr. Alexander, the secretary of the education authorities, in the non-political educational publication called "Education." Writing in it on 7th January this year, he said:
"It is extremely difficult to compare current figures with those before the war, but I am bound to point out that, measured by any criterion, it seems reasonable to state that there has been more work done in the training of teachers, in the building of schools, in the making available of educational opportunity, in the provision of meals, and in the school medical service, in the three years 1945–48 than in any other three years in the history of English education. I fear many of us have been so conscious of the tremendous work that has to be done to achieve the full aims of our development plans to carry fully into effect the principles of the Education Act, 1944, that we have tended to under-estimate what we were achieving. Compared with the work that has to be done, we have not achieved so very much. Compared with what we ever achieved before, these three years show a record of great progress."
2002
There is an impartial and well-informed educational opinion of the action of this Government in the sphere of education during the last three years. With all respect, I say that that opinion cannot be opposed by any hon. Member with the same expert and detailed knowledge as Dr. Alexander. I therefore congratulate the Minister and the Government on the great achievements of the past three years.
In this Committee and in these Debates we generally concern ourselves almost entirely with the machinery of education. It is profoundly important that we should also concern ourselves with the content of education. There is a remarkable fact which will be observed by anyone who tries to follow, even in a sketchy manner, the books on education which come from America and the books written in this country. I agree with Dr. Eric James, in his latest book on "The Conflict of Education," that in our discussions we are generally concerned mainly with the machinery of education. I notice that in the American publications there is greater emphasis on the content of education. That is vitally important. As far as I can ascertain—I would not be so presumptuous as to say that I am an authority—we have not yet evolved what I would call a commonly-accepted philosophic content and outlook on education. We have not yet got a clear vision of the goal at which we are aiming. Therefore, it is well that, from time to time, in our amateur way, we should consider what I broadly call the content of education.
In this respect I congratulate the Welsh Department on the series of educational pamphlets which it has produced. I do not necessarily agree with them—I profoundly disagree in many respects—but none the less those pamphlets deal with the realities of Welsh education. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to dilate upon some of the issues raised in those pamphlets. Wales has many special and acute national problems. The latest pamphlet deals with the acute national problem of bilingualism. I am glad that it does so. It is of very great importance that the Welsh language should survive and that the Welsh spirit and culture should express themselves in the Welsh language. Here is my criticism.

2003
It is rather unfair to put the blame for the decline of the Welsh language mainly on the shoulders of the Welsh secondary grammar schools. Other profound factors have been undermining the Welsh language and Welsh culture. Unemployment between the two world wars was a far more corrosive force upon the Welsh language and Welsh culture than any neglect or deficiency of the Welsh grammar schools.
Here again I congratulate the Government because the full employment policy which has restored work to the depressed valleys in South Wales has also contributed to the cultural life of those areas. The two have gone together. The corrosion in Welsh culture has been largely, though not entirely, due to the unemployment that existed for 10, 15 or 20 years. In the sphere of Welsh education there is a joining together of the economic policies of the Government and the cultural action of the Ministry of Education in preserving, sustaining and extending Welsh cultural life throughout the Principality. I have been a critic in many respects and I shall be a critic in some respects tonight, but I am glad to give my testimony to what has happened in the economic and industrial field, with its repercussions on the cultural life of Wales.
For a moment now, I will be a wee bit critical. The problem of preserving Welsh culture in Wales is a difficult one. We have had the intrusion of alien English blood, particularly in South Wales. We have had the intrusion of alien English capital into South Wales. We have a great mixture in the Principality. The figures I have are rather startling. Out of 2,472,378 people in Wales, 97,932 were Welsh speaking only, 811,329 were English and Welsh speaking, and 1,563,117 were English speaking only.
Mr. Harold Davies: Which pamphlet is that?
Mr. Cove: This is No. 4. I should like all who are interested in Welsh education and cultural life to read these pamphlets. This pamphlet goes on to say:
"The normal policy in a bi-lingual country should be that a pupil should be able to use either language, and the lack of such a policy in Wales is already evident in the present
2004
condition and prospects of the Welsh language. Its incapacity to deal adequately with many aspects of modern civilisation is due not to any inherent weakness in the language itself but in large measure to the fact that the institutions of higher education, the secondary schools, the training colleges and the university, have never seriously attempted to use Welsh as a medium of instruction. Had the will existed, such difficulties as the lack of books and of a technical vocabulary would have been overcome long ago, for within these last 25 years precisely similar difficulties have been overcome in Belgium and Palestine, so that today Flemish in Flemish-speaking Belgium, and Hebrew in Palestine are used as media of instruction throughout the whole field of education."
Take my own home life. My mother was a Welsh-speaking woman, my father was English, but more Celtic than many Welshmen. Look at me. When my mother sat at her front door in Halifax Terrace in the colliery village of Treherbert, where I was born and bred, or when she stepped outside to talk to Mrs. Edwards next door, it was invariably in Welsh; when she spoke to me it was in English. Those who go into the Rhondda Valley—to Llan Rhondda—will find children playing and speaking Welsh in their playing time. A little further down they will find the children playing and speaking in English. Lower down it will be a mixture, with pockets here and pockets there, an intrusion of English into the areas, thereby making the problem infinitely more difficult than it would be in any homogeneous community.
It is wrong and disheartening to teachers who love the Welsh language to impose upon them the responsibility for any decay in it. It is amazing that this pamphlet quotes Gasset's "Mission of the University" in support of the theory in the pamphlet, but that quotation denies the theory in the pamphlet, because it says:
"The school depends far more on the atmosphere of national culture in which it is immersed than it does on the pedagogical atmosphere within it."
Therefore, I reiterate that it is extremely wrong and disheartening to place upon the teachers in the secondary schools of Wales the responsibility for any decay of the language. Recognition must be made of the general difficulty of the problem.
Will any Welsh Member here tell me that I and others who can speak only in this language, are not good Welshmen? Will anyone tell me that Alun Lewis is

2005
not a good Welshman? He is a secondary school teacher in Aberdare, and A. L. Rouse has written the following in a preface to his letters:
"I believe that his Welsh roots, the Celtic character of his genius, were a safeguard: that loving observation of detail, the sense of line and pattern and phrase, the attachment to the particular, yet clothed with an imagination sensuous in itself, the brightness of vision with which the object is seen—those qualities appear in all Celtic art, they are in the instinct of the Celt."
And they are instinct in the writings of the Anglo-Welsh.
While I hope that these pamphlets will be studied seriously in Wales, I hope it will also be realised that responsibility must not be put on the shoulders of the Welsh school teachers. The pamphlet to which I have referred says that teachers should not be over-concerned about examinations or cramped by them. What is the actual reality? When the students get to the sixth form, far lesser numbers are taking Welsh than are taking French, German and even Latin, and far less than are taking the sciences. Why? It is obvious that at that age the Welsh child, himself and herself, and the parents are concerned about the jobs they will get after having passed through the secondary schools. I repeat that the policy of economic security which the Government have applied with such great success throughout Wales, is an immense contribution to the cultural life and the development of the Welsh language in the Principality.
Let me make one final remark about the 1944 Act, commonly known as the "Butler Act." It has become almost platitudinous to say that that Act has effected a revolution in educational practice, theory and so on. The more I reflect upon that Act—and I have done some reflecting on it recently—the more I am convinced that it is correctly described as a revolutionary Act. English education has all along been based on the tripartite class system. The grammar schools have been directly related to a privileged class. What is the central theme of the 1944 Act? It is to be found in the fact that it has stated—in legalistic terms, if that expression is preferred—that all education above the age of 11 shall be secondary education. For the first time, poor old Plato has been wiped off by an English Education Act.
2006
[Interruption.] Oh, yes; that is a tremendous achievement.
But while that Act has abolished class distinction and aimed, as it were, at parity of esteem, we still have a long way to go to achieve it. People's minds have been directed, on a number of recent occasions and also in this Debate, to one of the major problems, the status and salaries of grammar school teachers. The major problem in education at present concerns not so much the problems of the grammar schools as the application of the principle of the 1944 Act to the educational world. The main task is to achieve real parity of esteem and equality of opportunity in the modern secondary school.
I do not think the Minister was correct in stating that when the new regulations come into force the school certificate can be taken from the modern secondary school. The fixing of the age of 16 for the taking of the school certificate has been accepted almost universally by educationists. There are, in fact, overwhelming reasons for fixing that age. There are, however, tremendous social repercussions, because until the age is raised to 16 for modern secondary schools those schools are automatically excluded for the purposes of the school certificate; they cannot take that examination at the age of 16. I say quite definitely and unequivocally that the Ministry, public opinion and the local authorities must concentrate on improving the amenities and staffing of primary schools and upon achieving equality of opportunity in the modern secondary schools, for in that direction lies the major problem in the educational field.
I congratulate the Minister, and I hope and pray that we shall have an accentuated interest in the content of education. The book recently issued by the Harvard professors, "General Education in a Free Society," Dr. Conant's book and quite a host of others point out that the modern world is one in which men are, as it were, splitting atoms, in which all the centrifugal forces are at work, and there is no cohesion. What is amazing is that even Professor Bernal agrees with the Americans that the great problem facing the educational world is the problem of what they call the integration of the individual and of society.

2007
That integration can never be achieved so long as we have a tripartite system of education; so long as grammar schools are what might be termed watertight compartments and there are separate technical schools and modern secondary schools. What is needed is one comprehensive type of school, where all the boys and girls, whatever their aptitude and capacity, may obtain life more abundantly. It was Professor Barker, I think, who said that the intellectual world is a lean world. What is needed is the development of the modern secondary school, giving equality of opportunity and parity of esteem, and the practical application of the revolutionary principle embodied in the 1944 Act.
5.38 p.m.
Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) in a new frame of mind discussing the content of education and especially the philosophy of Welsh culture, but when he reached his last point I differed fundamentally from him. I will try to give my reason later for doing so. I have taken part in these Debates for some 16 years and as this will probably be the last Debate of this nature at which I shall be present, I hope the Committee will be indulgent with me if I also discuss not the material foundations, but what we mean by education in this country and what we are trying to preserve, as I see it, in the freedom, variety and personal relationship between teacher and taught.
I congratulate the Minister, but not so much on the speech which he made today. I only wish we could have had it in the form of a report, which would have saved him a great deal of trouble. It was a speech which, apart from the announcement on awards, did not contain anything particularly new. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman much more on what he has done during the past year in going about the country. The other day at Birmingham or Bournemouth Mr. Byng Kendrick said that:
"The incense of flattery is only tolerable when it comes from friends."
I think I can regard the right hon. Gentleman as a very old friend and I believe he has done much good by his visits to all sorts of schools. I want to
2008
put it on record that we are grateful for what he has done. I wish he had been able to give a report as indeed he is required to do, on the Advisory Councils, but perhaps his Parliamentary Secretary will do so. He has not told us, either, about what he has done, when reports of the Advisory Council have been issued.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke mainly about teachers, buildings and university awards and, apart from university awards, I do not think there was very much on which to comment. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to be more precise and to tell us what is to succeed the Further Education and Training Scheme, what is to succeed the Emergency Training Scheme for Teachers and what is to succeed the Horsa Scheme for buildings. We have had critical Debates on these schemes from time to time, but those are finished now. Let us pay tribute to those who have put these problems right. When I heard that 52,000 awards were being made, I realised that it was a pretty tough job for the Department. But all these emergency measures have now to be followed by others.
The position of teachers in this country is very unsatisfactory. One reason is because they are underpaid. They are all underpaid, but especially graduates, whose position has deteriorated relatively and absolutely since before the years when I was at the Board of Education. Recently I have taken part in an ad hoc organisation which includes members of the N.U.T. and the Joint Board specially created to pursue this problem. I know many teachers with family responsibilities who are unable to buy a new book, or to maintain a standard of life consistent with their vocation. The abolition of the school certificate will throw many new duties on these men because of the emphasis laid on individual tutoring. It is a serious matter that highly qualified men and women are ceasing to choose teaching as a profession and entering business, industrial research and the higher grades of the Civil Service, where higher salaries are paid.
I think it a dangerous and narrow-minded policy to cut at the root and source of all technical training, because that is tantamount to drying up the supply of men and women qualified for the profession. If I were sitting where the right hon. Gentleman sits, I am not quite

2009
sure what I would do. All I say is that it is a serious happening. Do not let us deny the facts, they are all too serious. The right hon. Gentleman objected to the word "drift," but the evidence is that teachers are going into other jobs. Some are becoming inspectors and that is all right, but there is rather a bogy of organisers and they always get more than the actual practitioner. Some go into the B.B.C., some into the British Council and some become teachers in Germany for British children. With all these various calls, a number of teachers are leaving the profession. I understand that women tend to leave six or seven years later. The difficulty of finding, not only science and mathematics teachers, but domestic science teachers, is very great because better jobs are to be had in catering establishments for domestically trained persons. Even teachers of English and geography are difficult to find in London. That was quoted to me yesterday in London.
The Minister set up a training council for technical teachers but I understand that there are only nine teachers on it. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary what has happened to the Royal Society of Teachers? Do not teachers want, more than anything else, a professional council, a self-governing body with a proper status in the community, if they are to attract men and women of the highest calibre? We have very interesting new developments in the Institutes of Education at the various universities. I believe there is hope of a greater unity in the profession. On questions of social insurance and international questions teachers are coming together in a new way and the only final answer is to get every teacher university trained for three or four years. That is why the problem is not so serious in Scotland where up to 70 per cent. are graduate trained.
Some of us are sometimes accused of neglecting the secondary and technical schools. This is a grave injustice. When I was at the Board of Education I opened a new senior school, as they were then called, once every three weeks for three years. Nothing was more interesting than to see the new developments and experiments which were being made day by day by persons in those schools, which are now called secondary modern schools. Re-organisation was then the order of the day. We were training to pave the
2010
way for secondary education for all, but it is nonsense to talk of that so long as we have two schools in one building and the inadequate premises which we inherited from the past. I do not think Mr. Tawney, who coined the phrase was ever committed to a multilateral or comprehensive school.
What we need is equality of access to an agreed standard of physical provision. That is equality of opportunity. One cannot make unequal things equal, but one can give every child equality of access to an agreed standard of physical provision. We are a long way from that and, apart from the abolition of fees and the raising of the school-leaving age, I cannot see that the position has materially altered since before the war in respect of secondary schools. That is no one's fault in particular, except that of Hitler. We are building no new nursery schools and the competition to enter grammar schools was never more severe in my lifetime.
We all hoped we were going to abolish the examination at 11 and that there would be a natural passage into a variety of secondary schools. There are fewer scholarships at Oxford and Cambridge won by children of the maintained schools of the north and south of England than before the war in comparison with independent schools. That is why I inveigh in Middlesex against the children being deprived of the opportunity of going to grammar schools at all. That has happened in certain areas. The tendency for children to go into National Service has cut short the third year in the sixth form for many boys who have not the same personal relations with the university as the independent schools have. In the modern schools some teachers are performing miracles. I have examples from Devonshire where good experiments are being made with the extra year.
If I criticise, it is not because I am unaware of the good things, but classes are still larger, books less plentiful and equipment more deficient. This obtains in the hastily improvised multilateral schools against whose premature establishment—I am not against them in principle—I have protested in this House and in company with hundreds of parents. Some are run like old-fashioned board schools in which the register is all important and pens and paper come out at each lesson, which is 40 years out of date. I know a

2011
place where there is one laboratory and £12 a year for teaching science to 500 girls.
In the same way junior technical schools are being adversly affected at the moment. As the President of the Association of Technical Institutions recently pointed out; in the old days they had a "lease-lend" with the senior technical schools. Now that is abolished, and they have not yet found their new habitation. We have not the junior technical secondary schools yet in being. I do not blame the Minister, I am merely saying that at the moment we are still in a time of transition and I have never known education when it was not in a time of transition. The plain fact is that there are not enough graduate teachers to support secondary education for all, any more than to support infant and nursery schools.
Do not let us disturb the quality of standards where they exist, but let us try to level up all along the line. It is for this reason that I want the Ministry and local education authorities to encourage every possible experiment, and not to clamp down any more regulations than are absolutely necessary. It is not the task of the Ministry to settle the curriculum of schools or make child centre education or any other sort of education. These things are necessary, just as security is necessary to develop the homeless child, but one former is really worth a dozen reformers. If one goes round English schools at the present moment and looks below the surface, one finds hundreds of people, under the maintained system as well as the independent, doing the most interesting experiments. I call a director of education a good director if I see that every school in his district is different.
Mr. Corlett: The hon. Member says it is not the job of the Ministry to determine the curriculum of a school. Can he tell me of any maintained school where the Ministry determines the curriculum?
Mr. Lindsay: The curriculum is almost fixed at the present moment——
Mr. Corlett: No.
Mr. Lindsay: Yes, it is, very largely by the presence of the external examination. The external examination is the
2012
authority and sanction of the Ministry and of the whole country, and of the universities. One of the greatest inroads into freedom is the examination. If we can get experiments made in the maintained schools, and people realising that the education there is good, there will be less desire—which is very strong at the moment—to make these enormous sacrifices which are being made today by parents to send their children to independent schools.
Although I have criticised my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) from time to time I think I am coming more to agree with him that there is a very good chance now of bringing the independent schools more and more within a flexible national system. I have been looking at some of these schemes. I was at a school recently where the Minister was, Kingwood School, Bath. I found that several local authorities are assisting boys with scholarships. Christ's Hospital is too well-known to discuss, and there are literally hundreds of schools coming more and more within the State system; and it is the desire of headmasters to do so. There is no desire to stand out and be apart from the national system. They wish to come in with a reasonable degree of freedom.
That raises the question of whether the local authorities and the people governing schools are quite the people we want in control. I have a feeling that while financial control must rest with the local authority there are scores of people who should be used as governors and managers of schools, and who could be brought in to do national service by acting as managers, but who never have time to sit on the local education authority. I should not like to see this country copying the United States or Europe. I have seen schools in Europe and in the United States and I have a feeling that if we keep reasonably steady we shall work out in this country a compromise which will show the Americans, and the rather rigid Europeans, that we have something in this country besides Parliamentary Government and William Shakespeare, that is a new conception of the relationship between the teacher and the taught; in other words, the conception of freedom in education.
I must say one word—partly as a university Member—on this question of

2013
awards. It is not the time, and I would not be in Order, to discuss or criticise the universities. I believe that comes under the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Vote. But the selection of students is inseparable from the recent rise from 50,000 to 85,000. We live in an age when few parents can afford £250 a year for the education of their children. I have here a letter which I received today in which the writer says:
"To maintain my daughter at school I have to raise a loan to the limit of my insurance policies, deprive my children of their summer holiday, and my daughter has to go out before school charing."
There is no question about it that something has to be done, for £250 a year will not be found by many parents in the future for a university education.
I think the universities have approached an area comparable with secondary education, shall I say, about 20 years ago; with one important difference. The law is that secondary education is for all, according to ability and aptitude. If a child does not go to the grammar school he goes to a technical modern or secondary modern school. The principle of universality is accepted whatever the arrangement of schools. But in the case of the university there is no principle accepted. As the Minister said, each institution is responsible for its own entry and selection. There is no intelligence test which is remotely agreed and no alternative course of study—except correspondence or evening courses—which cannot give a university life as we conceive it in this country. Therefore, sooner or later, we have to give an answer to that question.
Mr. Harold Davies: Get on with adult education.
Mr. Lindsay: I am coming to that. The State has some responsibility for national needs in the shape of trained men and women. This responsibility prompted the Barlow Report which was primarily concerned with training scientists; but there are other things. The National Health Act requires so many doctors, so many dentists and so many specialists. The universities will break down if they have to get a larger number of trained lecturers. The National Education Act of 1944 is already running into difficult waters due to the shortage of graduate teachers. These basic needs may
2014
reach a point which would necessitate x number of students coming to a university, if necessary at Government expense. But if the university policy concerned itself solely with meeting the degree of national need, it would quickly degenerate into a narrow professional outlook, and the whole conception of the university would be changed within a decade. That is happening in some countries in Europe and America.
The fact remains that 11 out of 16 students in the future will be wholly supported by the State or local funds—taxes or rates. There is a campaign in which the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Morley) has taken a part with other national bodies. They say, "Eleven out of 16; why not 16 out of 16?" There is no logical answer, but I wish at any rate to attempt one. Sir Walter Moberley said that selection is the unsolved problem. I wish to quote his words:
"It is to devise a method of selection or a combination of methods which facilitates the intuitive discernment of excellence and which will be, but also seem to be, fair as between man and man."
We may have a student in York who cannot get into Leeds or Sheffield University and a student getting in in London who is very much below the standard shown by the student in Yorkshire. This idea of a clearing house between universities is not so easy to arrange as the report on awards seems to think.
I will put the problem in another way. Accepting the assumption that there exists a great reserve of uncultivated capacity, what proportion of the population is society prepared to withhold from gainful occupation until the age of 21 or 22. In fact, under National Service, people are withheld until the age of 23 or 24. America withholds 2,500,000 and we withhold 85,000. It should be remembered that this is at an expense to the State of £250 a year. This problem will get worse. There is the bulge in the birth rate. There are greater numbers staying on in the secondary schools and there is an increase in the numbers at independent schools. All this aggravates the problem. It is too early to say what the effect of the June examinations will be, but I think that it will make the position more acute.
The complete absence of specialisation is no less dangerous than over-specialisation. In my opinion, at the age of 16,

2015
17 and 18 a boy or girl is most anxious to concentrate his or her energies and interests on a more restricted field. Granted that the subjects are of a reasonably wide nature, it is from such work that they receive their main educational stimulus. It is a tremendous feeling for a student to be able to do the beginnings of research and to work on a problem. There is a certain amount of nonsense talked about over-specialisation. At any rate, do not let us go too far in the opposite direction.
The outstanding question is how to relate the numbers desiring university education to the numbers capable of profiting. I do not think that anyone in England knows the answer. There must be some selective process of work throughout the system unless private finance is to be the factor, and that the majority of the Committee are against that. The universities must find ways and means of selecting 16,000 members a year. Does anybody know how they are to do that? I suggest that the final division of labour as between State, university and local authority has not yet been thought out.
When I was in the sixth form at a London grammar school boys would sit three or four times for a scholarship to Oxford or Cambridge. Then they would run around the trusts, foundations and local authorities to find some one to make up the rest. Today, what do they do? Today they apply at five or six universities. If they live in a generous area they get the whole grant, and if they do not they have to scrape and skimp, like the child I have mentioned who has only got £60 instead of £120 for maintenance in London. If we are to pay the full cost of the fees and maintenance and if we are also to pay students during the vacation, that will make a difference.
I consider that payment during the vacation is absolutely revolutionary. At the risk of being opposed by my constituents in the universities, I say that I am not in favour of that. I want to say why. I think that there is some respect left in a student who has to support himself during the vacation. I realise, of course, that some people are older than the normal students because of National Service, and that some are married. I do not want to hedge that question. In
2016
America students, particularly the boys, try to fend for themselves during the vacation. I know that the cost of living in universities has gone up and that there are some stiff bills to pay, but some of us have paid them on an income less than some people get today. I do not think that it does any harm. I am a little nervous about this extra sum, that is why I raised the question with my right hon. Friend.
The general effect will be to distribute students in a more national way all over the country. Therefore we may get L.E.As. objecting to the movement of certain students from one part of the country to another. They may say, "You live in Manchester. You can live at home. Why should we send you away down to Bristol or Reading and pay all the extra expense?" That is an additional reason for increasing the total number of university institutions. There is room for experiment in the type of institution and the university curriculum. I believe that the proposed college at Stoke sponsored by the universities of Oxford, Birmingham and Manchester, has an opportunity of pioneering in an area long famous for its adult education classes.
The only practical answer is to bring the universities to the people. Hence, the importance of residential adult colleges. I am very glad to see that 17 new ones have been started. Hence, the importance of extra-mural departments provided they foster intensive studies and maintain a high standard. Otherwise, they are education on the cheap. If I come down on the side of quality and standards it is not merely a question of finance, but much more one of preserving the unique relationship between teachers and taught which characterise our universities, combined with a period of common living in a residential hall at college. It is because I realise that £50 million is needed for halls and residences alone and a considerable increase in the staff is required if there is to be any pretence of preserving personal contact between the students and the matured minds, that I favour consolidating the hurried advance of the post-war years. I believe Britain needs a larger university population, but it needs equally the stamp of quality on the products of its universities.

2017
I must conclude because many other hon. Members wish to speak. Might I suggest that in future we have a two day Debate on education, as Scotland did? It is impossible to do justice to this subject even if one speaks for a quarter of an hour, and I have already exceeded that. I ask for a little indulgence on this occasion. We are engaged in a gigantic task from the neglected nursery school, through the primary and infant school, via a rich diversity of education for the adolescent, up to the university and adult studies. There has been a growth—I think it is an evitable growth—in administration. But, as Sir Wilfred Martineau said recently at a conference of educational authorities:
"If the Ministry delegates more freedom on the authorities"—
and they should—
"local authorities must confer more freedom on the schools."
That, I thought, was a wise remark. I could quote a score of examples from publicly maintained as well as from independent schools where exciting and challenging experiments are being made because wise governors have allowed teachers to exercise full responsibility.
With the inevitable growth of State activity—and I do not see any cessation of it at the moment—in every minute of our lives, there is a constant temptation to confuse tidy administration with human progress. In recent years I have seen an increasing number of committees. I noticed that the Minister mentioned committees himself with some doubt in his mind. There have been an increasing number of committees and foundations to consider examinations, research, adult education, visual aids, the exchange of students and the activities of U.N.E.S.C.O. I seem to see a miniature army of familiar faces sitting on one committee after another. They make reports. Sometimes they are effective: sometimes they are not. Then I go to a school and see a patient teacher working against heavy odds and even performing miracles, inspiring the young and ardent students, and I am reminded of all this administrative machinery that all these. Advisory committees and foundations only exist because there happen to be children with still far too many in a class, far too many of whom are neglected and forced into delinquency because of the carelessness
2018
of adults, and far too many of them are backward and deficient.
I am also reminded that the pioneers, Arnold, Albert Mansbridge, Margaret Macmillan and Baden-Powell, who probably was one of the greatest educationists, William Temple and a host of unknown headmasters and masters, were all inspired by a very simple and, in most cases, a religious belief. Most were untrained, and they were all first class practitioners. It is time that once again our national system caught the spirit of those pioneers.
The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Bowles): Mr. Corlett.
Mr. Gallacher: Might I ask the hon. Member a question before he sits down?
The Deputy-Chairman: No.
Mr. Gallacher: Why did he say that Scotland had a two day Debate?
The Deputy-Chairman: Mr. Corlett.
6.10 p.m.
Mr. Corlett: I am very pleased indeed to have the opportunity of following the senior Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay). In a Debate such as this, we are faced with a very wide field, and it is necessary that each of us should try to confine himself to one particular part of that field. None of us can hope to cover the whole of it adequately. I shall confine myself to one part of the field which has been mentioned by the hon. Member, and that is the freedom of the grammar schools to determine their own curriculum and the power of the universities in regard to it.
On 29th March there was a Debate in this House on a Prayer against the regulations affecting the new general certificate. On the other side of the House there were repeated statements made quite sincerely that hon. Members opposite were insisting upon the freedom of the grammar schools. Everybody on the other side said they wanted complete freedom in the grammar schools, and they complained, as the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities has complained today, of the clamping down of Whitehall on the grammar schools.
Mr. K. Lindsay: I said the regulations from the Ministry and the local authorities.
Mr. Corlett: Yes, the regulations from the Ministry and from the local authorities, and I shall deal with both those points.
From this side of the House there was the equally insistent statement that we also believe in complete freedom for the grammar schools. We tried to point out that the Education Act, 1944, demanded that freedom if children were to be educated according to their aptitude and ability, and hon. Members on this side were perhaps more insistent than hon. Members opposite in trying to secure that freedom for the grammar schools. I was away in hospital at the time, but I remember reading the Debate, and I was very struck by a remark of the junior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris), who said the Minister was throwing himself athwart the universities. I remember reading that passage in bed very carefully indeed, because in my younger days I often wished I could see a Minister who would throw himself athwart the universities. Fortunately, having reached years of discretion, I do not hold that view so strongly, though I should be delighted to be able to see a Minister taking one step towards throwing himself athwart the universities.
All the Minister, however, had said was that he hoped the universities would carry out the recommendations of the Secondary Schools Examinations Council in regard to entrance requirements, and in that he was merely supporting the Council, the Working Party on University Awards, the Joint Four, the Headmasters' Conference, the N.U.T. and all the other bodies who asked that the universities should consider that matter very carefully. I am stressing that very deliberately because the threat to the freedom of the grammar schools never has come from the Ministry or the local education authorities.
The threat to the academic freedom of the grammar schools in my opinion has nearly aways come from the universities. We have only to remember that the grammar schools are the "prep" schools for the universities, and their teaching and their curriculum are largely determined and influenced by the requirements of the universities. If those requirements do not fit in with the kind of work which the grammar school would like to do,
2020
then university requirements exercise a very adverse influence indeed on the freedom of the grammar schools.
Let me take the case of open scholarships. Everybody will agree that it is a fantastic standard which is set by the universities for the open scholarships. It is far beyond the minimum requirements for entrance to a university, it is even beyond the first year's work in a university, and I can think of no reason why there should be that fantastic standard, except that there is an equally fantastic standard for a first class honours degree. This requirement completely interferes with both the teaching and the curriculum in grammar schools to an extent which cannot possibly be justified, and in some cases it must lead to excessive specialisation. It is bound to lead to excessive specialisation, because ambitious parents are apt to judge the efficiency of a grammar school by the number of open scholarships which it can obtain. The teachers therefore are often compelled in their sixth forms to drive the children along these specialised lines because of the determining influence of the university requirements.
Let us examine the position also in regard to the minimum requirements for entrance to a university. The universities are quite entitled to try to secure that students seeking admission shall have some basis of general education, but it is hard to believe that a school certificate with so many credits in any way provides a satisfactory general cultural education. There is nothing in a school certificate that suggests any system of general education. I have never thought that a certificate in elementary maths, elementary French or English provided any real kind of general education. The universities themselves are constantly saying, and quite rightly, that they are dissatisfied with the lack of grounding of general education in their students, so it is clear that university requirements interfere with the freedom of the grammar schools and do not secure a general education.
The requirements of the universities for their scholarship examinations and for the entrance examinations themselves would not have mattered at a time when the numbers going to the universities were few, coming from cultured homes. They imbibed a general education at home, their attendance at the university

2021
was not a matter of great urgency, they could take their studies in their stride, they were not desperately looking for a job and not much public money was involved. But today we must look at the position afresh, because there are now far more youngsters going to the universities, far fewer going there from what I may call cultured homes, and far more going at great public expense. They go to the universities because they desire the universities to provide them with a means of livelihood, not with a philosophy of life. The whole attitude of many of them is a utilitarian attitude. They want to get a good degree as soon as they can and get out again to earn a living.
If that is so, this question of the effect of universities requirements upon the curriculum of the grammar schools is very serious indeed, because it means, on the one hand, narrow-minded people knowing more and more about less and less, and, on the other hand, people who know very little about the civilisation in which they live. We have the universities rightly complaining that they are receiving art students who are narrow-minded and illogical, that they are receiving science students who are narrow-minded and illiterate. We have Sir Richard Livingstone telling us that art students concentrate on man and ignore nature while science students concentrate on nature and ignore man. That is the constant complaint in our universities, and I suggest that it is due to the fact that the universities have far too great a say in the curriculum of the grammar schools and in their methods of teaching. We had hoped that there would be some modifications in these requirements for the new general certificate; as a matter of fact, however, we fear that there is very little if any modification——
Mr. Pickthorn: May I ask your guidance, Mr. Bowles? I am very sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I have waited rather a long time. Is it really in Order in this discussion to go into the management of the universities? I could understand an allusion, but I find that this is a long and elaborate development of the theory that the scholarship final examination is controlled from outside, that something else is controlling the entrance examination, which controls the grammar schools. I should have thought that it was rather doubtful whether all this is in Order.
The Deputy-Chairman: So far as I understand the speech of the hon. Gentleman, it is upon the lines that the school curriculum and teaching are influenced by the universities. So far as that is concerned, under the Vote before the Committee, the hon. Gentleman is quite in Order.
Mr. Corlett: That is the whole point I am making. Surely, the grammar school, particularly of the sixth form, is vitally concerned with the examination being taken, an examination which is dictated by the university, so I think I am quite in Order in discussing the universities and their control over the curriculum of the grammar school.
I was saying that I hoped that under the new regulations the universities would modify their conditions, that they would be asking for something that would mean less excessive specialisation in the grammar schools, that they would be asking for something which would give more freedom to the grammar schools, and would develop more general education, but the more I look at the new regulations, the more I am satisfied that they completely fail to do this. With their new group subjects, their compulsory subjects, and their methods of sitting for the examinations, I feel more than ever afraid that the universities are going to play a greater part still, and that there is going to be more and more of this excessive specialisation, and less and less general education.
Professor Cannon recently pointed this out. He said that under these regulations a youngster can spend the main part of his time, from the moment he enters the grammar school until he takes a scholarship, on pure and applied maths, and just jog along with elementary English, French, and physics. He pointed out that under the new regulations that would mean more and more specialisation in the grammar schools because that was what the universities would be asking for. On the other hand, the headmaster of the Manchester Grammar School pointed out that the number of subjects set for the child would place upon it a heavy burden, and would tend to drive out of the curriculum any attempt to provide real general education. If these statements are true then it is indeed a very serious matter.

2023
The universities would appear to have completely failed to do what my right hon. Friend has suggested—take into account the recommendations of the Secondary Schools Education Council. I know that they can claim, and claim fairly, that they have had a dual task, that their prior task was one of securing uniformity of admission amongst the several universities. It has been one of the complaints throughout the years that there has not been uniformity of admission to the universities. We have all had dozens of complaints from youngsters who have been refused admission to one university, and have not been able to get into another the same year. I think that can rightly be claimed to have been a problem in itself, and that the universities have given prior consideration to that, and, having done so, have had to sacrifice things we would like them to do in regard to the type of entrance examination.
When all is said and done, there is nobody who can speak for the universities as a whole. We have the committee of the vice-chancellors and principals with very limited powers, but no one can get up and say that this or that is what the universities as a whole will accept or agree to. Each goes its own way, and I can quite understand their argument when they say, "We have done a wonderful thing in securing inter-availability and uniformity of admission." But the price paid for this gain is very heavy indeed.
Further, they can argue that nobody knows what comprises general education. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) mentioned Dr. Conant and the researches of Harvard University into this question. We all have our own ideas on this matter. No one can really say what a child, a student or a university student graduate should know at a certain stage. I can therefore understand the universities saying that they have no real knowledge of what general education is. There have been, of course, these admirable general papers set by certain Oxford and Cambridge colleges; and there have, of course, been some very determined attempts made by many grammar schools to find methods of introducing general education into their sixth form work. But, in the main, I can understand the universities saying that they simply do not know what general education is, that they are not
2024
prepared to accept school records because they are in their infancy, because they are experimental and have not gone far enough, and that they themselves must put forward a test to satisfy them that a student has received a general education. Further, they can argue that there is to be an experimental period of five years and that the matter can be reconsidered during that period and the whole question of what the universities require and the schools can give, can be re-examined. But that does not nearly meet the position.
Most people remember the proposals put forward by the N.U.T., the Joint Four, and particularly by the Headmasters' Conference as to what the requirements of the universities should be in regard to university admission, but there is nothing in the requirements issued by the universities that suggest they have given these proposals very much consideration. We are all determined that the universities shall have academic freedom; it would be a very bad day indeed for this country if we ever interfered with their right to select their students, to determine what subjects they should teach, and how they should teach them. Nobody in this Committee wishes to interfere with their freedom in that way, and neither does anybody wish to interfere with their freedom to select otherwise than on the grounds of merit.
I quite agree with the statement made by Sir Ernest Barker that a society of intellectuals would be a very bleak one indeed. The universities have the right to have a cross-fertilisation of other types of mind and character. We are not therefore suggesting that there should be any interference with the right of selection by the universities, but we do say that if they are going to claim this freedom, they must earn it, and must carry the responsibilities which that freedom entails. I suggest that they can only earn this freedom and only perform their functions satisfactorily if they perform them in partnership with the grammar schools, and I suggest that before they make those decisions with regard to their entrance and scholarship examinations they should consult far more fully with the teachers in the grammar schools.
When all is said and done, this is the general practice in every other part of the educational field. Wherever we have contributory and receiving schools, the

2025
two get together and decide what each shall do and they come to a compromise. The result is that because each knows the difficulties of the other they get over them and are able to agree on what they require of each other. I think that is the answer with regard to the universities. I am sure they would gain much by discussion with the grammar school teachers. The universities would have the right to demand that they should have evidence that a student could profitably pursue his special subjects.
At the same time, I am certain that the universities would have to concede far more to the grammar schools as on the question of general education. I cannot accept the view of the universities that they now have adequate consultation. They plead that they have had it ever since the Norwood Report in 1943 and also had general communications through the Joint Matriculation Boards. These are nowhere nearly adequate enough to meet the problem that is facing us now, that of freedom in the grammar school, and I suggest to my right hon. Friend not that he should get athwart the universities, but that he should even try to persuade them to agree to the setting up of machinery which would really establish contact with the grammar schools.
I hope he will remember their tradition and be as nice to them as he can, and do nothing that suggests coercing them; and I suggest to the universities that if they wish to retain their freedom, it is their duty to make a thorough and consistent and determined attempt to understand what is going on in the grammar schools and to give them a chance to work out their salvation. I plead with my right hon. Friend to do that, and then he will not alarm the junior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris) who so feared he was getting athwart the universities.
6.30 p.m.
Mr. R. A. Butler: The Opposition thought it right that on one of the Supply days at this time of year we should deal with the subject of education. Judging by the number of hon. Members who are waiting to speak, I think we have judged rightly. I therefore do not propose to detain the Committee for an undue length of time.
The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) referred to Dr. Alexander's statement
2026
about the success of the Government in administering education. I should like to say that before I left office I set the present Government a great deal of homework, and they have done some of it quite well. Other parts, however, have had to be torn up or ruled over. Nevertheless, they have done a good deal of work and I do not propose to traverse the whole of the subject today but simply to refer to one or two matters upon which I wish to ask questions.
When we passed the Act the question was asked: What is the position of the Ministry? Fears were expressed that the Ministry would become a sort of centralising automaton which would have a life apart from the local authorities, teachers' organisations and from everybody else. We can safely say that that has not happened, and if we on this side of the Committee see any tendency that it is happening, the right hon. Gentleman may feel quite certain that we shall draw his attention to it immediately. It is vital that education should be conducted by partners and not by direction from the centre, and it is because we feel that that is still taking place, with one or two minor exceptions, that we are able to say that education is not at the moment a subject of intense and violent disagreement between the two sides of the Committee.
The Ministry indulges in a great deal of varied activity. It indulges in the arts, in catering and building, it concerns itself with the Welsh language, health and the dental services, right through the whole range of human activity. I want first of all to ask a question about the arts world. Before I do that, however, I should like to congratulate the Arts Council on the success notably of the Vienna Collection which has been brought to this city. Those concerned have organised this exhibition in an excellent manner, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will pass on out thanks to them. What I am not so clear about is the extent to which it is right for the Arts Council to finance plays and other activities which, it seems to me, should stand upon their own commercial legs.
For example, I want to ask the Minister whether he, through the Arts Council in conjunction with a certain production company, is financing "Love in

2027
Albania"? I say that not in the literal sense, because I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is too much occupied at home; nor do I say anything to detract from the value of this excellent play, which I saw the other evening. But I notice, when I go to the theatre, that on the back of the programme the Arts Council is in concert with a certain company producing a great many popular plays, including "The Relapse," "Love in Albania," and others. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to what extent public money is used for that purpose, and how he can justify its expenditure?
Mr. H. D. Hughes: On a point of Order. I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but surely there is a certain confusion. Is it not the case that the Arts Council receives its financial assistance and, therefore, its control, from the Treasury, and not from the Ministry of Education? Should it come within this Vote at all?
The Deputy-Chairman: I really do not know.
Mr. Hughes: Perhaps the Minister knows.
Mr. Tomlinson: I do not know either.
The Deputy-Chairman: I think the right hon. Gentleman should continue with his speech.
Mr. Butler: No doubt we shall receive an answer from the Parliamentary Secretary on this point.
On the subject of catering, a considerable advance has been made with the school meals programme, but we should like to see this development pressed to its logical conclusion, as it was originally intended that school meals and milk should form part of the general social insurance benefits. The right hon. Gentleman made no reference to the development of the school meals service except to mention it, and perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will make some reply.
On the subject of the school health service, I want to draw special attention to the most unsatisfactory condition of the school dental service, which has been neglected, either by the Minister of Health or the Minister of Education. It
2028
was proposed that one dentist should be available to 3,000 children, and I am informed that all that can be provided now is one dentist to 6,000 children, and that in London the rate is one dentist to 7,300 children. That is an impossible ratio if the service is to be carried out satisfactorily. I hope the hon. Gentleman will give us some assurance that the Government will make up this deficiency, and conduct this service in the proper way.
The hon. Member for Aberavon made some very eloquent remarks about Wales, and I should like to welcome pamphlet No. 4 which I have read. I was responsible for reintroducing the grant for Welsh-speaking areas and for reversing the decision of the Commission 100 years ago, which slighted the Welsh language. Therefore, I am personally very interested in this subject. I think it now lies largely with the Welsh people to decide whether they are prepared to encourage the use of the Welsh language in the higher ranges of their educational system. If they are not prepared to do so, I think it is likely that Welsh will be only a survival. Even if it were only a survival I would do my best to save it and not let it collapse, as the Cornish language did so many years ago. I congratulate the Principality on the continued excellence of its secondary education, on the manner in which the technical colleges are co-operating with the universities, which is a pattern to the whole of the United Kingdom, and upon the general progress being made with the implementation of the Act. If the Parliamentary Secretary could tell us anything else about the progress of education in Wales I should be very much obliged.
I want to call for the Minister's general approval on three matters arising out of the development plans. The first relates to the intolerable word "multilateralism." There are many and multilateral views as to what it means. I sincerely hope that experiments in the idea of combining a variety of secondary education will be made, but I also sincerely hope that those experiments will not be made in such a way that we shall be landed with the form of school, which is so prevalent on the American continent, of immense size, in which it seems to me to be impossible to retain the relationship of teachers to those taught.

2029
I do not see why the development which has been indicated should not occur, and why the right hon. Gentleman, in approving or disapproving of development plans, should not bring his influence to bear. The Essex authority are proposing a school of the character which I have in mind at Saffron Walden which will be a mixture between a technical school and a modern school, and with the facilities for secondary education in the grammar schools, I am convinced that the combination will serve the district. I trust that combinations of this sort will be encouraged by the Minister when he is considering plans.
The second point I want to make concerns the working out of the religious settlement, on which I should like to make a general statement. No doubt many of the denominations are finding it difficult to meet the costs under the present situation. Nevertheless, all denominations must find the rise in costs equally disturbing, and I would therefore beg the right hon. Gentleman to make no fundamental alteration in the general principles governing the religious settlement under the Act. I am not convinced that if the subject were raised again, we should reach so amicable a settlement as we did on that occasion. I should like to tell the Committee that in a recent tour round Europe I found the Governments of two countries labouring under the difficulties of what used to be called the Church school controversy in this country. We managed, by the grace of God, to eliminate that controversy from our country in the war years, by joint action by all parties, and I trust that settlement may be allowed to stand, because I believe that those of us who were engaged in it have been rewarded with a certain degree of success which is all that one can hope for in public life today. As for the working out of the religious settlement in detail, let everyone in all the denominations be treated with the same generosity if anything is at any time to be done.
I have been concerned and anxious about what I have described as the "slaughter of the innocents"—the small schools—in the country. There is a small school in my area at Lindsell which has gained a certain amount of national reputation by standing out on its own—in providing its own meals, and providing
2030
its own teachers and its own education, to obviate 24 children from being carted by bus to a neighbouring village. I realise the inconvenience to the authority of such a stand, but it is a stand on principle which, I hope, in the end will be amicably settled. I trust that when the Minister looks into the question of small schools and their place in the development plans he will do his utmost to see that the small school, provided it gives a suitable education, is not automatically destroyed.
The last point I want the Minister to look into—and it is not really so much a matter of development plans as of education in general—is the need to decentralise the educational administration, and to simplify it. The costs to local education authorities are becoming so alarming that there is a danger that educational progress will be held up. The Minister has taken steps in giving more power to local education authorities. Let him follow that up, and try to remove from his office all unnecessary detail and put it on the shoulders of the localities.
Even more important, let the localities not imagine that those of us who framed the Act were determined to provide cumbersome machinery in the counties. It was not our intention. Certain Sections and Schedules of the Act have been read literally in this connection. Still, it would be possible greatly to reduce the staffs in some of the localities provided more simplification were brought into the administration of education. In this connection, I suggest that it may be possible in the realm of the youth services, and of what the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) described as the "organisers" in the realms outside teaching work, to bring voluntary agencies in to aid the education authorities.
What I wish to say next, links up with this point. It seems to me that education will shortly be entering upon a new period. We had the war period when we indulged in intensive legislation and other activity, and we have had a period in which the Government have concentrated on gaining priority for education itself in the general race for social benefit. It was also my hope that education would get a high priority, and I am glad that that race has been largely won by the Education Department over and

2031
above other Departments. But the problem now before the country and the Ministry of Education is that of establishing priorities within education itself, because, quite frankly, we cannot do everything at once.
Whatever statement may be made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer tomorrow, it must be clear to the most simple person that this country is running into a storm, and when one runs into a storm it is reasonable not to go into it with all sails spread and some not properly attached. Education authorities are attempting to do too much at once; not through their own great fault of judgment, because I take responsibility, but because those who were responsible for the Act put so large a burden upon them. I think it is essential that we should follow up some points of the Minister's speech today and give priorities to certain things, acknowledge that all the range of educational provision cannot be undertaken at the same time, and establish what can be done by improvisation and what can be done immediately by direct action.
On priorities, I am personally very pleased that the primary schools are to get their turn. It is high time they did, for those are the schools that are particularly overcrowded, and whose teachers have the greatest mental and also physical strain; I think they ought to be relieved as soon as possible. I trust that reorganisation can be carried on to a certain extent, otherwise secondary education will count for nothing. In regard to technical education, I would only say that if we are to win the battle of production, education here can ally itself with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the economic advisers to the Government, and, by doing that, can obtain a certain priority for technical grants.
As I have said before, I believe we can get a large proportion of the day continuation service throughout the country by the county college principle—by closer collaboration with industry. In certain circles with which I am concerned in industry, we have managed to cover the whole of an immense industry with day continuation education throughout, on a voluntary basis, for all the young people engaged between 15 and—not always 18
2032
—but, at any rate, to anything up to 17, making it up to 18 when we have the buildings. We did that in conjunction with the authority but, nevertheless, a great deal of the burden is taken off the Minister, and I believe he should co-operate even more closely with industry to get further help in the day continuation and technical sphere, and the whole sphere of release, with all that that means both to industry and to him.
I want to take up the Minister's general points at the end of his speech, when he said that he believed in the "three Cs"—competence, curiosity, and conscience. It seems to me that a great deal of interest has been shown, very rightly, in this Debate on the subject to content. It has been spoken of by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Corlett), the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities, and by others. I should define the objectives of the educational system, in which the Minister takes a very prominent position, as first the provision of the best brains in the country and the right people to serve the country in the best way possible. We have to draw them from wherever we can. In this matter I happen to be in strange company, in agreement with Dr. Harold Laski and the "Economist." The second would be stressing the dignity of work, and my third would be right character. Now let me just say a few words on each before I sit down.
On the question of seeking out the best brains, and having them in the best places, what has been said about equality of standards has my absolute support. I think it is essential that a universal State system of education can prove that it can, at the same time, produce the highest possible intellectual standards. As the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities said, we should work out some form of curriculum or course of studies in our schools which will be instinct with our own tradition, and be different from that of other countries. It seems to me that we are not yet free from the subordination to examinations, and that we have not yet gone so far as was done in Germany, as is described in Messrs. Samuel and Thomas's new book on "Education and Society in Modern Germany"—we have not gone so far as they did after the Weimar period, in freedom from the syllabus.

2033
I would suggest that this country should aim at a position between those two extremes of that subordination that we are showing to examinations, and that sort of free-for-all system which gradually degenerates into licence. We have had in our history a certain tradition of classical education. I hope that that will be retained where it can be retained, but it clearly cannot be retained everywhere, and I think we should aim at finding some scheme in between the two, in which we are not—as we are at present—completely under the harrow of the examination system.
I am not yet satisfied that the Minister's decision about the examinations, combined with the universities' regulations demanding a wide range of subjects, has got us over the problem which Dr. James has drawn attention to in his book on the "Content of Education," namely, the need for "specialisation in depth." At present, if somebody specialises he is thought fully educated if he is told to take two periods of some other subject in the week. But that does not mean specialisation or general education. We are, therefore, falling between two stools, and though I do not wish to follow the hon. Member for York in detail in his interesting speech about the universities I would say this: that I should be dead against any control of the universities from outside; at the same time there must clearly be a closer linking up between what the schools and students so urgently need and what the universities really stand for in our national life.
In regard to the second point, dignity of work, I am horrified that the so-called technical schools in this country have up to date only 72,000 pupils in them. It is one of the scandals of British education, and there can be no parity of esteem in choice, no equality of treatment, as long as junior technical schools are so far behind. When we compare this disgraceful lag of technical education with technical education in other countries we realise that it is bound to lead to a certain priority for technical education.
In this connection, I would appeal to the Minister to realise that other great countries have regained their greatness by paying attention to handicrafts and all that they mean. I recently attended a large agricultural show in my own county, at which the education authority was
2034
giving a big display in three tents. I was astounded not only at the range of activity under that education authority but at the extraordinary development of handcrafts in the countryside, and, indeed, in our cities and towns. I am myself associated with the College of Handcrafts, and I hope that handcraft exports and the industry itself will be encouraged in every way, because I believe that in that way we can not only develop skill but also retain national character.
"When Adam delved and Eve span.
Who was then the gentleman?"
I think that should be the aim of our modern educationists in restoring the dignity of work and making parents as well as teachers realise that the practical choice in the secondary field is, perhaps, the most dignified of all.
I conclude on my third point—right character. Here we have to find a balance between independence, which we must encourage, and the discipline of the children, which can be found outside in society in the balance between the individual and society. On discipline, I would only say that there are complaints from many people up and down the country that the discipline in our schools is not what it was. I suggest that there should be closer collaboration between parents and teachers in this matter, because if teachers introduce discipline into the schools they cannot be successful if they do not have the collaboration of parents. I do not think it is fair to the teachers, if there is an undisciplined home, for the public to blame the teachers for lack of standards or lack of discipline. I therefore hope that this will lead to a development of the parent-teacher movement, to which I have always attached importance, because, strange to relate, none of us would be sitting here discussing education unless there were a few parents about.
The basis of right character must be, as the right hon. Gentleman, said the religious basis. On the whole, I am pleased with what I hear of the development of religious education in the country. William Temple, who has has already been mentioned, cross-questioned me very much at the time of the 1944 Act as to whether we were not starting a State religion in our schools. I assured him that that was not the case; that the agreed syllabuses were genuine,

2035
if rather advanced, courses of study. I believe these are being used, and I trust that as a result of the religious settlement there may be in our community a mixture of schools between the voluntary—that is to say, the controlled—and the aided and the county, so that out of variety we may find success. We are aiming, I think, as the product of our schools at what Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch once described when he said:
"We look for the boy or girl who comes from our schools not to be judged so much for what he can produce from his wallet, but for what he is."
We do not want examination fodder: We want right character, with a good spiritual basis.
6.54 p.m.
Mr. H. D. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman found some faint praise for the work of the Ministry in the last three years, and went so far as to admit that the priority education is receiving today is considerably in advance of what it has been in previous periods of our history. There have been one or two notes of alarm sounded from Members of the Opposition during the Debate, and I hope that whoever winds up for the Opposition will be a little clearer on the subject. Looking back into the history of our country, I think it is quite clear that in the past, when we have run into economic difficulties, education has been one of the first victims. In 1918, education was one of the worst victims of the Geddes axe. In 1931, education was one of the worst victims of the May Committee. Under this Government, in spite of the economic crisis we had two years ago, we have been successful so far in largely shielding education from that kind of economy. I did not quite like the sound of something said by the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland), when he said that it was already necessary to reduce the standards laid down under the 1947 Act.
Commander Maitland: I made it quite plain that the whole object of doing so was to ensure that those places which were in the greatest need should have the benefit. I made that point very clearly.
Mr. Hughes: I fully appreciate the point the hon. and gallant Member made about priorities. I am seeking to secure from the Opposition some statement on how far education is involved in the policy they are placarding round the country, of a rapid decrease in Government expenditure, because in my view a rapid decrease in Government expenditure on education at the present time would be disastrous. I should like to hear from the Opposition whether their general campaign against Government expenditure includes a campaign against educational expenditure, which is, of course, running at a very high level, but a high level which is necessary if we are to carry out even a part of the projects of the 1944 Act. Even with the budget figure given by my right hon. Friend in opening the Debate, it is obvious that priorities must be very carefully selected. If there are to be any cuts in the education budget when another crisis comes along, we may as well pack up the idea of carrying out any real educational reform in this country.
I should like to put one or two considerations to the Minister on some of the central issues he raised. First, teachers. As I understand it, at present the Ministry's budget for teachers is calculated on the basis of trying to get classes of 30 in secondary schools and 40 in primary schools by about 1951. Well, 40 is still a large class, and I should like to know whether the Minister sees any chance of getting the primary school classes on a parity with secondary school classes. I was sorry that the emergency training scheme was wound up as soon as it was on the male side. I have seen something of the emergency training colleges, and I have been very much impressed by the quality of work they were producing.
One specific question to which I should like an answer is this: now that the emergency training scheme has been wound up, what is to be done to carry out the recommendation of the McNair Report, that there must always be open an avenue of entry into the teaching profession for people of more mature age than the normal entrant and with experience outside the education world? I am sure the emergency training scheme has proved that adult entrants with a little wider experience than the normal

2037
entrant have a good deal to contribute to the profession, and I should like to be sure that that channel is being kept open for them in future.
On buildings, my right hon. Friend had an impressive story to tell. While I am very glad to see that capital expenditure on education will be up to £50 million by the end of this year, about £40 million of that is needed to preserve existing conditions and to cope with the new housing estates and the rising birthrate, which leaves very little over for any kind of educational reforms—for pulling down the old schools, and all the other things that are necessary. In 1946, an official committee said that if we are to carry out the 1944 Act we need an expenditure of something like £70 million a year for 15 years. That was in terms of 1946 costs. I am afraid that even the figure my right hon. Friend gave today indicated that it would take a great deal longer than 15 years to carry out the main projects of the 1944 Act.
The Minister did say recently that in 1949 to 1953 he needed capital expenditure of "a quite different order of magnitude"—those were his words—from the capital expenditure of the last year or so. We do not know what the Chancellor will say tomorrow, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will go on pressing for a much higher priority in capital expenditure for education in the years that lie ahead. At the end of the war we had to concentrate on the housing problem, but as we overcome the first difficulties of housing the Ministry of Education must come along and agitate for a higher proportion of capital expenditure than they have had even in the last few years.
The main subject I wish to speak about is the Minister's statement on the implemendation of the Working Party's Report on University Awards. I welcome the fact that the Minister announced that he is able to implement the recommendations in Chapter IV on the new scale of assessments and the new all-the-year-round maintenance awards. I should like him to assure me that Chapter IV is going to be implemented in full. There were no reservations in what he said. There are a lot of specific proposals in Chapter IV, and if there are any reservations I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to indicate what they are when he
2038
replies to the Debate. I hope I am right in assuming that the Minister said that the full recommendations are to be carried out.
I also welcome the fact that State scholarships are to be increased by another 100 next year. I recognise that the Further Education and Training Scheme will still be taking a large number of places in the universities, but the implementation of the working party's report implies a great deal more over the next few years than a slight increase in the number of State scholarships. The Ministry is only one of the partners in preserving the present proportion of aided students in the universities, and the target is to get State scholarships up to 2,000. The universities and the local education authorities have also a great responsibility in implementing the working party's report, and I should like to know what is being done to ensure that the working party's recommendation is carried out, and that the number of students aided by the universities should rise from 1,200 to 2,000, and by the local education authorities from 4,500 to 7,000 in the period in which the Further Education and Training Scheme is running down. That will take a good deal of organisation and administration. Recently a P.E.P. Committee asked in its report on university scholarships what was going to happen if the local education authorities did not get up to their 7,000. The P.E.P. report points out:
"If the L.E.A.'s are unwilling or financially unable to cover the university expenses of all these students, what happens to them? Three courses are possible:—

(a) For the universities to leave these places unfilled. This would be contrary to the present Government's policy, and to the universities' own plans.

(b) For the universities to admit free-paying students at lower standards. This would also be contrary to public interest, since it would permit wealth to buy a place for the unworthy over the heads of better but poorer students.

(c) To establish some system of State bursaries for those who could secure admission to a university but failed to secure a scholarship or a county bursary."

This partnership of the Ministry, the local education authorities and the universities in the scholarship system depends more on history than on logic. It is a cumbersome scheme, which can be made to work, but we do not want it to fall behind through any of the partners not

2039
fulfilling the targets and not reaching the expansion set forth in the Working Party's report. After all, this expansion is needed not on a large scale in the next academic year but certainly in the academic year which begins in 1950. There are, in fact, a large number of school-leavers who will be coming out of school this year and going into military service. They will be coming back in 1951 ready for the university. What is going to happen to them? They are not seeking places in the university this year. The Minister indicates that they are. If they are seeking places in the universities this year, then it is imperative that the new scholarship provision should be increased to meet their needs, because, although they do not want to enter the universities this year, they need their scholarships and their awards and assistance from the local education authorities before they go into the Forces, so that they will be available to them when they come out in 18 months time.
Those are the main points I wanted to make on that subject. I promised that I would be brief, but I wish to turn to a rather special problem, which I do not want to get out of its proper proportion, but which is of considerable importance. I have the honour to be one of the governors of the Educational Foundation for Visual Aids, as is the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. S. Marshall). The Educational Foundation for Visual Aids was set up just over a year ago with the principal object of securing the production, preparation, distribution and maintenance of visual aids in schools. This country has fallen behind in this matter compared with many other countries, and it is now the policy of the Ministry of Education, to use the words of the Parliamentary Secretary, that
"visual aids must be considered an important part of the equipment which every school must have."
It is the task of the Foundation, in consultation with the National Committee which represents the teachers and the local education authorities, to try to stimulate the production of visual aids of all kinds and get them to the teachers, whose tools they are. As a result of a good deal of publicity on this subject, and of the setting up of these bodies a year ago, there is a good deal of expectation in the minds of local education
2040
authorities and teachers that this comparatively new form of educational aid will be coming forward in a reasonable time in much greater quantities than in the past. Local education authorities are in the process of setting up libraries of visual aids. There are now 36 in existence, whereas formerly there were only six, and they are looking to the Educational Foundation to supply them with films and to help them with equipment.
I must here make the point that the Educational Foundation was set up with the backing of the Ministry. It has inspired great hopes amongst teachers and local education authorities, but it is now suffering to some considerable extent from the rather strict attitude of the Treasury towards providing the financial assistance which is required for film production. As the Government know, that is an expensive business. Whereas the Government have put £5 million into the Film Finance Corporation, and have offered the British Film Institute, which has no responsibility for film production, the sum of about £100,000 a year, and the Central Office of Information has been given something like £750,000 a year for film production, the Educational Foundation so far has been unable to raise more than a sum of £30,000 for the production of educational films.
An educational film costs something between £600 and £1,000 a reel to produce at the present time, and if this Foundation is to fulfil the hopes to which its creation gave rise, it is absolutely necessary that over the next four years, at any rate, some further form of public finance should be forthcoming for film production, on terms which do not require repayment on a commercial basis. Unless that can be done, I am afraid there is very little hope of a steady supply of films coming forward to the schools and the teachers needing them. The Foundation so far has found a sum of £30,000. Of the 170 films which the teachers' organisations have asked to be made, less than half are in production at the present time, and the Treasury have cancelled sums which would have been available through the Central Office of Information and on the Ministry Vote if the Foundation had not existed. The result is that the Foundation's work at the present time is seriously hampered.

2041
I bring this matter on to the Floor of the House not to criticise my right hon. Friend, but to indicate the urgency of the problem. People may tell us that these are difficult times and that there is a financial crisis. I would point out that educational films, properly produced under educational control are potential dollar earners. Some hon. Members have seen the film called "Instruments of the Orchestra" made under the auspices of the Ministry, with a special composition by Benjamin Britten. That film was distributed widely in the United States. There are some films coming forward at the present time which have an international appeal and could secure a wide market abroad as well as at home. Therefore, I trust that a wider view will be taken when the problem of finance for the Foundation comes forward in the future.
I have no time left in which to go into the broader aspects of education. We have a great way to go and a great deal of leeway to make up. The task of education is to develop three aspects latent in every child: the individual, the citizen, the producer. Without an efficient educational system we cannot have an effective democracy. Big as are the costs and great as are the competing claims, in particular for capital development, buildings and manpower, it is absolutely vital to the future of this country that we press on with the great reforms that were contemplated in the Act of 1944, and which the Ministry have been doing so much to carry out in the last four years.
7.11 p.m.
Professor Gruffydd: I have been very much impressed with the eloquent speeches which have woven such an intricate pattern around this subject of education. I do not feel competent to deal with almost any single one of the points which have been raised in the Debate, so I will confine my remarks to matters which have not been mentioned.
I listened with great interest to the Minister, with the suspension of whatever faculty of criticism I happen to possess. I think I owe that to him. There are some points, however, about which I shall be a little critical and which need to be emphasised at the present time. The present period is a time more fruitful
2042
in experiment and in new ideas than almost any other period in the history of education, and not only in new ideas; I am afraid that it has produced a good many reactionary ideas masquerading as progress. We have received some interesting reports from bodies which have been studying different aspects of education. For example, we have the report of the W.E.A. on the extreme importance of humanistic studies in the county colleges. I should like to emphasise that point in view of a good deal that has been said this afternoon.
We have had a report from the Federation of British Industries about education in technology which, on the contrary, lays very great stress on the development of technology in the universities. I know, Major Milner, that I should be within danger of being out of Order if I discussed universities now, because they do not come in the Education Estimates, but it happens that the wellbeing of the universities is affected to a very large extent by the schools and by the Minister's policy in education. The universities in turn affect the schools. Further, there is the thorny question whether certain forms of education or instruction should be the responsibility of the universities or of the Ministry.
I, for one, hold that the emphasis on technology in the universities has gone too far. The report of F.B.I. must be regarded with caution. It is definitely not inspired by educational ideas but by the natural desire to further British industry. For example, a tendency which all those must deprecate who have at heart the welfare of education in the schools is to make the universities and the schools work their passage, so to speak—the universities, in particular—by doing something which they were not intended to do, and that is to teach the commercial exploitation of the sciences. There is hardly a department of commerce which at one time or another has not claimed a place in the university course and in consequence a place in the schools in the matriculation syllabus. In these days I have been expecting to hear that the hairdressers, after securing registration as a learned profession, would be demanding a degree in tonsorial art. All those are factors which are contributing to what I consider to be the very serious deterioration of academic learning, and

2043
by that I mean humanistic studies, both in the universities and in the schools.
I am not in such close connection with the schools as I was before I came to Parliament, but I am still in touch with teachers and I disagree with the Minister on one thing he said in his opening speech. I must be rather critical of him here because, as far as I can judge, the secondary teachers are of one mind in believing that the standard of the grammar school is gradually deteriorating. There are two causes for this disconcerting situation, but I propose to mention only one. It is certainly the extremely poor pay of teachers compared with that of any other profession. I said "profession" but I could almost have said "compared with any other occupation." These are people who do not strike for more pay. They never have struck for more pay in the past and they never will in the future. The only course open to them is to avoid the profession; that situation is now developing. No university graduate will enter the profession, however well he may be fitted for it, except as a last resort and when every other avenue is closed. What man or woman would become a teacher, when almost any other walk of life has better prospects and especially when in every other profession competence brings its own reward? It is high time that the Minister of Education exercised whatever control he has over the Burnham Committee in an attempt to tackle the question of salaries.
Before I conclude I wish to draw attention to a matter which I believe is very close to the Minister's heart but which has, unless I am mistaken, not been mentioned in the Debate at all. It is the subject of State scholarships reserved for adults. The creation of that grant was one of the most important advances in education administration and ideas in recent years. I was disappointed to find that in 1947 and 1948 the selection board failed to fill the places at their disposal. I hope that in his reply the Minister will give the reason for that disappointing result. I cannot believe that those places could not have been filled many times over, because I know from my own experience that the material is here in the country. Those who, like myself, were keenly disappointed at the result would
2044
be reassured if we could know the constitution of the committee and the principles on which they make their selection.
I can only say that the very best students in the universities have been men and women who probably for financial reasons had to go to work, in some cases up to 30 years of age, and then came to the university. I venture to go further; many university teachers, including such a distinguished authority as Sir Richard Livingstone, would be by no means aghast if this became the normal means of entry to a university. I should like to live long enough to see the day when works of reference will give the career of distinguished men and women not as Eton and King's or Winchester and New College, but as the Forge and King's or the Powell Duffryn Pit and New College or Starveacre Farm and Balliol. I appeal to the Minister to make a very close inquiry into the meagreness of the list in the last two years and to extend the facilities much further.
I come from a country where, until recently, this was a normal feature of the education of our distinguished sons. I must quote one example because it is probably not known even to my countrymen. There was a man called Griffith Davies, who was born in one of the most inaccessible parts of Caernarvonshire early in the last century, and who until the age of 21 had had no education whatever except at a Welsh Sunday school and did not know one word of English. At the age of 21 he thought that he would come to London to learn English. He not only did so but became the leading actuary in the world—the man who really was the founder of the actuary's science—and a Fellow of the Royal Society. We have many such examples in Wales; this is only one of the many.
While speaking about Wales, I wish to say one thing as an appendix to what the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) has already said, and partly in contradiction of what my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) said. We in Wales are apt to be very critical of the Government Departments in their obtuseness in dealing with Welsh affairs. I have myself been very critical in the past, and, please God, I hope to be so in the future. But now,

2045
once more, I take the opportunity of congratulating the Ministry's Welsh Department on the really distinguished work it is doing on behalf of Wales and the Welsh way of life. I think it is doing such good work that I am bold enough to hold it as an example to the rest of the Ministry of Education. There has lately been a great change in the attitude of Ministers of Education towards Wales, which reached its peak, so to speak, when the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden was President of the Board of Education. I am glad to say that the present Minister carries on that very enlightened policy which was inaugurated by the right hon. Gentleman.
I wish in particular to pay a tribute to the efficient and distinguished service which the inspectors in Wales give. They are carrying on a tradition established by the late Sir Owen Edwards and followed later by men like Dr. W. J. Williams. They have been and they are teachers of teachers, and they are today inspirers of those who ought to inspire the children. Their good influence and good relations with the primary teachers, in particular, have been most marked. Now they have new duties, and as the late lamented Central Welsh Board is no longer in the way they can now also have as salutary an influence on the secondary schools as they have had in the past on the primary schools. I hope that they will not hesitate to do in the secondary schools what they have already done in the primary schools. I wish to goodness that the local education authorities in Wales, which are composed of Welsh men and women, were as enlightened about Wales as the Welsh Department of the Ministry of Education.
7.26 p.m.
Mr. Ralph Morley: I hope that I shall not detain the Committee quite so long as some previous speakers have done. I should like to make some comments upon what has been said by one or two preceding speakers in this Debate. The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) used a phrase which led me to think that he believes that the discipline in our schools is now deteriorating and is not up to the standard that it was a few years ago. I left teaching very recently, when I was elected to this House in 1945. I was a practising teacher for
2046
over 45 years, so that I can judge whether during that period the discipline in our State schools has deteriorated or not. I should say that on the whole it has considerably improved, although the nature of the discipline has, of course, altered.
The discipline in our schools today is freer and easier than it used to be. There is more friendliness and more mutual confidence between teachers and taught than there used to be in the days gone by; so although there is a different kind of discipline in our schools today it is not a worse kind of discipline. From the tone it produces in the classroom and the school generally it is, in my judgment, a considerable improvement on the type of discipline which I encountered when I first began teaching 45 years ago. I remember that 45 years ago, in one school in the area in which I was teaching, the teachers had on their way home to be protected by the police against the assaults of their pupils who were also on their way home. That was on account of the bad state of feeling which existed between the teachers and the pupils. That state of things would be unthinkable in our schools today. I think that the reason for the alteration is the better relations which are now to be found between teachers and pupils, due to the easier, kindlier and more humane form of discipline now practised in our schools.
I now wish to refer to some remarks that were made by the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland), who I am sorry is not in his place. I must refer to his remarks because, as he was selected by the Opposition to open the Debate for them, I conclude that the opinions which he expressed were the opinions of His Majesty's Opposition. The first opinion which he expressed was that there should be a lowering in the standards of the building regulations of the Ministry of Education. Those standards are not unduly high, they are not Utopian or impossible. They are standards which were laid down to ensure that in every school there should be proper heating, proper lighting, proper hygiene and efficient sanitation. Unless those standards are maintained, we shall not have those conditions provided in our schools in the future. Proper heating, proper lighting and proper hygiene and sanitation are necessary for education in our schools

2047
because they alone provide the comfort and physical conditions in which the children can happily receive the education which is given to them. Any lowering of those standards would be bound to lead to a lowering of educational results. I hope that the Ministry will turn a completely deaf ear to what was said by the hon. and gallant Member on that subject.
The hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle and a number of other hon. Members have referred to the subject of teachers' salaries, and it is perfectly true that teachers in the country are very dissatisfied with the present level of salaries. They have valid reasons for being dissatisfied with the level of salaries, both absolutely and relatively, of all teachers—not merely the graduate teachers, as was assumed by the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay)—which has fallen behind since 1939. The average level of teachers' salaries in this country is 55 per cent. above the level of 1939, whereas the cost of living has increased by 80 per cent., so that absolutely their position has become worse.
Relatively, while teachers' salaries have increased by 55 per cent., the weekly earnings of the industrial workers of this country have increased by over 100 per cent., although I do not think the teachers should press that argument too strongly because, after all, there has been a silent revolution in the country during the past four years, a revolution which the majority of the people of this country support. One of the objects of that revolution was to level up wages and salaries, to bring the level of the earnings of the lowest-paid nearer to the level of the earnings of the medium and higher-paid.
But certainly the teachers have a grievance so far as their salaries are compared with the very large earnings which the doctors and the dentists are enjoying at the present time. At the present time one dentist is equal in earnings to about eight head teachers and one doctor is equal to about six head teachers. Consequently, the teachers have a solid reason for dissatisfaction, but they are taking the proper course to give expression to their dissatisfaction—they have referred the matter of salaries to the proper negotiating body, the Burnham Committee, and
2048
the Burnham Committee will be meeting shortly to consider the possibility of an amelioration in this matter of salaries.
Apparently, the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle wanted the Minister of Education to tell the House what would be his decision upon the recommendations of the Burnham Committee, which is to meet shortly. It would be most improper for the Minister of Education to agree to such a request. If he said that he was not willing to consider any increase in teachers' salaries, that would sabotage the negotiations from the very beginning; and he would find it difficult to say that he would accept the recommendations of the Committee before he knew what those recommendations were. It is essential for teachers generally that the Minister of Education should not interfere unduly with the workings of the Burnham Committee. Personally, I will make a prophecy as to what the Minister of Education will do with the recommendations of the Burnham Committee when they arrive in the near future; I think he will take them to the Treasury and do his level best to persuade the Treasury to accept them and give the teachers the increase which is justly due to them.
I should like to say a few words about that very difficult and complex, but important, subject, the organisation of secondary education in this country. For many years we in the Labour Party had a slogan, "Secondary education for all our children." The National Union of Teachers also had a slogan, "Secondary education for all our children." Now we are providing secondary education for all our children, but I am afraid that when we used that slogan many parents in the country thought we meant grammar school education for all our children. We are giving secondary education today to children whose intelligence ranges from just above mental deficiency to those with the highest possible I.Q., and it would be impossible to give grammar school education to all children with such a very wide range of intelligence. It is generally agreed that grammar school education is not suitable to any pupil whose I.Q. is below 100. To attempt to give grammar school education to all children over the age of 11 would be a waste of public money and would be frustrating to teachers and pupils alike.

2049
Most authorities are dividing their secondary schools into three types—the grammar school, the technical school and the modern school. The Hadow Report recommended two types of secondary school—the grammar school and the modern school. The Spens Report then introduced a third type—the technical school—and the Norwood Report confirmed the findings of the Spens Report and recommended, in fact almost decreed, that there should be these three types of secondary school—the grammar school, the technical school and the modern school. But the Norwood Report gave no substantial educational reasons for this trichotomy in the organisation of secondary education and, in fact, there does not appear to be any substantial educational reasons for these three types of school.
The reasons are mainly those of administrative convenience, and the fact must be faced that, so far as the parents and the children are concerned, there is no parity of esteem between the three types of school. Both the parents and the children think the grammar school is far superior to either the technical school or the modern school. Most parents, if you ask them, want their children to go to the grammar school and not to the technical school or to the modern school. In fact, there is a number of parents whose children have not reached the standard necessary to pass the entrance examination to the grammar school and who, rather than send their children to the modern school, send them to some private school where the standard of education given is nothing like the level of that given in the modern school. Employers do not recognise parity between the three types of school and prefer boys and girls from the grammar schools to boys and girls from either of the other two schools.
I know, of course, that we have been promised parity in material conditions in the three types of school. In time, I dare say, as new modern secondary schools are built, these schools will be equal to the existing grammar school buildings. In time, a bigger proportion of graduates will be employed on the staffs of the modern secondary schools. In time, the playing fields attached to the modern secondary schools will be equal to those attached to the grammar schools. But I believe that even when we have parity of material conditions in all three types of school, we
2050
still shall not secure parity of esteem between the three types so far as the general public is concerned, and it appears to me, and to an increasing number of others, that the solution of this difficulty lies in the establishment of comprehensive secondary schools.
The comprehensive school would take all children from the age of 11 to 18 from the one catchment area into the same school, under the same roof, under the one headmaster. They are then divided into parallel classes with varying curriculae according to their ages, aptitudes and abilities. There is no difficulty in transferability within a comprehensive school. In theory it is possible to transfer a child from the grammar school to the modern school, or from the modern secondary school to the grammar school, but in practice it is impossible to do anything of the kind. It is possible to transfer a child from the modern school to the grammar school, but once we dare to try to transfer a child from the grammar school to the modern school the parents in the neighbourhood are up in arms; whereas if that child were in a comprehensive school the transference from one stream to another would be practicable.
A comprehensive school would solve the question of prestige, because all the children would attend the same school. It would solve the question as far as employers are concerned, because the employers would not have to inquire whether a child came from a grammar school or a modern school, but would merely ask for a school report and the certificate obtained from the school. It would promote social solidarity. In the same school we should have the boy who likes to do Latin prose—and there are some boys who like to do Latin prose; I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) revelled in Latin prose in his early days—in the same class as the boy who prefers to take a wireless set to pieces and put it together again. These two types could get to know one another.
The boy in the C stream in the comprehensive school might be the captain on the football field or on the cricket field. Intellectuals and non-intellectuals would get to know one another. The non-intellectual would punch the head of the intellectual perhaps, but he would have some respect for the intellectual's mental abilities. I think it is the only

2051
way in which we should have a really proper connotation of the word "intellectual." Today the word "intellectual" is chiefly confined to someone who has been to a grammar school and a university, but I think Members on both sides will agree that the term "intellectual" could be no more appropriately applied among Members in this House than to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health who never went to a grammar school or to a university.
My contention is that the comprehensive school answers the question and solves the problems, and that there is no danger, as was suggested by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden, of the teacher-pupil relationship being impaired in the comprehensive school. The comprehensive school is the policy of the Labour Party, as laid down at successive conferences. I have the greatest possible admiration for my right hon. Friend. I think that the witty and eloquent speeches he has made in the country have not only done much to promote interest in education generally but have also raised the prestige of the party he adorns, but I must point out that, although a comprehensive school is a policy of the national Labour Party, my right hon. Friend has not particularly encouraged the comprehensive school. In fact, if my information is correct, in one instance, in the County of Middlesex, he very definitely discouraged the setting up of comprehensive schools.
Mr. Tomlinson Mr. Tomlinson indicated dissent.
Mr. Morley: I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to say whether my right hon. Friend repents his past attitude and is likely in the future to bring forth "fruits mete for repentance."
As regards priorities in putting into effect the 1944 Act, I was rather perturbed to see in "Labour Believes in Britain" that apparently the next priority is to be the establishment of county colleges. I have been given to understand that that is also the opinion of the Ministry itself. I think that for the next few years every possible resource we can command in building labour and materials and in teaching staffs should be devoted to improving the existing primary and secondary schools. Not until we have made considerable improvements in the
2052
staffing, equipment and buildings of the existing and secondary schools should we start the next advance. In my opinion the next advance should not be the establishment of county colleges, which after all are a pis aller for full-time education, but should be the raising of the school-leaving age to 16. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury said the other day that the aim of education was to give equality of opportunity to all our children, but we cannot give equality of opportunity if 20 per cent. of the children stop at school until the age of 16 and the remainder leave at 15. After we have made an improvement in our primary and secondary schools, the next urgent priority is the raising of the school leaving age to 16.
I think that the Minister and the Ministry are to be congratulated on a number of things. My right hon. Friend's record has been an excellent one at the Ministry. He has managed to get a considerable share of building labour and materials for the building of schools, and he has gone forward with great energy and a considerable degree of success in increasing the number of teachers. I think that his shining achievement is the physical health of our children in the schools today. I sometimes attend school sports and I marvel at the wonderful physique, robustness, shining health and vitality of the children who attend them. Our children today, age for age, are healthier and taller than the children of pre-war years. One can often go into a top class of a modern school of girls between 14 and 15 years of age and find pretty well half of them are taller than the young woman who is teaching them. We have never had such bonny, beautiful children as we have today, and in 10 years' time we shall have the finest set of young men and young women of any country in Europe. Even if, in this ancient monarchy, we may have to confess that the great republic beyond the Western Ocean has much more opulence and that the great republic beyond the Vistula has far great military might than we possess today, we can show our children and like the Roman matron of old say:
"These are my jewels."
7.49 p.m.
Mr. Sidney Marshall: I very much regret that I was unable to be present to hear the speech

2053
of the Minister. I gather that he stressed, as I expected, the importance of some attention at last being given to the earlier part of education, the primary side. If that is so, I am very glad to hear it. In listening to the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Morley), I sometimes found myself largely in agreement with him and sometimes violently in disagreement. I was particularly sorry to notice his disappointing attitude in the middle of his speech, but obviously thinking up things to cheer up the Minister, towards the end, he began to find that some really good things had happened in education. The middle of his speech was strangely at variance with the quotation which the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), basking in the pools of Welsh culture, suddenly discovered in a report by the secretary of the education authorities to the effect that never in the history of education had three years produced so much progress as the last three. From what I have heard this afternoon, not even everybody on the Government side agrees about that, and we must therefore pick and choose carefully.
I should like to follow the hon. Member for Southampton about the type of secondary education, yet to be evolved, which will be acceptable to most people—we have not gone so far along that road that we can find any general acceptance—but I cannot go into that question now. One subject with which I wish to deal is the matter of salaries, to which the hon. Member for Southampton referred. I know very well that it is a rather inopportune time to talk of increased expenditure, but the teachers have a very sound case. The 1948 interim award of the Burnham Committee was thoroughly unsatisfactory. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Southampton say that the committee is to meet shortly. I have not yet heard who will be the new chairman; perhaps that will be announced tonight. I understand that Lord Soulbury is going to Canada. I hope that the deliberations will not be protracted but will be brought to a conclusion at a very early date.
On the subject of salaries, I must be forgiven for again mentioning the position of the London area. I trust that support will be forthcoming from the authorities' panels and from the organisation of the hon. Member for Southampton in order to clarify the position. Last
2054
year the Minister said that when the Boundary Commission reported would be the time to deal with that difficult problem. I am very glad that the Boundary Commission has departed from this world for the moment, because I am sure that if we had attempted to follow any of its suggestions in regard to education, education would have become as dead as the Boundary Commission is, I hope.
Where we really need a great deal of revolution is in the administration of education. The 1944 Act brought a wonderful vista to most educationists and to those who administer education who perhaps cannot be classed as educationists. We were to have a system which would undoubtedly produce 100 per cent. results very easily and without question. The system of administration by the local education authorities through the method of the divisional executives was building up a tremendous amount of confidence and good faith because it appeared to be something very wonderful in the way of local government administration. I spent a year going round my county trying to make sure that every district authority would be au fait with the new set-up.
I went to great lengths to convert five large district authorities who were entitled to be exempted districts and got them to come into a complete scheme of divisional executives in Surrey. I am sorry to say that I have now arrived at a stage when I feel that my efforts in that direction have been very sadly wasted, because I believe that it has added immensely to the difficulties of local authorities in administering education. I sincerely believe that we shall have to reconsider this set-up of administration of education by local education authorities within the not too distant future. I find that in every case it has brought duplication and it has not brought any simplification. It has caused and is causing delay, and it is a very serious matter to which no doubt the Minister will have to give attention within the next year or two. That is where money can be saved.
The salary question must be attended to promptly. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Dorset (Colonel Wheatley) quoted to me the other day an instance of a new entrant into the teaching profession, with a degree and having two children,

2055
who found the greatest difficulty in making ends meet and could not afford to buy books and take courses because he could not get sufficient grants or make a sufficient contribution himself towards the cost. The question of salaries is a pertinent one today. It can best be met in this way: We can save money on the administration of education. Without doubt we are wasting money in many channels. I shall go into that more fully on another occasion. We could save a lot of money which could be devoted to the increased expenditure which we are bound to incur in paying teachers adequate salaries.
Mrs. Florence Paton: Will the hon. Member specify the ways in which we waste money in administration? Since he is the chairman of an education authority, he ought to be able to tell us.
Mr. Marshall: I told the Committee that at some other time I shall be prepared to make a definite statement on how we can directly save a great deal of money in the administration of education. I should be quite prepared to send it to the Minister at any time, but, naturally, it would have to be a considered statement. I know that we can save money in many ways.
Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: I understand that the hon. Member is the chairman of an education authority. Has he made his suggestions about the possibility of saving to his own authority?
Mr. Marshall: Yes, I have not failed in that by any means. My views are very well known to my own authority, of which I am the chairman. My right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) instanced the money we are now spending on the youth movement. I have been in the youth movement ever since I was a youth, and I am still in it right up to the hilt and most active. On Sunday I shall be presiding over a gathering at which there will be 3,500 boys and girls from our local youth organisations, a yearly occurrence. Therefore, I know something about youth organisations. In my county we are constantly increasing our estimates, and although I will not say without further thought in what way we should reduce those estimates, I believe that some pruning might well be done because I am one of those people who
2056
believe that if one wishes to spend a lot of money in one direction, one must make savings in another, without unduly starving one effort as against another. There are ways in which this can be done and I could instance many upon some future occasion.
The hon. Member for Southampton took to task the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) because he understood him to say that the standards of buildings were too high——
Commander Maitland: No.
Mr. Marshall: He himself agreed that the standards of buildings were not too high and that they should be maintained at their proper level. I have distinct views about this, I am immersed in it daily. When the standards of buildings were first promulgated in the 1944 Act I was greatly in sympathy with the proposals, but I did not foresee at what a tremendous cost these buildings would be erected. We built wonderful secondary schools up to the war, with adequate classrooms and central halls. Naturally one knows why we cannot build the same sort of schools at the same cost today. Now I go round most lovely schools, and the only fault I have to find with them is that they are becoming almost too beautiful. I went into one the other day and I could not help thinking when I saw the lavatory accommodation that it was far finer than the Ritz Hotel. I am not suggesting that the Minister should go to the Ritz and measure that up.
We want education to advance, we want buildings to improve, we want the best teachers and we want satisfied teachers as quickly as possible. Therefore it is essential that we should save as much money as we can in other directions to attain these. Where it is possible for the Minister to say that the standards of buildings which are now the regular standards can in some cases be modified, much assistance will be given to local authorities. The cost of building today is frightening, so naturally national expenditure is also frightening, and one has to pay regard to all these things. One does not wish for a moment to starve education—I suppose it is costing us as much as any other service in the country, and it is proper that it should do so. However, I hope that some of the things which have come out this afternoon, will

2057
be followed, especially savings in the cost of administration in order to spend money elsewhere.
I am not at all in agreement with the proposed priority to county colleges, in which I have little faith. I should be quite content with primary and junior schools and good secondary schools and university courses with, of course, the technical schools running parallel. As I say. I should be quite satisfied with that system of education without seeing any county colleges built because I do not believe they will serve any practical purpose.
8.4 p.m.
Mrs. Florence Paton: I have been listening today to some fine speeches from all sides of the Committee, and the astonishing thing is that there is so much agreement about our aims and intentions with regard to the future of education. For instance, I could not agree more with that part of the fine contribution of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) in which he stressed the need to dwell on the content of education and to go more and more into its purpose. If we could do this, we should solve many of the problems facing us. I believe we would solve the problem of the tripartite schools, because many parents are not conversant with the true aims of education.
Because the times tend toward this, their minds often dwell on the idea that education is merely a means of earning a living, whereas those of us who have been in the educational world all our lives know that the real aim is to learn how to live a life. If, through our various organisations, we could get across to the people of this country that it is better to have an integrated, harmonised child, a child who has a happy outlook, than one who undergoes education merely to earn a big salary, we shall be doing a great deal.
I agree also with the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Morley) who pleaded for the comprehensive school, because there lies in that method of teaching and education the only method by which class distinction will be eliminated from the education and public life of this country. The hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) said that in order to take class entirely out of the sphere of education, it was
2058
necessary for teachers to have a full university course and background so that they could give to the classroom the same background and understanding. I do not think that is enough. We can give all our teachers that kind of background, but unless we have the type of school free from class distinction which most of us hope to see, it will be impossible for even the best teachers to eliminate a sense of class from the minds of the children and of the community.
Because of that, I am sorry that we have this tripartite system which, in its very essence, means class in the eyes of the public. When the hon. Member referred to parents wanting their children to go to grammar schools, he knew that the main idea in their minds was that those children would have more social distinction afterwards in the eyes of their neighbours and would somehow be superior to children who had gone to the modern or technical schools. As one who has served over 20 years in the schools of this country, that has been my experience all the way through, and to eliminate that we must reach the day when a child will be able to say, "I have come from a certain secondary school" and nobody will ask, "Was it secondary modern? Was is secondary technical? Or was it secondary grammar?" As soon as a person asks that question, it is apparent that in his mind is a distinction, and it is not only an educational distinction but a class distinction.
Therefore, I deprecate the idea that on a child's school certificate there should be stated whether he or she came from a secondary modern, a secondary technical, or a secondary grammar school, and I am sure that most hon. Members who have been in our schools would deprecate it as well. If that child has the capabilities and qualifications, it does not matter to anybody the type of school from which he came. It is the ability, personality and education of the child which alone should count. How wrong it would be if, for example, a child from the modern or technical school who had passed the school certificate with three credits should not have procedence over a child from a grammar school with merely a pass and no credits. That would be the kind of situation which would be likely to arise.
There are many points which I wanted to mention but time does not permit of

2059
my doing so. I will, however, deal with one specific point which is of rather a parochial nature. In the Notts County Council we have one of the finest educational authorities in the country. That authority has prepared a £20 million programme for education. Anyone who reads their development plan will recognise that a new spirit and purpose has come into being in the educational system not only of that county but of the country. Throughout the whole county there is fine educational enthusiasm, but its population problem is more difficult than that of certain other parts of the country.
Around the city of Nottingham there has been an enormous increase in population. In one case—that of the Beeston Urban District Council—the population has more than doubled in the last 20 years. For 10 years no new school was built, with the result that the problems both of housing and educating that population have become extremely difficult. Recently I have had the great pleasure of being present at the opening of three new schools in one area alone. My joy was beyond anything I had expected. My mind went back to my own experience—of coming out of a school where, even in summer time, the gas lamps had to be lit all day where it was so dark that we could not have proper daylight, even in the height of the summer. In contrast to that, the modern school represents an amazing revolution, the joy of which has to be experienced to be understood.
As a result of these schools which are now being built, the whole locality abounds with a great wave of enthusiasm for education. This is being experienced through a fine organisation of Parent-Teachers' Associations, of which we have one of the best groups in the country. The Nottingham group, in fact, is a pioneer of this movement. These parents and teachers have asked me to raise this problem of the increase in population not only in the Beeston area, but in the Carlton and other areas. It appears probable that in September next large numbers of children will be unable to attend school. In the Carlton area alone, for example, at least 180 children of one small district will not be able to attend school in September in spite of their statutory right to do so.
2060
There is in that district a wooden hut school which was built as a temporary school after the 1914–18 war. I have never understood why, in the period between the wars, it could not have been made into a fine, new brick school large enough to cater for the needs of the locality. Very often, I must confess, I get a feeling of nausea when I hear Members of the Opposition speak about this question. The existence after 20 years of this wooden hut as the only school in the area, with the result that 180 children cannot go to school in September, shows the enormous leeway which has to be made up to overcome the neglect of the past in addition to providing for the greater needs of the future. The parents and teachers have asked me to raise this question, for they do not feel that sufficient is being done to accommodate the younger children. I understand there has been great difficulty in providing the necessary buildings.
In that area we are told that in 1947 a total of 74 school building projects were approved, but of that number only eight are under construction, only three are about to be started and not one is yet complete. The parents and teachers ask whether this is because school building has lost its priority. They want to know whether there is still the same priority for the building of schools, particularly primary, junior and infant schools, which are so necessary to house this enormously increased population.
We know the great urgency with which the whole problem is being approached, but we want to allay the anxiety of parents who, in their enthusiasm, have brought forward this matter on their own initiative and asked me to raise it here today in order to discover whether the difficulty is due to any reduction in priority for school building. If that is not so, if priority has not been reduced, I ask the Minister to look into this specific question of Nottinghamshire because of its enormously increased population and to do something to assist us in getting the buildings which are required. This problem is by no means the fault of the education authority. No authority in the country is more enthusiastic or doing more for education and school development than the education authority of the Nottinghamshire County Council.

2061
I promised to be very short and I will keep my promise, in sympathy with you, Mr. Diamond, if not with other people, because I know the difficulties of the Chair in accommodating speakers. Before I sit down, however, I must mention one matter which is very near to my heart. When I spoke in the Education Debate last year, I brought to the notice of the Minister—I do so again—the question of spastic children. Of all the children who are handicapped, no class of child is more handicapped or in greater need of special attention. I said last year that there were at least 8,000 to 10,000 of these children in the country.
They need three types of help: medical, psychological and occupational. Because of the costliness of obtaining these three forms of help for any one child, only the Government can take up this matter and do the job properly. What is needed is the kind of institution that, because of its cost, no charitable body can provide. I have seen the kind of institution in America which is necessary and I have seen the children on whom wonderful results have been obtained; who have been made to enjoy life normally in spite of their spastic condition. The cost in America has been enormous and the task therefore, is one which could be undertaken only by the Government itself. We should need the co-operation of the Ministries of Health, Labour and Education. All three must get together to do something for these children, who until now have been neglected and who should have the help which their parents have been unable to obtain.
I know of amazing cases of martyrdom by parents. I am speaking not of mentally deficient children but of children some of whom are highly intelligent; one boy, for instance, has an intelligence quotient of 110. Because of their high intelligence these children feel the frustration occasioned by their spastic condition even more than if they were mentally deficient or unintelligent. The torment to such a child and its parents is something which has to be seen to be believed, and I have seen it at very close quarters. I know that the provision of the facilities which are needed would entail a very great cost, but I ask the Minister to look into this matter and see whether he can do something very material to help.
8.20 p.m.
Mr. Linstead: The whole Committee has been moved by the earnestness of the appeal the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mrs. Paton) has made on behalf of deformed children. I shall not follow her in that respect, but I should like to follow her in the reference she made to the problem of the comprehensive school. I have given a great deal of thought to the matter and I can understand, although I cannot sympathise with, the statement she made that the purpose of the comprehensive school should be to eliminate class distinction. That, in the minds of hon. Members opposite, may be a desirable object, but I think it is educationally a false object. I do not think the Minister should direct major educational policy towards the goal of eliminating class distinction. I understand that the multilateral system was largely chosen to achieve the purpose of the comprehensive school and to go some way towards eliminating class distinction, but the hon. Lady went so far as to say that the tripartite and multilateral system perpetuated class distinction.
Mrs. Paton: I understand that the tripartite is three secondary school systems—secondary modern, secondary technical and secondary grammar—and I stand by what I have said in regard to that.
Mr. Linstead: I understand by the tripartite system what the hon. Lady does, but what she is hoping to see is something which cannot be achieved. She is hoping that an employer interviewing a child will not make detailed inquiries as to where the child has been, what its particular abilities are and what type of examination it has passed. It is inevitable that the employer will want to satisfy himself about the ability and personality of the child by knowing the school record if he is not to put a square peg into a round hole, and knowing whether the school record appears on paper or not.
The feature of the comprehensive school to which I want to draw particular attention is the position in regard to the County of London. I want to put to the Minister and Parliamentary Secretary a question which I previously put to the Parliamentary Secretary in another Debate, but which he could not

2063
find time to answer. In the London School Plan, London County Council propose to build 27 2,000-pupil schools. A year or two ago that was only a plan on paper, but London County Council are now taking practical steps to put it into effect. In one borough in London they are giving notice of developing a boys' school and a girls' school from 500 pupils to 2,000 pupils.
The question I wish to put, and to which I think the Committee are entitled to have an answer, is whether the Minister has approved the London school plan and whether he approves of the construction of 27 2,000-pupil schools in the County of London? The matter has got past the paper stage and is rapidly getting to the stage of actual work being done on sites. We are entitled to know where the Minister stands in regard to that proposal. It is not an experimental scheme, and it is not as though London County Council were to put up one school to see how it worked. Quite clearly they are proceeding to put up a very large number of these schools.
When I criticise the comprehensive school, I am not criticising the conception of a two or three-stream school as such. I am criticising the giant school. I believe it is possible educationally to get all the advantages out of a multilateral school without building a giant school of 2,000 pupils. I think back to my own school of 500 or 600, and I have no doubt that other hon. Members will remember that it was possible with a much smaller institution to give a balanced education and put boys into the particular streams which suited their natural abilities.
I have tried to understand the reasons which have led the Minister to adopt this scheme of giant schools, if in fact he has given it his blessing. I recognise that it is very difficult to administer and facilitate the interchange of children between 11 and 13 from one type of education to another, but I can find no practical and comprehensible reason, except that parity of esteem is established. If that is the only advantage, I think the Minister should say so, because I do not think parity of esteem can justify an educational policy. It may be considered a desirable offshoot of an educational policy—that is a matter of opinion—but it can never justify an educational policy.
2064
A 2,000-pupil school is too big to enable a boy to feel that he belongs to a unit with a life of its own, just as we in this House would feel that the whole character of the place had changed if there were 2,000 Members instead of about 640 Members. I am sure that no headmaster can impress his personality on a school of 2,000, and the life of the school depends enormously upon the personality of the headmaster and the way in which he can diffuse it through the school. For example, the occupant of that Chair would find it extremely difficult to call, as readily as they do call by name, hon. Members of this House when they wish to hear them speak, or even to rebuke them.
I am quite certain that in most big towns sites of eight and nine acres cannot be found, or can be found only with difficulty. It is very significant that one of the two schools in my own borough which is to be transformed from a 500 to a 2,000-pupil school—the school which the Minister honoured a year ago by attending to present the prizes, and I hope he remembers the evening—is to have its own playing fields built on, in order to put 1,500 more boys on that site; when, quite close, the L.C.C. has. 60 acres of land which they have purchased for development. So far as I can see sites will be difficult to find, the children will have to travel much longer distances and the grammar school spirit, which does count for something—not in a class sense, but in an educational sense—will be destroyed.
A school is not a business which is run for profit, and if the main reason for building these 2,000-pupil schools is the economic one, then I think educationally we shall be poorer and not richer as the result of this development; because it is all the intangibles that count. In the two schools I am thinking of, the Minister's "three C's"—competence, curiosity and conscience—are there now, but I very much doubt whether they will be there in the same strength when those schools are worked up from 500 to 2,000. I am sure that something very precious in education will be killed if we take a natural community of 500 and elaborate it into an unnatural community of 2,000.
I hope that the Minister will be able to exercise the powers of his great office and see that the greatest educational

2065
authority in this country does not make a fundamental mistake and put secondary education on the wrong road. Once these schools are built, they are built and they will dominate and determine educational structure in London for many a long year to come. I should be sorry to feel that the Minister was going down in history as the Minister who put an end to the English grammar school system.
8.31 p.m.
Mr. Pargiter: I wish to refer to the speech of the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) in which he mentioned, evidently with some pride, the part he played in the County of Middlesex in connection with a rather vicious campaign of misrepresentation carried on by a small section of teachers in part of that county against the proposals of the county council for comprehensive schools. He also repeated a particular allegation that it was the proposal of the Middlesex County Council to reduce the number of grammar school places. That is of course part of the general campaign carried on against comprehensive schools——
Mr. K. Lindsay: I hate to interrupt the hon. Member, but I did not say a word against reducing the number of grammar schools.
Mr. Pargiter: I am sorry. The hon. Member referred to grammar schools and the part he played in that particular agitation against the proposals to put up comprehensive schools. I think that is beyond question, and I think I am entitled to draw the conclusion that he opposed comprehensive schools in this particular case, because it would reduce the number of grammar school places.
Mr. Lindsay: No. I said it would deprive the boy, for a limited time only, but for a time, of the opportunity of going to a grammar school and thereby reduce his chances of going to a university.
Mr. Pargiter: I think that whatever the hon. Member says, it comes back to the same sort of thing. We in Middlesex suffered badly from that campaign. The teachers thought it was the policy of the Labour County Council to reduce either the standard of grammar schools or the number of places available; whereas the
2066
facts are that for years there have been an inadequate number of grammar school places in Middlesex. We were using the comprehensive schools as part of the method by which we could increase the number of places available, so that any child with the aptitude and ability to develop under the academic system of education would have an opportunity, without the type of school to which the child should go being arbitrarily determined at the age of eleven, or eleven-plus.
The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) referred to the question of junior technical schools. Already it is becoming evident that the tripartite system cannot work, that we cannot have an efficient modern school without some technical bias. Also, one cannot have an efficient grammar school without some technical bias. Matters between the grammar school and technical education and those between modern school and technical education, have become so mixed, that already it is a problem whether or not we should have two separate sides of technical education in two different types of school. That is a problem which exercises the minds of people concerned with education. Inevitably, whether hon. Members like it or not, they will find themselves coming back to some single form of school, whether we call it a comprehensive school or some other kind of school, in the interests of efficiency and economy.
The hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Morley) said that the Minister had not been very helpful on the subject of comprehensive schools in Middlesex. I found that the Minister was most sympathetic towards the question. He was aware of the artificial agitation which had been worked up against comprehensive schools. Nevertheless, he gave us permission to establish three comprehensive schools. That is some sort of a start, although it is not all we wanted. In view of the changed administration, I ask him to keep a very careful watch on the situation to see that these schools get a fair chance now, because I am not at all sure that they will.
I thought that it was generally established in the county that co-educational schools were desirable wherever they could be reasonably established. I find under the changed administration that

2067
instead of a sixth form entry co-educational school, proposals will be put to the Minister to establish two separate three form secondary schools, one for boys and one for girls, thus necessitating dual services and dual administrative costs. Instead of there being economy in education, the costs will increase.
I hope that the Minister will pay some attention to school building. Up to about three form entry, there are standard regulations, but when we get beyond there to between the four, five and six form entries, there are no established standards. Authorities generally are feeling their way in this matter. Perhaps it is time that the Department gave some attention to the standards for the larger type of school. Attention should be paid to the question of how large an assembly hall will be needed. Indeed, we should consider whether it is necessary to have an assembly hall which will accommodate all the pupils of a school at one time. Obviously that will be impossible if we develop the larger type of school. Those concerned with the architecture of schools would welcome assistance from the Minister on that matter.
The right hon. Gentleman's proposals about primary schools ought to be improved upon. We ought not to be content with primary school classes of 40. It is just as difficult—in fact, in certain circumstances, it is more difficul—to teach 30 infants as it is to teach 30 children aged 14 or 15. We must not be content with the statement that we are aiming to cut down the classes to 40. We want the cut to be accelerated with a view to securing parity of classes between the primary and secondary school. I hope that the Minister will be able to give an assurance that he will continue as rapidly as possible to reduce the size of these classes. In spite of the difficulties, considerable progress has been made.
Some reference was made to the question of standards of school buildings. I am not one of those who are worried about the standard of school buildings. I have seen some wonderful buildings in my own county—workhouses which were built to last 200 years and which we have been obliged to use for other purposes. I am not concerned with buildings with 14-inch brick walls so much as with the amenities inside the buildings for the benefit both of the teacher
2068
and the scholars. I do not mind a reduction in the standards, but I expect that the standard of benefit shall be very much improved to provide additional educational advantages to meet this country's needs. We all believe that the future of this country will depend on our educational standards, and I believe also that we shall find that we cannot afford to waste any brains through having arbitrary decisions at the age of 11 concerning which educational path a child should pursue. I ask the Minister to bear that in mind.
8.41 p.m.
Mr. Basil Nield: Almost all hon. Members who have taken part in this Debate have done so with specialised knowledge. I cannot claim that I have that knowledge, but I hope the Committee will not mind one who is not a specialist seeking to make a short contribution to the Debate.
The 1944 Act undoubtedly made provision for a great advance in the whole field of education. Those of us who remember the discussions on that Measure when it was passing through this House also recall how it was made plain that some of the major benefits that were hoped for from that Measure—smaller classes, further education and the raising of the school-leaving age—were really but empty hopes unless two things could be achieved. Those were more and better schools and an adequate recruitment of the right kind of people to the teaching profession. Personally, so far as building is concerned, I must say that I strongly hold the view that the housing of the people must come first, but I have been very impressed by those who have said that, where we have a new housing estate beginning, we hope to see adequate provision for a school in that area.
It is to the question of the recruitment of teachers that I desire to draw attention. Hon. Members have no hesitation in being in full agreement on the importance of this question. So much depends on the wise guidance and sound instruction of our young people. Those of us who have anything to do with the administration of justice in our courts are appalled at the number of young people who are being convicted of all kinds of offences, and I am even more appalled by the number of them who do not seem to appreciate that what they

2069
have done is wrong. The answer to that is surely quite plain. The remedy is that wise guidance and sound instruction which I have mentioned, and, of course, healthy and useful occupation——
Mr. G. Thomas: And home life.
Mr. Nield: Yes, and home life. I agree with the hon. Gentleman; I was dealing with the educational aspect but when I say sound guidance I include sound guidance and instruction in the home.
The question is how are we to attract men and women into the teaching profession? Here again there is a large measure of agreement. There must be recognition of the status of the teacher, proper conditions of employment and adequate remuneration, although many teachers do not put that objective first. In considering how to attract the right kind of men and women, I ask the Minister to look again at the case which has been made for more graduate teachers. I do not hesitate to say that a case is made out by a body of which, no doubt, the Minister knows, the Graduate Teachers' Association, and I should disclose that I am an honorary vice-president of that organisation—an office which requires no particular academic distinction, I may say—for such improvements as will attract more of the graduate teachers into the profession. I particularly want to say that I would be the first to acknowledge the great work which has been done by teachers not holding a degree qualification, but I have no doubt that the 16 per cent. of the whole teaching force who are graduate teachers is too small a percentage and that one should have more of them available if it is possible.
I do not want to weary the Committee, or to take up more time than I should at this late hour by going into some of the figures I had in mind, and I will leave that for another time or for the investigation of the Minister into the particular points. But what I am asking—and I am thinking particularly of the manning of the grammar schools—is that it may be possible to offer some better conditions or some better inducement to those who have had the advantages or the opportunities of a university life to be recruited into the teaching profession, and it is to that one point that I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give his attention.
8.47 p.m.
Mr. Dryden Brook: The discussion which has taken place today has centred quite rightly on the implementation of the 1944 Act. I do not want to follow the hon. and learned Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Nield) except to say that when he spoke of the building of houses having a priority over the building of schools, he tentatively linked up the fact that new housing estates and new schools must go together. I know that when I was asked to speak on a new housing estate to a parents' and teachers' association, the burden of the discussion was that the local authorities were not keeping pace in school building for the children of the parents for whom they were building houses.
I wish to refer to the remark made by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) in respect of the huge schools proposed by the London County Council. I probably dislike as much as he does these huge schools, but I would draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that nobody has done more than hon. Gentlemen opposite to praise the one school in this country that comes near in point of numbers to the 2,000. Manchester Grammar School has been held up to hon. Members on this side of the Committee as a pattern of all that is good in respect to education in this country. I believe that at the present time it has some 1,500 pupils; at least, it had when the figures were given to me last time.
If we are to implement the 1944 Act, not merely in the letter but in the spirit, one or the most important factors must be a reduction in the size of classes, and we must remember to get a perspective of all that is happening in this respect. We are having to face the implementation of that Act in one of the most difficult periods in the history of this country when on every side there is competition for priority in respect of the means at our disposal. But even so, an appreciable advance has been made in respect of the problem of the size of classes. I quote now from the same article—that by the Secretary of the Association of the Education Committees—which was previously mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove). In that article, the secretary gives figures for 1936, 1937 and 1938 showing the size of

2071
classes in our primary schools. For those years the average was 32.7, 32.2, and 32.1 respectively. In 1946 and 1947 the numbers dropped to 31.6 and 30.1. The same ratio of improvement had taken place in respect of secondary schools as well.
Arising out of this Debate, and the Debate that took place last week, there seems to me to be a danger in the method of approach to the problem of the reduction of the size of classes. A remark of the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) put this idea into my mind today. He pleaded for the independent schools, and for the public schools and for the boarding schools, in relation to the local education authorities. Last week there was a plea for leniency in the Income Tax for those middle-class people who send their children to independent schools. If the problem is really to reduce the size of the classes in our own schools every penny of money that we spend in any other direction tends to perpetuate the disparity which already exists between the public schools on the one hand and our own schools on the other hand.
There is another problem involved in sending boys from the ordinary schools to the public schools and boarding schools. It is the order of priority. Which is the greater priority? Should a local education authority spend £250 a year in sending a pupil to a boarding school, or spend that £250 a year on making provision inside its own schools for education of a worthy character? There can be no comparison in my own mind. Speaking as a member of a local education authority I emphasise this fact that all education authorities are faced with this problem. It is one of the relative order of priority, whether to spend money on their own schools or to spend money—an extraordinary amount of money—in sending pupils to public schools.
This is a problem of the reduction of the size of classes. It is also a problem of the order of priority, and also a question of means. We are faced with disparity in physical needs and also in the provision of teachers. I should like to quote further from the article I have here. Mr. Alexander says:
"It should be remembered, too, that this progress is being achieved at a time of extreme
2072
difficulty in terms of materials and labour. The proper comparison, in fairness, is not with the years immediately preceding the war, but rather with the years following the end of the last war. On that basis, progress in the last three years has been notable."
My last point is this. I refer to a matter raised by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) in respect of school meals. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Mr. Morley) mentioned the splendid physique that our children have. In part this is due to the food that they have in schools—to the school meals and the school milk. When the family allowances were instituted at 5s. it was on the understanding that there would be 5s. plus something in kind. In part, that kind was to be school meals. I should like to know, along with the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden, when that is to apply to free meals in schools. If I remember rightly my right hon. Friend has said that the thing that keeps him back from providing free meals in schools is that we are not ready for a 100 per cent. provision. My local education authority at present is providing nearly 60 per cent. of school meals. When the building programme we have now in hand is completed we shall be ready to provide between 75 per cent. and 80 per cent. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend, at what point short of 100 per cent. for all the country will he institute a free meals service throughout the schools in this country?
A further point I would put to him to answer is this. There are some authorities that have difficulty with his administration over the cost of the service of the meals. I put it to my right hon. Friend that those authorities which are doing their best to provide a good service should not be penalised in getting the 100 per cent. grant merely because their splendid service is proving a little more expensive than he anticipated when he instituted the service. On those grounds, I ask my right hon. Friend to give further consideration to the service of the meals in order that he may help those authorities which are doing their best to do a good job.
8.55 p.m.
Mr. Hollis: I am sorely tempted to follow the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Brook) in his comparison

2073
between independent schools and other schools, but I had my say on that last week, and time is limited. Therefore, if he will excuse me, I will go on to break rather new ground in a very short intervention. Frankly, I want to be a devil's advocate on certain points. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that although I may appear at first to show an unfriendly feeling towards him, before finishing I shall more than recompense him for everything I say, but there are certain considerations which I think ought to be brought out.
I quite agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) that this is not a party question, and on balance it is extremely fortunate that it is not, because we can debate it more profitably. But there is a certain disadvantage along with the advantages in something not being a party question. If it is a party question we can be sure that in the cut-and-thrust of debate all that is to be said upon both sides will be brought out; but when a matter is not a party question, there is a certain danger that we compete with one another in rather sonorous platitudes, and if we disagree, we disagree only from the most high-minded of motives, and by doing so we do not give a full picture of the mind of the people.
We have to face the fact that when some people, rightly or wrongly, talk about education, they do not talk about it in the high-minded way in which we have been debating it this afternoon. Some of the lines of the objections, misguided though they may be, to educational policy are very different from the sort of lines that have been urged in this Committee. We find young boys who object to being kept at school for another year because they think it means that they are less manly. We find parents who object to their children being kept on at school because they want them to be earning money. We find some people with whom schoolmasters or school inspectors are not very popular. Those are not very high sentiments, but they are sentiments which we should face, and not very much has been said about them in our Debate today.
Last week the hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman), speaking "on behalf of the British people"—I know not exactly on what authority—said that
2074
while we would be willing to have less food, we would not be willing to spend less money upon education. Whether or not that should be so, I am not certain that it is so. But whether or not it is so, unless and until the people of this country are very much clearer in their minds than they are at present what education is all about, they will not subscribe to those sentiments. Not altogether through the fault of anyone, the subject has fallen into very considerable confusion. In the old days it was in many ways much simpler; maybe it was a false simplicity, but it was much simpler.
The other day I was reading a book by Canon Spencer Leeson, the former headmaster of Winchester, in the first half of which he explains what a wicked thing it is that children should have advantages in life simply because their parents happen to be rich. We are all familiar with that argument. Mr. Gladstone used to say that the remedy for that was for these things to be settled by competitive examination. But Canon Spencer Leeson, the modernist, explains in the second half of his book what a wicked thing it is that children should have advantages in life just because they have the obscene knack of answering examination questions. At the end of the day we are by no means certain how it is to be settled. Should we determine who is to be Master of All Souls by spinning a coin? Maybe that will turn out to be a better method.
An hon. Member, in a slightly more serious vein than I, pointed out that it is by no means clear to the people of England what the tests are. Doubtless the tests in the past were crude, but they were at least clear. In the days when I was an undergraduate, people used to take these examinations and if they got a third-class degree, that was just too bad. Today a man who gets a third-class degree says, "The examiner had a down on me. I was born in Islington so naturally he gave me a third-class pass." The confidence in these objective tests has greatly fallen. The right hon. Gentleman, the last time we debated education, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Amory), was kind enough to say that if I had passed certain examinations rather sooner, I might have been further down towards the Front Bench. Indeed if I had not passed them at all, I might have

2075
been Minister of Education. I recollect that once a newspaper published a story stating that the present Minister of Education sat for an examination, and wrote that Hull was on the coast of Cumberland. He failed the examination and became Minister of Education. Is that not true?
Mr. Tomlinson Mr. Tomlinson indicated dissent.
Mr. Hollis: I thought that everything published in the Press was true now that the Royal Commission has reported.
The point I want to make is that there is considerable confusion in the public mind about the purposes of education, and not nearly that full-blooded confidence to which hon. Members have given expression in this Committee. Therefore, it is very important indeed that education authorities should be careful to keep in step and retain the confidence both of those who are engaged in teaching, and of the parents at large, because education is not something that can be imposed on the people. The authorities can only win through if they get their confidence.
Certain things are giving me concern on that ground. The first is that of the new examination. What most worries me is not the question of whether an examination should be taken at this age or that age, but the fact that it should be settled by Whitehall, and that at a time when the educational profession was not sufficiently agreed about the matter, in my submission, to justify it being carried through. Another question which worries me is that of the denominational schools. My right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden today said that with which I and everybody must agree—that the last thing we want is the re-opening of a bitter denominational controversy in this country, or the upsetting of the general settlement under the 1944 Act. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that there has been a big change in costs, and a set of circumstances has arisen whereby the denominations are justified, or soon will be, in calling the Government's attention to the matter.
When the 1944 Act was being debated the present Home Secretary, then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education, said that there could be
2076
nothing worse for the future of education than that the denominational schools should find themselves administered out of existence. He added that that was not the Government's intention. My right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden himself said about the Roman Catholic community in particular—though I agree that all denominations have the same right—that the point at issue was whether the financial burden falling upon the Roman Catholic community would be within their capacity to shoulder; and that it was the intention that the benefits devised to help the Roman Catholics should be real and not merely paper benefits. I am not asking the Government to make any detailed proposals at the moment. I do not think that the time has come, but with the vast increase in costs the time will come, and it is a matter about which one should keep an open mind.
The third point which gives me a certain concern is the one referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden, who today mentioned a school in his own constituency. He made it quite clear that, whether there were faults on both sides and whatever obstinacy there was on the part of the parents, an attempt is being made to impose a form of education on the children which is in direct opposition to the wishes of the parents. The general question of the closing of rural schools is one which gives me a certain amount of concern. It is no part of the business of an education system to attempt to impose a policy, one way or another, upon the minds of its pupils. We are all agreed about that. We are also all agreed that one of the great evils of the past has been that the population of the countryside has been drifting to the towns and that the education system has not been without blame for its contribution towards making people town-minded. It is very important that the bias, if anything, should be reversed, and should be in favour of the rural school as against the town school.
Last time I spoke on education I quoted some words from Professor Laski. Tonight I go on to another Socialist pundit, Mr. G. D. H. Cole, who has written these words:
"What remains of democracy dissolves before the governmental machine. Democracy

2077
shows itself less in choosing a deputy than in knowing him. Villages are for that reason more democratic places than cities, even when the squire and the parson direct the voting, for democracy is not the same as professing advanced opinions or believing in democracy. Democracy begins in a man knowing his neighbours as real people, and unless it begins there it does not begin at all."
Those are very wise words, from which hon. Members opposite will notice that Conservative Members are the most democratic, according to Mr. G. D. H. Cole, because they are returned for rural constituencies.
I do not want to overstate my case. There are reasons on the other side, I confess. I am glad to confess that one of the chief of those reasons is that the Minister has on all occasions in his personal conduct been only at too great pains to show himself as conciliatory, friendly, and accommodating as he possibly could be. I entirely associate myself with hon. Members who have paid a personal tribute to him. The right hon. Gentleman's task is to keep both feet on the ground and to keep one ear on the ground at the same time. The gap between those extremities in his case is not quite so large as in the case of some of his colleagues. I have ventured to break into this Debate and to say—I hope I can say without offence to the Committee—that there is a certain complacency and an atmosphere of "nobody loves education as much as we do." I shall be grateful if my right hon. Friend will address himself to the dangers of the situation as well as to the advantages of it.
9.8 p.m.
Mr. Lipson: I hope I shall not be accused of being complacent when I say, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) that whether people are agreed or not upon the purpose of education, it is true to say that there never was a time when the people of this country were more sympathetic to education. Whether parents are or are not still anxious for their children to leave school early so as to earn money, I believe that the number who are, is fewer today than ever before. Whether pupils are, or are not, more anxious to leave school than they were, I believe that the children of this country were never so happy in school as they are today. Those are most pleasing and encouraging signs in education. I do
2078
not believe that the Minister would have been able to present so impressive a record of achievement, on which I congratulate him, unless the Treasury had believed in education rather more than the Treasury has believed in it in the past. Therefore, although I do not want to be complacent about the progress or the present position in education, it is only right that credit should be given where credit is due.
I hope that if there is any danger, in view of the threatening economic storm or blizzard, of cuts in education, the. Minister will realise that he will have a very strong public opinion behind him in resisting any demands for such cuts. I believe that that would be a very foolish kind of economy, because for years past we have been too wasteful of our human material, and I believe that if we are to recover our place in the world, we must make the fullest use of all the ability of all our children in the service of the nation and of the world.
Reference has been made to teachers' salaries. I was not surprised that the Minister skirted rather lightly over that subject. He said it was a matter for the Burnham Committee. I agree, and it is also true that two years ago the teachers agreed to the Burnham Committee's award, but I would remind the Minister that Mr. Kendrick, who was the chairman of the Birmingham Education Committee for a great many years, has said that it would not be right to shelter behind a contract to prevent justice being done. The Minister will agree that it is bad for education if teachers have serious financial worries. I ask him to believe that a great many have them today. It is a matter for the Burnham Committee, but has the Minister power to invite the Committee to address itself to the question of salaries?
Another matter I wish to raise is schools on housing estates. The Minister seemed to imply that the delay in providing these schools was due to local education authorities. My information is that the Ministry is not prepared to approve plans till the children are actually on the estate. On a housing estate in my constituency there are 600 children but there is no school for them. We have been promised six aluminium class rooms in the autumn to accommodate 260 but that is not enough. Will

2079
the Minister tell local education authorities, if they do not know it already, that when a contract to build houses has been entered into they can have their plans for new schools approved at the same time so that the schools can go up straight away?
Mr. Tomlinson: There are scores of places in this country where the houses and schools are going up simultaneously. Those authorities have dealt with the same people with whom the hon. Member's authority have dealt. We do not provide aluminium class rooms. The local authority does that.
Mr. Lipson: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has told me that. I shall pass it on to my local authority. Naturally I must accept the information which I get, and I was told that the Ministry was not prepared to approve plans till the children were on the estate.
I am also concerned about the housing problems of teachers. Is it within the powers of a local education authority to provide houses for its teaching staffs, just as standing joint committees can provide houses for the police? Some of the independent schools are doing this. They are buying up houses and they are able to get teachers to accept positions because they can offer them not only a job but a house at the same time. There is at present, unfortunately, a lack of mobility of teachers. It is bad for a teacher to have all his experience at one school, and it is desirable to encourage as much mobility as possible. Have local authorities these powers, and, if not, will the Minister take steps to obtain them for them?
There is one more matter to which I wish to draw attention. I know that the Ministry, and the Parliamentary Secretary in particular, have played an important part in U.N.E.S.C.O. It is necessary that the people of this country should be reminded from time to time of what U.N.E.S.C.O. is doing and of the progress it is making. After all, it is one of the movements which will help to make peace more secure in the world and, unless we can maintain a peaceful world, all that we are doing for the education of our children will have been in vain. As there has been some criticism, may I say that personally I do not
2080
begrudge the time which the Parliamentary Secretary and others in the Ministry have given towards furthering that work, and it would be appreciated if the hon. Gentleman could indicate briefly what is being done so that we can realise that U.N.E.S.C.O. is making headway.
In conclusion, I am grateful to the Minister for what he has been able to achieve for education since he has held office. My information is that not only is there a new spirit so far as the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary are concerned, but that they have extended it to their Department. There was a time when I received a good deal of criticism about the delay in answering letters or in dealing with matters sent up by hon. Members and local authorities. I am told that, particularly in the last 12 months, there has been a great speeding up which is appreciated not only by individuals but by local authorities as well.
9.17 p.m.
Mrs. Nichol: I am determined to keep a promise I made to you, Mr. Bowles, earlier in the day to confine my remarks within a few minutes. This has been a most fascinating Debate and one is tempted to wander into a few highways and byways. However, I must resist that temptation and I shall make only one digression, namely, to join in the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) in the tribute he has just paid to the Minister in appreciation of his work.
The point I want to make is not so interesting as the previous speeches, which have been of a more general character. It concerns the new certificates of education in the grammar schools. The position is extremely puzzling because the Minister clearly expressed the desire to put a brake on the over-specialisation going on in the sixth forms, and his fixing of the minimum age of 16 at which an external examination can be taken, is a step towards that end. Now the Minister quite rightly does not want children of 14½ and 15 to be pressed on an over-specialised course. I agree with the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) that between 16 and 18 specialisation is stimulating and certainly not harmful, but at 14 and 15 it is a different matter. At a meeting of headmasters in January the

2081
Minister pointed out that half the State scholars had taken their higher school certificate examination twice, and that seven per cent. of them had taken their examination three times.
That was really brought about by the larger schools creating "express" forms of hand-picked, brighter pupils who were put through a somewhat limited school certificate course and entered for the State scholarship stakes and trained to take their fences in three years. This was and is an outrageous business educationally and should not be encouraged, but it is a way of getting these young people to the universities with assured financial backing, in other words, with scholarship grants. In this process the bigger schools with larger staffs can organise themselves on the "set" system, where several teachers of the same subject are teaching at different levels to groups or sets of varying ability.
Many headmasters deplore this system of cramming and, on quite sound educational grounds, prefer a general five-year course with two years of specialisation in the sixth form. These courses were generally found in the smaller grammar schools, which did not sacrifice the general, all-round ability of children, many of whom did not intend to go to universities but branched out into the technical or semi-technical professions. That is where I disagree to some extent with the hon. Member for York (Mr. Corlett) when he says that the grammar schools are the prep, schools for the universities. That is not necessarily so. They prepare children for the semi-professions and semi-professional jobs which are very valuable to the country. The older pupils are able to stand up to sixth form specialisation, but even these children had to undergo a fairly intensive course if they were to get the "plums" which were offered in the shape of county and major scholarships and grants.
The intention of the Minister has been quite clear on this matter of overspecialisation. He was against it and he saw in the new general certificate a way of bringing about a reduction. The new certificate can be taken at three levels: the ordinary level, which is the old credit standard; the advanced, or old main or principal, standard; and the scholarship standard. This implies, so far as one can see its working at all, the
2082
"set" system which I described, but the heads of these small schools are not able to work it. They do not possess the staffs to enable them to do so. The bigger schools might have three masters teaching modern languages, or three masters teaching matriculation, and they can set them all at different levels.
The smaller grammar schools are not so well placed. The "maths." master may be teaching music; in fact, it is an artistic phenomenon how frequently music and maths, go together. These schools cannot organise on the same basis because their staffs are not big enough to enable them to do so. The question which I want to put to the Minister is this. Is he prepared to face up to the question of providing bigger staffs, supposing that is physically possible, in the smaller grammar schools if they are to use the general certificate standard and at the same time to stop over-specialisation?
I should like to refer briefly to the universities. They are putting very great pressure upon the grammar schools and have complained bitterly about the over-specialised products which have come to them. With one exception, however, they have done very little to lower their demands for a very high degree of specialised teaching in the schools. Only one university has had the courage to face up to the problem and accept five subjects at ordinary level. The older universities in the case of science still demand maths., applied maths., physics and chemistry or another science at scholarship levels. The London medical schools demand physics, or chemistry and biology to scholarship level, which means another examination board's botany and zoology, a total of four subjects. And so it goes on. It would be very helpful if the policy of the Ministry in this direction could be defined.
I am not unmindful of the difficulties in the approach to this problem, but I ask the Minister to look into this question so far as the smaller grammar schools are concerned and either try to induce the universities to reduce their demands and at the same time try to alter the existing standard, or to provide more staff if these schools are to stop over-specialisation and to be able to organise the schools on the "set" system in order that they may cope with the requirements of the standard of the new certificate.
9.25 p.m.
Mr. Richard Law: I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for North Bradford (Mrs. Nichol) that this has been a most interesting and fascinating Debate. I hope that for once hon. Members opposite will applaud the Opposition for having chosen these Estimates for discussion today. As more than one hon. Member has pointed out, we are discussing these matters under the shadow of impending economic crisis and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) said, in a witty and profound speech, if that economic crisis develops as it may develop, whatever views we may have here about the value of education, the people of the country may have some other priority.
I am sure no hon. Member on this side of the Committee would wish to abandon the road on which we set out when we passed the Butler Act of 1944. That is as true of this side of the Committee as it is of the other. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the economic outlook has changed very greatly since the passage of the Butler Act and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) said, we have to establish now not only a priority for education as against other social services, but to establish priorities in education itself. With the possible exception of the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. H. D. Hughes), I do not think any hon. Member would deny that proposition. If I understood his speech, the Minister does not deny it.
The Minister said that building costs did not loom very largely in the financial budget of education because they were amortised over a period of years and, from the financial aspect, that is true. But we are not dealing only with the financial aspect. From the point of view of manpower at our disposal which can be allocated to the building of schools as against houses, one cannot amortise that over a period of years but must bear it while the building is going on. The building programme could only be stepped up at the expense of housing, or some other social need just as great.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the importance of ensuring that when a housing estate was built there was a school to accommodate the child population which would come to that housing
2084
estate. Each of us must agree with that objective. I understand, however, that in parts of Kent the L.C.C. have spread over their boundaries because they have not enough space, that they have built vast housing estates and then left it to the Kent education authorities to provide the schools. There is an obvious lack of liaison when one authority builds the estate and leaves another authority with the responsibility of providing the schools. I should like to know whether any machinery exists for ensuring that in the future that does not happen; and that when one authority is entering the educational area of another there is liaison between the two. I do not think that there always has been in the past.
We have to establish priorities in education itself. I do not know whether hon. Members opposite would agree—I think the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Pargiter) would—but I hold that in considering education as a whole the physical buildings are not all-important, not as important as teachers, for example. The Minister said that 70 per cent. of school buildings were more than 50 years old. I do not think that is necessarily a great disaster. Quite a lot of the independent schools, now doing good work, have buildings which certainly would not come up to the standard of amenities now considered necessary. If the educational budget becomes at all tight and the Minister is obliged in the future to cut his coat a bit finer in one direction or another, I hope he will do it at the expense of unnecessary new buildings rather than at the expense of the teachers.
We must agree with the Minister that it is vitally necessary to provide new school accommodation for the greatly increased school population which is to be expected in four or five years' time. It is also the case that that increase is likely to be a purely temporary phenomenon and that after 1953 the school population will tend to come down again. I am wondering whether the Department has considered all the possibilities of improvisation, so that this crisis can be met without building elaborate new buildings which will impose a demand on our resources at the present time, and which may be unnecessary after the crisis has passed. On the question of recruitment of teachers it is, clearly, vitally important

2085
that there should be an increase in the recruitment of women teachers. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was a virtual disappearance of the uncertificated teacher. That is obviously all to the good; but what I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us is whether those teachers have disappeared because they have abandoned teaching or because they have become certificated—if the latter, so much the better.
May I ask the Minister another question? Is there an age limit for the recruitment of women teachers at the present time? I am not sure whether there is or not. If there is, would it be possible to waive that limit and establish one particular college in which older women of intelligence could be trained? The Minister spoke, too, of the problem of finding places for handicapped children. I would like to know whether local education authorities are insisting that when these children are taken into the modern schools they shall be in special classes. If the handicapped children are put through the ordinary run of the mill, the effect on the development of the normal children is likely to be disastrous.
I could say a lot more, but it is more important that the Minister should have all the time that is left in which to reply. In conclusion, I assure him and the Committee that the interest of hon. Members on this side of the Committee in public education is quite as great, deep and genuine as that shown by hon. Members opposite.
9.35 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Hardman): My right hon. Friend and I thank hon. Members in all parts of the Committee for the tributes they have paid to the speech of my right hon. Friend and to the progress which he was able to report. At the same time, I wish to assure hon. Members that neither my right hon. Friend and myself nor the officials of the Ministry will be complacent, even though we feel fairly satisfied at what has already been achieved in the implementation of the 1944 Act.
From the pile of notes which I have taken, I find that some 18 speakers, apart from my right hon. Friend, have spoken in this Debate. I have been asked over 40 questions which
2086
demand factual answers, and controversial subjects have been introduced in many of the speeches. They include the problem of the multilateral and the comprehensive school. I have been asked about education in Wales and about the vexed question of possible increases in salaries. Other speakers raised the subject of the content of education and then, like a bolt from the blue, from the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) there was a request that something should be said about U.N.E.S.C.O. I can only refer very briefly to some of the points raised and attempt to answer certain questions which admit of a direct answer.
One matter is a little puzzling to hon. Members on this side of the Committee. It is that hon. Members opposite, beginning with the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland), have tended to dwell at fairly considerable length upon possible curtailment of expenditure upon education. I hope that this is no hint of a possible policy. It is certainly very puzzling. I notice that the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) did not refer to that subject at all in what was, to my right hon. Friend and myself, an extremely gratifying speech. There has been reference to the expense of the youth services. That was made by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. S. Marshall) who went so far as to refer to schools possibly being too beautiful, with lavatory accommodation better than that to be found at the Ritz. That was referred to again by the right hon. Member for South Kensington (Mr. Law). He mentioned the fact that physical buildings are important but not as important as the teachers in the schools. With that I entirely agree. But he went on to say that buildings which may be 50 years out of date did not really present an educational catastrophe.
Mr. Law: I was only supporting the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Pargiter) on that point.
Mr. Hardman: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kensington used a phrase concerning the educational budget becoming tight. All this is a little puzzling to those of us who sat on this side of the Committee and listened to his remarks——
Mr. Law: Not if they listen to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Hardman: Our view is that, educational expenditure being about 5 per cent. of the total Revenue of the country, it is not at all an extravagant investment. I would make another point that, if this country is to survive along the lines which the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has emphasised frequently in his public utterances, it must invest in the best possible education. Although I agree that fine buildings do not necessarily make fine schools, I would at least say that the importance of environment as an influence for good on the child, and, even more than on the child, on the teacher, cannot be exaggerated. So we are going to continue providing the finest possible buildings and the finest possible equipment, though, as the Minister said, in doing so we must look carefully into every item of expenditure. Every Department of State is in that position today, and the Ministry of Education does not claim any exemption from it.
Among other points discussed at considerable length by hon. Members on both sides was the question of possible increases in the salaries of the teaching profession. I want to say most emphatically that we do not wish to give any pointer to the body which quite properly has to deal with this particular matter. The Burnham Committee must remain an independent body and must make its recommendations to the Minister in due course. No doubt representations are being made to the Burnham Committee from the teaching profession, and in due course the Committee will make recommendations and my right hon. Friend will consider the matter, but it is not our intention tonight to give any pointer or any direction to that independent body.
I wish to take up one or two other points made by the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle, who asked whether we were teaching the right things in the right way. He referred in his speech to the inspectorate and the possible influence which that body could have upon the teachers in the schools, and upon this very controversial question of examinations which has already been debated in the House. In regard to the first point concerning the influence of the inspectorate,
2088
it is important to remember that our inspectors are constantly meeting teachers, not only in the schools but at refresher courses organised by the local education authorities and by the Ministry, and that these courses are welcomed by every member of the teaching profession. They enable inspectors, from their wide experience in their own areas and in other areas where they have been resident inspectors, to exchange their views with the teachers who are attending these refresher courses.
I should say that never at any time in the history of education in this country was there a more friendly spirit of co-operation between the inspectors of my Department and the teachers than there is at present. Moreover, regarding the inspection of the independent schools, which has been taking place since about April or May of this year, it is gratifying to read the reports already coming in from the headmasters and secretaries of these independent schools. In fact, we can say already, from our experience in the independent schools which have been inspected so far, over 250 of them, that our inspectors have been welcomed in these schools and have earned in some cases golden opinions for the helpful suggestions which they have made from time to time.
The only comment I would like to make on the question of the general certificate to be taken at 16 years of age concerns a point which is brought out again and again when this matter is discussed, namely, the position of the bright boy. We must surely have a sense of perspective about this particular precious individual in the school, but he must not dominate or be allowed to dominate the general curriculum for the average boy or girl. The brainy boys or girls must have everything at their hands to enable them to develop and make their contribution in adult life in whatever branch of service they may take up; but I suggest that the able boy will always advance; he tends to work far more on his own than the average boy, and, in fact, he is likely to be retarded by over-teaching.
A good pupil only wants guidance, and the brainy boy or girl with that guidance from the teacher can generally look after himself or herself much more effectively than the average boy or girl. Indeed, we are without resource and imagination, let alone organisation, if we

2089
accept the argument that because some cannot take an examination until the year after they are ready for it, they must therefore continue preparing for it. From my experience of going about the country week by week and meeting members of the teaching profession, I must confess that one meets many teachers in grammar schools who are against the view held by my right hon. Friend, but, on the other hand, among the younger men and women there is much enthusiasm for my right hon. Friend's decision.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) referred specifically to items concerning backward children in Wales. In answer to the point he raised, I want to say that 10 per cent. of the building provision to be made in 1949 for the backward and handicapped child is to be made in Wales. At present there are 23 schools in Wales for 1,018 such children. In the proposed new expenditure there will be an addition for 247 children in buildings at present existing which will be adapted to accommodate them. Provision will be made, for instance, for the maladjusted, and, in two institutions, for the educationally subnormal child, and also in a school for the deaf.
A specific question was also asked about the Joint Education Committee which has recently been established in Wales. Considerable preliminary work was necessary to get the Joint Education Committee functioning, and that work was done between 1st October, 1948, and 1st April of this year. The Joint Education Committee has now settled down to its labours, and we have already had one representation to the Minister which has been dealt with on a co-operative basis.
The hon. Gentleman the senior Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) asked me three specific questions—what is going to succeed the further education and training scheme; what is to follow the emergency training scheme for teachers, and what, if anything, is to take the place of Horsa. Very briefly, if the working party recommendations are carried out to the full—the working party which has gone into the whole question of further education grants—then they will completely take the place of the further education and training scheme. As far as the emergency training colleges are concerned, it is known
2090
to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that some of these colleges have been turned over for the purpose of training teachers in the two-year training course. Other colleges will certainly not continue to be used for any purpose, because it is physically impossible to continue using Nissen huts for decades. Horsa fulfilled its purpose, and I can suggest nothing which will supersede those huts that were specially constructed for the purpose of raising the school-leaving age.
The hon. Member for York (Mr. Corlett) again brought into the arena of debate the whole question of the freedom of the grammar school to make its own curriculum and to have as much flexibility in teaching as possible. With that, of course, we entirely agree; but I would go further and agree with what he had to say about the influence of the universities upon the curriculum and teaching in the grammar schools. It is to me the antithesis of good sixth form work that produces really educated boys or girls of 18, that boys and girls in the schools should be doing even more than first-year university degree work in the sixth form from 17 to 18 years of age. I hope-I am expressing here a sincere and a personal opinion—that the universities will co-operate more with the grammar schools, and will soon come to a reasonable decision as to what they expect for university entrance. The question of education in universities is naturally a controversial one today. My own view is that universities must pretty quickly, if they are to make a real contribution to the State system, devise some form of educational general degree which produces the type of master or mistress it is hoped will come from the remarkable effort which is beginning at Stoke in North Staffordshire.
The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden did refer—and with this one is in complete sympathy—to the weakness in the school dental service at the present time. My right hon. Friend regrets very much the unfortunate difficulties which have beset the school dental service, just when we were looking forward to steady progress which would greatly benefit the children. Public anxiety about this has emphasised again how important this service is, and how effectively it has been organised through the schools. My right

2091
hon. Friend is doing all he can to help, and I am sure he can rely on the local education authorities to strive for a satisfactory solution, so that the future of the school dental service may be assured.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to what has been described as the "slaughter of the innocents." He was supported in his view by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis). I have no time now to read the appropriate paragraphs in our report of 1947, but I suggest that in paragraphs 48 and 49 of that report we state quite clearly what the view of my right hon. Friend is in regard to village schools. It is of some interest, however, simply to remark that 110 rural schools were closed during 1947 and 131 in 1948. My own view, as one who has had considerable experience in rural areas, is that reorganisation is of certainly great benefit to the child after eight years of age, and that there is certainly in some cases a great deal to be said for maintaining the village school for children under eight years of age.
Reference was made to the school meals service by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden and also my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Brook). Since the end of the war the number of children getting school meals daily has risen by over one million, and the number of schools participating in the school meals service by about 5,000. The percentage of children in attendance taking the school dinner has risen from 36.3 in February, 1945, to 52.8 in February of 1949. The present position is that nearly 2,750,000 children are taking school meals daily, and nearly 27,000 schools or departments are benefiting from the service, leaving only 2,400 still to be brought in. We are aiming at providing for 75 per cent. of the school population. In many areas the actual percentage getting school dinners will be appreciably higher than this. There is still, therefore, a long way to go with the school meals programme as it has developed up till now, but we are proceeding with it as rapidly as the national situation will allow. As the right hon. Gentleman himself said, this is a service in the educational field which has to take its place among the many other competing demands for priority.
2092
Reference has also been made to the content of education, and I also should like to say something upon this subject for a moment or two. Teachers, parents, children and administrators are all involved in making the educational system work to the best advantage to the community as a whole, not only the community today but the community in the next 20, 30, 40 and 50 years. The teachers have got a very special responsibility, and in my view there is no other body of professional people who have more varied duties to perform each day, and who have a more exhausting task, I would almost say per hour, than the teachers in the schools with 40 or 45 children in the classroom. Theirs is a very special responsibility.
Let us for a moment ask ourselves what the average parent expects to get from his child when the boy or girl leaves school at 15 years of age. Frankly, I am not interested in subjects on a certificate. I want my child leaving school at 15, or the grammar school or independent school at 18 years of age, to have, first of all, the development during his school years of a technical skill for which he has a particular aptitude or bias. I want my child to know the elementary principles of science, which I believe can best and most easily be obtained by bringing every child in the school into contact with the soil, with the living earth from which everything springs. I also expect the school to give my child a love of its mother tongue, to have a joy in using it, in either speech or writing. I do not want my child to be known as one who is good at Euclid, trigonometry, geometry, or algebra. I want my child to know something of the significance of numbers and their function and utility in daily life. I also want my child to love passionately one or more of the great arts of mankind: literature, music, the dance, architecture, whatever it may be.
I also expect that from the daily act of corporate worship which takes place in the schools of our land under the Act of 1944 there will be developed in my child a sense of the spiritual significance of life. Only in that way, in my view, can be obtained that spiritual sanity which is the dire necessity of our time. What, in fact, teachers, parents and administrators are trying to produce in our educational system is such a sense of

2093
curiosity and excitement about life that our children, as they grow older, will solve the problem of our time: the production of a culture for our industrial civilisation.
Mr. Linstead: Before sitting down, would the Parliamentary Secretary deal with one point? I raised a very important point about the future of 2,000pupil schools——
It being Ten o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

AIRWAYS CORPORATIONS [MONEY]
Resolution reported:
"That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the merger of the British South American Airways Corporation with the British Overseas Airways Corporation; to authorise the appointment of an additional deputy chairman of the British Overseas Airways Corporation; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) any increase in the amounts chargeable on the Consolidated Fund under section sixteen of the British Overseas Airways Act, 1939, which may be attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session extending the borrowing powers of the British Overseas Airways Corporation;

(b) any increase in the amounts payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under section twelve of the Civil Aviation Act, 1946, which may be attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session authorising the appointment of an additional deputy chairman of the British Overseas Airways Corporation;

(c) any increase attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session in the amounts payable into the Exchequer under section eighteen of the said Act of 1946."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
10.1 p.m.
Mr. Charles Williams: I shall not keep the House more than a minute, but I feel that someone on the Treasury Bench would wish to take advantage of this occasion to give a fuller explanation than was possible on the Committee stage. At this stage of the Resolution we cannot argue the point in any detail, but perhaps the Parliamentary
2094
Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation will be able to give more exact information on detailed figures than was given on the Committee stage. I quite realise that it is not fashionable today in Government circles to let the taxpayer know exactly what he will have to pay on such a Resolution as that before us. Time and time again we have seen various Members of the Government take refuge behind the plea that obviously they did not know how much would be spent.
Until a comparatively few years ago it was always assumed that, when the Government came to the House with an estimate of this sort, we should have some idea of the total amount which might be needed. It would be wrong on the part of this House if, in view of what we have been told by various Members of the Government, more particularly by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we did not scrutinise as closely as we can the various financial estimates. For that reason I am sure the Government would be only too pleased to give us fuller details than they were able to give on the Committee stage.
Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Ernest Thurtle added to the Select Committee on Publications and Debates Reports.—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

ROAD HAULIERS (PERMITS)
10.3 p.m.
Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: I beg to move,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Regulations, dated 25th May, 1949, entitled the Goods Vehicles (Permits) Regulations, 1949 (S.I., 1949, No. 1008), a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th May, be annulled."
These regulations are made under Section 53 of the Transport Act, 1947. If I might explain what is the instrument we are seeking to annul, I would say that Section 53 deals with those road hauliers who were not taken over and nationalised under the Transport Act, because there was not a sufficiency of their work of a long-distance character to bring them into the scheme. If they are to carry on their businesses at all, it is necessary

2095
under Section 53 that they should obtain permission to do so. Under the curious system which has been adopted by His Majesty's Government they have to make application to their principal competitors, the Commission, who are able to grant or refuse their application.
What we are concerned with here is about details as to who should make application for permission of that kind, which is called an original permit, the terms upon which that original permit can be granted, and the time limit within which the application must be made. There are two orders about it which have been made by the Minister. One is No. 1007, which fixes the appointed day at 1st July. We must not talk about that order beyond referring to the fact that that was the date, because it is not an order which has to be laid on the Table. We are not praying against it tonight. The order against which we pray is that which says that all applications have to be in within one month from that date-which, making allowance for the Bank Holiday and a few other frills of that kind, apparently comes out at 3rd August.
The first point on which I want information is: Who can make an application? According to paragraph 53 of the regulation as it is now drafted, a person, to be free to make an application, has to be an A or B licence holder who was carrying goods for hire or reward on 28th November, 1946. Suppose the person who was doing that subsequently turned his business into a private company so, technically speaking, being no longer a private individual; is he still free to make an application?
Suppose he was in partnership on 28th November, 1946, and that for financial or some other reason changed his partners, or they left him; is he still free to be treated as the same business—as in fact he is—as the one which was carrying on on that date? Suppose a person was the owner of a small business with two or three lorries on 28th November, 1946, and subsequently died. His widow is in possession of the business. Is she free to take advantage of this order, or not? My information on this subject is that these people are ruled out for some reason or another. I may be wrong. I ask the House to believe
2096
that these regulations are a little complicated. If they are ruled out, I am bound to say that the House has very considerable cause to complain and to look at the order extremely carefully before letting it go.
The second point concerns the policy which the Minister, or I suppose the Commission, will adopt in granting these orders. Sir Cyril Hurcomb, chairman of the Transport Commission and an influential person in transport policy, expressed his view on the matter quite recently. He said that the policy would be to be generous in granting the original permits, but when the renewal of the permits came up more difficult decisions would have to be made. I think I am right in saying that the difficulties he envisaged were not such as will concern Sir Cyril, but such as will concern the applicants for the permits when they come up on the next occasion.
At this stage of the proceedings, when we are dealing with regulations under which these applications are to be made, it is most important that prospective applicants should be told what the policy is. Are they to be invited to make an application for an original permit now only to be thrown out of business the moment they have served a useful purpose in one, two or three years' time? If that is the policy of the Government we ought to be informed before we let the order pass.
The people who can refuse the renewal of a permit are the commission themselves, and these people are the competitors of the Commission. If what the Minister has been saying recently is right, he is going to try to put up the profits of the road industry to try to pay the losses on the railways. It may be that individual hauliers running at economic road costs would knock the Commission out of business, in which case the Commission might easily refuse the permits in a year or two's time. We ought to be told this at any early stage.
The third and last point is the question of time. We think the time is much too short. An appointed day on 1st July and all applications in by 3rd August is too short a period. We always say that it is all right in the House of Commons because we always suppose we can understand these orders—I am not sure that I always can—but it is not so easy for an

2097
individual haulier who sees this sort of thing. This is from paragraph 5 of the Order:
"For the purposes of subsection (2) of Section 53 of the Act … the prescribed period after any application so made has been dealt with by the Executive, until the elapse of which the condition provided for by subsection (1) of Section 52 of the Act is not to operate so as to prevent the doing of anything which could lawfully have been done if a permit had been granted in all respects in accordance with the application for an original permit, shall be one month or the period expiring one month after the day which is the appointed day for the purposes of the provisions of subsection (1) of Section 52 of the Act, whichever is the longer."
I have no doubt that that is crystal clear to all of us in the House of Commons, but we have to bear in mind that the road haulier, who is doing an honest job of work—I am not saying that we are not doing the same here—may have a little difficulty in assessing the full implications of a passage of that character. Some lawyers might be a little puzzled about it. Yet the haulier is asked to do it during one month, the month of July, which many people—not hon. Members—regard as a holiday month. Many members of staffs will be away, and those who are present are probably working at double pressure. I believe that a substantial case is made out, and I cannot think that the Minister would lose anything in giving some extension of time so that this matter may be fully looked at. I know that the Minister will say that references have appeared in the Press, but it takes a little time to bring these things home.
The second point on time is this. In the application for an original permit it is necessary for the applicant to specify his operating centre, that is, the place from which he will operate. That is nothing like as simple as one might think. When we are dealing with a 25-mile limit it matters a great deal where one fixes one's operating centre. It may place a township just inside or outside one's sphere of operations. If there is any question about the operating centre, one has to apply to the licensing authority to fix it. At present hundreds of applications to licensing authorities have not yet been dealt with. That is to say, the very machinery which the Minister has set up has not yet functioned in order to tell these people where is the place which is their operating centre.
2098
It is perfectly true, and I know the Minister will say this, that the Ministry or the Transport Commission have said, "Do not worry about that. If you put in your application and say that you have already applied to the licensing authority to fix your operating centre, we will treat that as good enough." It sounds all right, but I do not think it lies in the mouth of the Minister to say to the road hauliers, "You do everything within a month although we admit that our machinery has not yet gone through its proper processess." That is not fair. If the licensing authority finds difficulty in doing these things, believe me, the small road hauliers find a great deal of difficulty too. That is a second and substantial argument for postponing the matter until the licensing authorities at least have done their work.
My third and last suggestion is this: why does the Minister rely simply upon occasional statements in the newspapers or over the broadcasting system? Why not for once—it is only for once—in simple language notify these hauliers, who are known and licensed direct, of their rights; it can quite well be done—and let them apply for their original permit or not. This is done regularly in other fields. Under the Road Haulage Wages Act, 1938, or now under the Wages Board, whenever there is a change in wages and conditions every road haulier has to be informed in order that he shall comply with those changes, and properly so. If it is the practice to inform the road haulier about the wages and conditions which he ought to have in his industry, surely it is not asking too much to inform him as to his rights of compensation and original permits?
I hope I have indicated to the House that here is a substantial matter which requires considerable investigation. There is a real point about who can apply, there is a real point about the policy to be applied, and in any event I suggest to the Minister that I have made out what I hope is a convincing case for some extension of time.
Sir John Mellor: I beg to second the Motion.
10.17 p.m.
Mr. Ernest Davies: The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) has made rather a mountain out

2099
of a molehill over the order now before us. He is being a little naïve, may be consciously so, when he suggests that the road hauliers are not really clear as to what this order means, that they were more or less in ignorance of what would happen under this Act, and that now they are in effect taken by surprise and have not the time and wit to fulfil the requirements of this order. After all, the Royal Assent was given to the Transport Act on 6th August, 1947, and by the time this order comes into force, and a month expires, it will be practically two years since that date.
As we all remember, while the Bill was going through its various stages, the road hauliers were not unaware of what was in the Bill, inasmuch as we were all subject to considerable pressure from the Road Hauliers' Association, particularly as regards the small man, for whom the big organisations claimed they were speaking at that time. If that was so, surely they have kept him informed since? Again, the Minister in various ways has drawn attention to this order, and the Road Transport Executive has itself published an explanation of it. As far as the small man, or any road haulier is concerned, I cannot see that there is any difficulty whatever in fulfilling the requirements of this order in applying for permits.
There is nothing really complicated about it. Any of us can get up in this House and read out a Statutory Instrument very quickly so that nobody, even the expert connected with the industry, is able to understand it. All Acts of Parliament and Statutory Instruments require to be studied to be understood. That is not the fault of the draftsmen but because of the technical matters involved. It is not fair to this House merely to read certain extracts from an order out of their context for the purpose of suggesting that the Measure is a complicated one. The order is in the road hauliers' own interests, as they are very well aware. They are not lacking by any means in looking after their own interests. If they apply for the original permits and are refused, they can ask to be taken over compulsorily and will receive ample compensation. If, on the other hand, the Prayer were accepted and the order, in consequence annulled, it
2100
would mean that those who want to apply for permits would be prevented from doing so and there would be no machinery by which they could be compulsorily acquired.
The order is necessary because only by its acceptance can the next step in the nationalisation of road haulage be carried out. Until the order is effective and these permits have been granted, it will not be possible for the Minister to fix the date subsequent to which no one will be able to carry goods for hire or reward without a permit beyond the 25-mile radius. As it is essential that that date should be fixed soon, it is necessary that the order should come into effect as speedily as possible. Until the date is fixed, we shall not be able to complete this process of nationalisation, which, in my view, has been too long delayed.
My criticism of the order is not that it gives insufficient time to road hauliers to file their applications for permits but that it should have been made many months ago. During those months of delay there has been a deterioration in the road transport industry as far as future acquisition by the nationalised industry is concerned. The process of integration of the public transport system has been delayed and many of the difficulties we are now experiencing as regards both railways and roads are due, not to any fault of my right hon. Friend the Minister, but to the failure to speed up the process of acquisition of road transport. Therefore, to state now that after two years this order requires further consideration and delay is only a manoeuvre on the part of the Opposition to postpone what they consider to be the evil day when the complete nationalisation of road transport is effected.
10.23 p.m.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): It has been refreshing once again to listen to the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) trying to arouse interest and enthusiasm on subjects which we debated at length when the Transport Act was passing through the House. Tonight the hon. Member has put three issues before me. The first relates to persons for whom provision was made in the Act to claim rights in the form of a permit under Sections 52 and 53. The question I am asked is whether that right has been lost

2101
in the intervening period if there has been any change of ownership, either in the form of a partnership or company or because of death, as the case may be.
Let me state at once that that is the case and that that right cannot be transferred. But whether the regulations are annulled tonight or not cannot in any way affect the situation. Licences never have been transferable, and in Section 53 of the Act it is laid down quite clearly that the right to make a claim or to submit an application for a permit rests with the individual owner of the licence at the date specified.
Mr. Thorneycroft: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question on that? Owing to the Guillotine procedure on the Transport Bill, arrangements which would have safeguarded widows and others concerned were cut out. I cannot think the right hon. Gentleman would willingly accept that situation. Does he really mean that when a man has died and his widow has taken on the business, she is to have none of the safeguards of the Act?
Mr. Barnes: That matter was determined when the Transport Act was passed by this House, and it has never been the case that licences could be transferred. We are dealing with regulations under an Act that has been already passed, and I am dealing with a specific point put to me and explaining that it has no relation to the regulations.
The second point about which the hon. Member asked was whether I could disclose the policy of the British Transport Commission towards hauliers who should succeed in getting a permit under these regulations. I cannot foretell what will happen in regard to these matters, hut I am entitled to point out that the whole purpose of the Act was to give the British Transport Commission a monopoly of long-distance road transport. That was the policy and purpose of the Act. The hon. Member contested that Act under all the facilities provided by Parliament, but eventually Parliament endorsed those provisions. All the regulations do is to put those provisions into operation. I do not consider that his criticism is justified.
What was provided in section 53 was that any haulier engaged in long-distance transport in November, 1946, could apply to the British Transport Commission,
2102
but I must emphasise that the Act laid down quite clearly that it is within the discretion of the British Transport Commission whether they should grant that permit or attach any conditions to the permit. Parliament through this Act proceeded to give the operator, if for any reason the British Transport Commission decided not to grant him an original permit, or if they attached conditions which substantially injured his business, the right to request the British Transport Commission either to acquire the whole of his business or a part of his business, and these regulations are simply giving effect to that provision.
The real point of this discussion comes down to the timing of these regulations. I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies) has pointed out. I also accept the position that as Parliament has made these provisions, it is very desirable that every person entitled to them should have the fullest opportunity of exercising his rights. I do not dispute that for a moment, but share with everyone the desire to do everything possible to make sure that individuals know what their rights are under the Act.
Where I differ from the hon. Member for Monmouth is that I cannot conceive for a moment that any haulier in this country can be unaware of the situation. When the Act was passing through Parliament, the Road Haulage Association undertook a nation-wide campaign, and I doubt very much whether any haulier in the country was not fully acquainted with what Parliament and the Labour Government were doing at that time. In the provisions of the Act arrangements were made whereby the Commission could acquire haulage undertakings by a process of agreement. For a long period ever since the passing of the Act the British Transport Commission have been engaged in the process of acquiring some of the most important road haulage undertakings in this country by a process of voluntary acquisition. These acquisitions have been fully publicised in the Press and the trade papers and are generally known throughout the industry.
With regard to the framing of these regulations, I can assure the House that the Road Haulage Association, which acts for the private hauliers, have been consulted at every stage. As a matter of

2103
fact, in some respects the regulations have been altered to meet the wishes and representations of the body acting for the road hauliers. In regard to publicity, the Ministry have notified the Press, both national and local, and all the trade and technical journals of this industry, and have arranged for a broadcast. The Road Haulage Association have circularised all their members.
The plea of the hon. Member for Monmouth comes to this, that there may be some person, or a few persons—I do not know—who have shut themselves off from their trade Press and are not even members of their trade association, who have not been provided for. This is the kind of question put to us on an important matter of this description after two or three years of voluntary acquisition. We have not used the compulsory powers under the Act immediately the Act was passed. We have allowed such a considerable period to elapse that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies) has pointed out, the British Transport Commission, and myself, if you like, could almost be subjected to criticism for not applying these regulations earlier than we have done.
I assure hon. Members that we are going to carry through the same process during July. We are going to notify the Press and circularise all the technical and trade journals again. I should like from this Box particularly to appeal to the local weekly journals throughout the country to publicise this date in case there should be any person who has not yet come across this information. I could hardly conceive for a moment, with all the arrangements we have made, that there is any foundation for the case put forward tonight. I think we can all realise that what it really comes down to is a last fling by the hon. Member for Monmouth against an Act of Parliament that he detests in principle but which we have been successful in carrying against the opposition of the hon. Member and other people.
10.34 p.m.
Mr. Charles Williams: I was, frankly, rather horrified by the attitude taken by the right hon. Gentleman. I have known him for a considerable while, and it has always struck me that if there was anyone on the other side of the House who might have some sympathy
2104
with the smaller people of this country, it would be the right hon. Gentleman. I also thought that at the back of his mind he had a great deal of the feeling which exists in so many people's minds—a lack of desire to set up monopolies. Yet tonight he was rejoicing because the Government, through this order, complete the monopoly which is working so badly today.
I thought that after the appeal which the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) made, the right hon. Gentleman might have given some further adjustment—a few weeks in which to give these people time to make their preparations. I quite realise that they have a very efficient organisation, and I realise, also, from what the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies) said, that that organisation is pretty thoroughly disliked in some quarters of this House. Hon. Members opposite always seem to dislike anyone who opposes their ideas. But because there is an efficient organisation, that is no reason for pushing through an order of this sort, after a delay of two years, with only one month for those concerned to carry it out.
I was also very sorry when I heard the right hon. Gentleman saying that he could not give any help at all in the case, say, of a business being carried on by a son whose father had died. That, apparently, is ruled out by the policy that the licence shall not be extended in those cases. We have in this order, as was said by the hon. Member for Enfield, another step towards fuller nationalisation in this industry. There has been a delay of two years. We have learned a great deal about nationalisation in those two years. The public has also learned during that period, that it is not getting any benefits at all.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is now going a little wide of the subject.
Mr. Williams: I was just referring, Mr. Speaker, to what the hon. Member for Enfield said, namely, that this was a step towards fuller nationalisation. It is a step which has been hurried on. Surely, after two years' consideration, it is not very much to ask for rather more than a month. That is all we are asking tonight. I regret that the Minister will not meet the position of small people and of others in this respect. I do not think anyone listening to this Debate could be other-

2105
wise than astonished at the complete lack of sympathy for anyone but the great monopoly which has been shown by the hon. Member for Enfield and the Minister. I am glad to be able to say that the Tory Party has always stood by the small man. The main force of the appeal behind this Prayer is not the big haulage systems, but rather the feeling of many of us who thoroughly believe that an exemption should be made and a longer interval given, in the interest of the whole industry, and particularly those in whom we are interested—the small men.
10.38 p.m.
Mr. David Renton: I hope that the House will forgive my not being present at the beginning of this Debate for reasons which it will readily observe. I am inclined to agree with the Minister, that the most important point about the order is the question of timing. It is to that point that I wish to address my few remarks. Fifteen years ago the Road and Rail Traffic Act was brought into being, and all those operators who previously had served the community by carrying goods for it were made to put in applications. If they became founder members, or basic operators, as they were known technically, they had the right to start operating without proof of public need and all the trouble which was at that time involved.
Now we have a closely analogous system. Those who make their applications within the time specified will become founder members under the new order. It is not an order which I welcome personally, but we owe it to the people who are now providing services for their neighbours, for the community, that if they are genuine operators, they should have every opportunity to make their applications. It is because we believe, for reasons which I will detail in a moment, that not all the operators in this country who are providing such services will have had the opportunity of filling in their forms correctly in duplicate that we think some more time should be granted.
The Minister has, if I may say so with respect, hidden behind the skirts of the Road Hauliers' Association. He has probably negotiated with them; but two factors, I suggest, he has overlooked. First, not all the small operators are members of the Road Hauliers' Association,
2106
and there are a large number of operators—small ones, especially in the more remote rural areas—who do not have the advantage of the information services which that excellent association provides; and I know from my own knowledge in my constituency that there is frequently to be found the case of the small man who is really very busy with his one or two vehicles and who can give really very little time to the reading of the instructions of a most voluminous nature put out by the Government, the B.B.C., the haulage associations, and what have you.
It would be a thousand pities, not only for these operators, but, more important, for the people they serve, if they were excluded from the provisions of the order and put to the considerable burden of going to a licensing court, proving against all the weight of the Transport Commission that they are people who have been serving their neighbours and who can go on serving them, and who have every right to do so. The hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies) tried to say that every small operator in this country should have been expected to understand that by the end of July, or the beginning of August, he had to put in his application to be a founder-member. But I suggest that that is a false assumption to make; many of these people were perhaps lulled into a sense of false security, and here, perhaps, the hon. Member for Enfield has a point.
I do not agree with him that the operation of the Transport Act should not indefinitely have been postponed; but I do not agree that the delay in putting the Act into operation is a thing for which we should castigate the Government. I think the greater the delay the better in many ways, because it gives a greater opportunity for the forces of freedom to work for the benefit of the community. But the fact that there has been this delay may have lulled a number of small people into a sense of false security because they have not had the opportunity to take a close note of all the regulations which have come out. They thought they were safe and outside the provisions of the Transport Act; now, from this order, we find that they can be got into the net.
Mr. Ernest Davies: Surely the hon. Member will admit that every road haulier has been examining his position,

2107
vis-à-vis the Act, ever since it was introduced into this House? He would not deceive himself into believing that the Act would not be carried out, and that the Minister would not fulfil his functions under the Act.
Mr. Renton: I make no such admission for the very simple reason that the party opposite are frequently and falsely pretending to be the friends of the small man in any kind of business. They are always stressing the fact that the Socialist Government are taking over the railways and the long-distance big hauliers, and many small people have grounds to believe that they will never be touched in their businesses. But this order, unless they scrutinise it carefully, get hold of the right forms, and fill them in correctly, will deprive them, possibly forever, of their businesses, and I speak not without experience of the Act of a previous Government, the Act of 1933, which I mentioned; and if they do not succeed, having failed to surmount this obstacle, in later proving their needs, which will not be an easy matter to prove technically, then, as I say, they will be out of their life's business and their neighbours will be deprived of their services.
Mr. Ernest Davies: They will be able to carry on within 25 miles.
Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman must have a woeful lack of knowledge of what goes on in rural areas if he seriously believes a 25-mile radius enables many of the journeys, which are needed to be performed by villagers, to be covered. I do not wish to weary the House with this point, although it is a very important one. Frankly, I very much doubt if a useful purpose would be served by dividing against this order; but I can think of one very useful thing that might be done, and that would be if this Government were thrown out of office by the people of this country so that this Transport Act which is going to prove so disastrous to industry——
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is getting out of Order.
Mr. Renton: I think that this order has been very badly timed indeed and that, in spite of the Minister's effort to give publicity, not enough publicity has been given to the people who are concerned and I see no reason at all why an individual notice should not have been
2108
sent to each operator. The licensing authorities have, or should have absolutely complete, records of every single operator in this country; and when one thinks of the amount of paper that is poured out from Government Departments, there is no reason at all why an order should not, and there is every reason from the point of view of fairness and justice, why an order should be, sent to every operator affected by this regulation. If there had been an individual notice sent, then perhaps we should have had much less reason for complaining about this order. It is not too late for the Minister to rectify this order and mend his ways by sending out an individual notice, and I strongly urge him to do so.
10.49 p.m.
Sir William Darling: I frankly confess I knew nothing about this order until I saw it on the Order Paper, but the House has heard sufficient to admit that there is some substance in the claim made by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft). It is said that we will not divide the House on this question, and I do not want to divide, but none the less I think the House should give some small attention to the fact that this is obviously an order which is imperfectly understood throughout the country. I can understand that the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies) is familiar with it. He has given very creditable and long service to the study of this question, but I can assure him that the hauliers I know, have not his intellectual grasp nor his passion for nationalisation. The hauliers I know are persons very much of my own mental calibre and the document I have looked at seems a very incomprehensible one even to persons who have some familiarity of documents of that kind.
The Minister is aware of the kind of men he is addressing in this order. They are men who live hard and laborious lives—[Interruption.] Someone may indulge in mocking laughter, but I repeat that road hauliers live hard and laborious lives. They do not know an eight-hour day or a 42-hour week. They serve the public as and when the public demand their services, and the public are not always careful or considerate in their demands. I suggest to the Minister that he well knows that these men live hard

2109
and laborious lives. They are not men of culture; they are not men of knowledge and experience in public affairs. They work night and day.
I agree with my hon. Friend for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) that their reluctance to accept this order is very natural. Let the House consider the man who, at the end of the 1914–18 war bought a lorry and set up in business as a haulier. He can hardly believe that the Government, which doubtless he supported, are now proposing to take from him his livelihood. It is difficult for him to believe that he is to be deprived of his business which he has operated for over a quarter of a century and with at any rate a modicum of public support. I can understand the stupefaction with which these men have heard of the action of the Government, and it is for that reason that I submit this plea that the Minister should reconsider this order and give us, shall we say, another 30 days, which would meet the view that it is not sufficiently widely known.
I cannot acquiesce in this order at all unless my information is complete on this matter. These are questions which any hon. Member would be entitled to ask, but I am certain there are few hon. Members who know the answers. To how many operators in Scotland does this order apply? For how many are we legislating? Upon whom are we laying this burden? To how many vehicles does this apply in the United Kingdom? How many have agreed to the settlement to which the right hon. Gentleman refers? I know the "big fellows" have. The Scottish Motor Transport Corporation—a great and successful corporation—has made an agreement. The Tillings Company have fixed up their agreement. But what about the hundreds—maybe thousands—of little men? They have made no agreement, either through inefficiency, ineptitude, ignorance or sloth. Surely they are entitled to further consideration. I wish to know how many employees are concerned in this business? What is their balance sheet? What is their contribution to the national revenue? How much do they pay in motor licences? What do they pay in local rates? These really are facts we ought to know.
The Minister has said that the trade Press deals with this. I happen to be a newsagent, among other things; I sell papers for a livelihood. I do not know
2110
of any journal which deals with this business. I can assure the Minister that in the couple of businesses I operate I do not know the name of any journal. I know the name of the "Daily Herald" and the "Spectator" and a dozen other papers, but I do not know the name of any journal to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. Its circulation must be very limited, and I would suggest that it is not widely read. If there is such a journal—and I accept the assurance of the Minister that there is—it must be mainly composed of advertisements in connection with oils and motor bodies and things of that character. I suggest that his claim that he has published this information in the trade journals is not true. Since when has it been the function of a trade organisation to do the work of the Government? I understand that the trade unions are not compelled to require their members to understand the Government's policy. How, then, are trade associations compelled to tell their members these things?
I suggest that these are pertinent points in supplement to what we have heard already, and I beg the Minister, as a concession, as a mark of grace, to show that he feels there is something in the arguments which have been advanced from this side tonight, by giving another 30 days before he makes this order.
10.55 p.m.
Mr. McKie: I am sorry that throughout the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) the Minister seemed to be treating the whole thing as a joke. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that in many of the areas of Scotland he will find many people connected with the Road Hauliers' Association and the road haulage enterprises all round who would agree with every word which my hon. Friend said. As representing a very large, sparsely-populated area in Scotland, where road haulage bulks very largely in our life, I must point out that the Minister must study the map every day in bringing out these orders and he must appreciate the situation. He should seriously think again before imposing this order in the high-handed and arbitrary manner in which he is imposing it.
I see some hon. Members opposite indicating dissent from that and tacit assent with the Minister's action, but this is a serious matter, affecting the livelihood

2111
of small people in this country who have invested a large proportion of their capital or their small savings—hon. Members opposite may prefer that word—in this kind of enterprise and who now are being ruthlessly, at very short notice, deprived of their whole life's work. What is even more important, it is likely that large numbers of the public in the rural areas will be deprived of their transport as well. The Minister is, no doubt, conversant with the many stoppages of transport in this country, and he may not think this a serious consideration, but I can assure him that in agricultural circles, when this Debate is read, what he has said tonight will be received with a large measure of disapproval, and that what my hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh said on this matter, as it affects rural areas, will meet with a large measure of approval.
This matter has not been raised in a spirit of seeking to score points against the Government. Perhaps when hon. Members opposite sit on this side of the House in the next Parliament—as they surely will—they will seek to score points simply for the purpose of doing so, but that is not our purpose—very much the opposite. We have raised the matter simply to try to serve the people whom we have been sent here to represent to the best of our endeavours. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the spirit of levity with which he has approached this Prayer will, if the report of this Debate is read—and I hope it will receive the widest publicity—by those who are most intimately concerned, be regarded, in rather cheap language, as very poor stuff indeed.
I beg the right hon. Gentleman to realise that the kind of way in which he is trying to jeopardise the interests of the small haulier and, even above that, of the whole system, may easily injure rural transport in the sparsely-populated areas, and jeopardise its efficient running. Surely he will see that there is considerable substance in our arguments that the period should be extended. I hope he may seek permission of the House to speak again, or perhaps one of the Lords of the Treasury, or the Chief Patronage Secretary will speak, and tell us that the Government will vary this order.
Question put, and negatived.

ARMED FORCES (ACCIDENTS LIABILITY)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]
11.0 p.m.
Mr. Swingler: I am raising the subject of the administration by the Minister of Pensions of his powers under the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, and the issue of certificates of attributability in certain cases. I must open by explaining, or recalling, to the House the contents of Section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, about the administration of which I wish to raise certain points. This Section deals with the exemption of the Crown from liability in tort for causing fatal accidents or injuries in the Armed Forces. The provisions of this Section state that the Crown is not liable on two conditions to claims at Common Law in the case of accidents caused in the Armed Forces.
The first condition is that the person concerned—a soldier, sailor or airman—is on duty at the time of the accident occurring, and of the injury being sustained, and the second is that the Minister of Pensions certifies that the death or injury has been, or will be, attributable to service for the purposes of entitlement to pension of the person concerned, or the parents of the person in the case of death. The question I want to ask is how does the Minister of Pension administer the subsection of Section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act which gives him power to issue these certificates of attributability to military service in the case of death or injury being caused in the Armed Forces.
Last autumn the son of a constituent of mine who had been called up for National Service was run over by a tank trailer while he was inspecting the vehicle, and he was killed. The circumstances of the accident were fully examined at the inquest, at which the father was represented by a solicitor. At the inquest the coroner made some pretty sharp comments about the circumstances surrounding this fatal accident. He said, for example, that it appeared to him that the method of inspecting vehicles at this unit was haphazard; that the accident disclosed an unsatisfactory state of affairs; that the system of supervision

2113
was hopeless, and that, in his opinion, it was only by the grace of God that accidents of this character had not in fact occurred previously.
I think that anybody reading the report of that inquest and what the coroner stated would clearly see that negligence on the part of an individual or individuals was implied. Furthermore, after the inquest had taken place the coroner drew the attention of the solicitor representing the father to his—the coroner's—right to hold certain photographs of the circumstances surrounding this case, so that if necessary they could be used in civil proceedings.
When this case was brought to my notice I had some correspondence with the firm of solicitors which represented the father of this lad at the inquest last October. I do not propose to read much of what was stated in that correspondence, but I should like to give the purport of one of them, dated 21st March, this year. After attending the inquest and perusing the evidence, the firm came to the conclusion that in normal circumstances a claim for negligence both against the driver of the vehicle and the authorities might be expected to prove successful, but any right of action was barred under Section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act. Proceedings in this case were contemplated by the father and his solicitors, but they were immediately notified by the Treasury Solicitor——
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman mentioned just now that this was barred by Section 10 of a particular Act. Is he now talking of matters which involve legislation? If so, they are out of Order on the Adjournment.
Mr. Swingler: I think I can explain that point. My remarks were a paraphrase of the solicitors' letter to me. What they meant was that if the Minister of Pensions used his power to issue a certificate of attributability under Section 10 of the Act, then legal proceedings would be barred, and the solicitors knew at the time of writing that the Treasury Solicitor had in fact notified them that if legal proceedings were started against the Crown in this case, the Minister of Pensions would then use his power under Section 10 to issue a certificate of attributability, and that then proceedings would be barred. The point I am concerned
2114
with is the way in which the Minister of Pensions administers this power—not the question of legislation.
Mr. Leslie Hale: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the father. Was the deceased a single man?
Mr. Swingler: He was a single man—a young lad doing his National Service. The firm were the solicitors to his father. In fact, the Minister of Pensions did not issue a certificate, although the Treasury Solicitor informed the father of this lad that he would do so if legal proceedings were started. I raised this point with the Minister, and in a letter dated 18th May, he said:
"In actual fact I have not issued a certificate under the Act regarding Private X"—
I do not intend to give the soldier's name—
"but if his father does institute proceedings against the Crown I shall undoubtedly have to do so, as both Private X and the man responsible for his fatal injuries were on duty, and under the Royal Warrant the death was accordingly attributable to war service."
It seems to me, from what is stated in the Minister's letter, that it is there implied by the Minister that the issue of this certificate attributing the accident to what he calls war service is automatic. He says that the person concerned in the accident and the man responsible for the fatal injuries were on duty, which in fact is the first provision put into Section 10 of the Act. The same point was also made by the Minister in reply to a supplementary question of mine on 21st June, when I raised with him the number of cases in which he had used this power under Section 10 of the Act. I asked him:
"Will the Minister say whether the issue of these certificates is automatic if it is proved that the soldier, sailor or airman was on duty at the time of the accident?"
The Minister replied:
"If he is on duty I am obliged by the Statute to issue the necessary certificate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st June, 1949; Vol. 466, c. 23.]
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will tonight put this point right, because I think that, in reply to that supplementary question, the Minister made a slip. He had said, in answer to the original Question, that there was a case in which he had refused to issue a certificate on the ground that the injury was sustained during a brawl, and it is clear that in that

2115
case the persons concerned must have been on duty, otherwise the question would never have arisen of the Minister issuing a certificate. The issue is not automatic. The Minister considered the accident was not attributable to service, and therefore he decided not to issue a certificate in that case.
The principal question I want to ask is how the Minister assesses, in administering this power, what is attributability to service. It seems clear that it is not merely a question of being on duty or not on duty. The Minister is bound, according to the Statute, to consider the merits of the case. If, in the case of an accident leading to injury or death, there is negligence involved, or supposing there is gross negligence, should the Minister use his power to issue a certificate of attributability to service? Here was a case where presumably there was a brawl in barracks that led to the causing of an injury. Although the persons concerned were technically on duty as members of the Armed Forces, the Minister considered that he ought not to issue a certificate of attributability because there were other factors to be taken into account. I believe that in the case I have raised the factor of negligence on the part of the individual, or the authorities, ought to be taken into account. Where there is serious negligence involved, the Minister ought not to issue automatically a certificate saying that the accident was attributable to service.
The second question I want to ask is why the Minister cannot withhold his decision about entitlement to pension. Why must he, when legal proceedings are starting, or about to start—or when he knows, as in this case, that the father's solicitors are preparing a case against the Crown—why must he immediately say that he will issue a certificate if legal proceedings are started? There is nothing in the Statute which says that he must do that. The Statute says that the Crown is not liable in the case of such accidents if the Minister certifies that they are attributable to service. There is nothing to say the Minister must issue a certificate about entitlement to pension to stop legal proceedings against the Crown.
We all realise that the Armed Forces must be protected against actions, particularly where in the case of warlike
2116
acts and because special risks have to be taken in the Armed Forces; but it does not appear to me that either the intention or the letter of Section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act means that the Minister of Pensions should protect the Crown where accidents occur in which there is serious negligence on the part of the individual or of the authorities. The intention was to allow as far as possible, in the case of the Armed Forces as in other cases, the citizens' right to make a claim on the Crown at Common Law.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will take the opportunity tonight to explain the precise manner in which the Minister administers this power, which I think all would agree is an important responsibility in cases where, very often, grave hardship is felt; the manner in which he assesses the merits and factors causing accidents and injuries and, in particular, the reason why, in the case of my constituent, he proposes to use the power to issue a certificate of attributability to service to take away the right to make a claim against the Crown.
11.16 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Mr. Simmons): I apologise to my hon. Friend and to the House for having been a little late in coming in. The hon. Member is under a little misapprehension as to the position in relation to Section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act in one or two instances. The purpose of the Act is to place the Crown, for the purposes of the law of torts, in the same position, so far as practicable, as a private person. It has the effect of enabling a person to bring an action against the Crown in the same way as against any other person. This is a practicable and proper arrangement over the field of activities of the Crown which have an analogy in private undertakings.
There are, however, some necessary functions of the Government in relation to Defence and the maintenance of the Defence Forces where the analogy between the Crown and a private person breaks down. The maintenance and training of the Armed Forces involves operations undertaken at risks which are essential for securing efficiency, such as the use of live ammunition in training, driving heavy armoured vehicles and operations of that kind. These operations, if

2117
carried out by a private citizen, would no doubt be extremely blameworthy, but it is impossible, as was accepted by the House in 1947 when the Crown Proceedings Act was passed, to apply the ordinary law of tort in these cases. Moreover, it would be impossible to risk prejudice to the efficiency and discipline of the Armed Forces by placing an officer or soldier in the position of feeling that, if he had made a mistake and personal injuries resulted to another soldier or man under his command, an action for negligence would lie.
Parliament has provided by Section 10 of the Act that the Crown and any member of the Armed Forces should be exempt from liability in respect of the death or personal injury suffered by another member of the Forces in certain circumstances: where both members were on duty; where the injured member, though not on duty, was injured by the act of a fellow member on duty if the accident causing injury or death happened on military premises or vehicles; and thirdly, where the injured member was injured in consequence of the nature or condition of any military land, premises, vehicles, etc.
This exemption is subject to the very important limitation, that it does not operate except where the event giving rise to death or injury is certified by the Minister of Pensions as attributable to service for the purpose of pension. In addition, the Act specifically withholds exemption from the defaulting member of the Forces where his act or omission was not connected with his duties as a member of the Forces.
In the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Swingler), the soldier concerned was involved in a brawl. It cannot be said that if a soldier on duty indulged in a brawl, the brawl was connected with his actual duties as a member of the Forces. In the particular case in which the hon. Member is interested, the member of the Forces whilst on duty sustained fatal injuries which were a result of an act by another member, also on duty, the act being connected with the execution of those duties. Under the Royal Warrant administered by my right hon. Friend, the death was clearly attributable to service and if proceedings are brought against the Crown at Common Law for damages, my right
2118
hon. Friend will, in accordance with Section 10 of the Act, issue a certificate of attributability if requested to do so. All my right hon. Friend has to do under the Section is to issue a certificate in certain circumstances, stating whether or not an injury or death will be accepted under the Royal Warrant, or the corresponding instrument, as attributable to service. The hon. Member for Stafford raised the question of the automatic issue of these certificates. I should make it clear that a certificate is not issued automatically. Obviously it is required only when proceedings are contemplated, and it is furnished by my right hon. Friend only upon request.
I should like to take the three specific points referred to by the hon. Member. First, he contends that the accident which he has in mind was not properly attributable to military service. The ground upon which he bases this is that negligence and inefficiency on the part of the authorities were involved. Considerations of negligence are irrelevant to the question of the issue of certificates under Section 10. The Section does not specify the circumstances in which an injury is, or is not, properly to be regarded as attributable to service. This is a matter to be decided solely in accordance with the provisions of the Royal Warrant, or the corresponding instrument administered by my right hon. Friend, with due regard to the interpretation of these provisions given by the courts under the Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act, 1943.
Mr. Swingler: Surely, under this Section the right hon. Gentleman has the power to decide whether a man's suffering an accident is attributable to his service. In what way does the Minister decide whether that is attributable to service? Surely the causes of the accident must be taken into account. If negligence is involved as a cause of the accident, surely that is taken into account by the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Simmons: The sole point is whether the accident was due to service conditions. The question of negligence does not arise. The question is whether the man was on duty, and whether the accident was caused when he was engaged in carrying out that duty, or the person by whom the injury was caused was carrying out his duty. If a man is fatally injured in the course of military duties

2119
through no fault of his own, his death clearly is attributable to his service.
The second point which the hon. Member raised was the question of the automatic issue of certificates in cases where a man was on duty at the time of the accident. Where injuries are sustained by a man on duty, and in circumstances such as those which obtained in the case of Private X, acceptance of the injury as attributable to service is automatic. As I have explained, the actual issue of certificates under Section 10 is not automatic. They would be furnished on request. The hon. Member is not correct in his reference to conditions which must be fulfilled in order to relieve the Crown from responsibility. Section 10 also refers to injuries sustained, in certain circumstances, by a man when not on duty. Many off-duty injuries are accepted as attributable to service. On the other hand, an injury suffered by a man on duty may not be accepted as attributable to service, because it was caused by circumstances wholly within the man's own personal sphere. One example of that is the case of the brawl, which has been mentioned by my hon. Friend. Another example was one in which the High Court
2120
ruled that a soldier who died through heavy over-drinking could not be regarded as having died as a result of service.
The third question which the hon. Member raised was why not withhold a decision regarding entitlement where there is no application for pension, but an application against the Crown has been started. I must point out that the whole purpose of Section 10 is to relieve the Crown from liability for tort, and my right hon. Friend obviously cannot evade the responsibility placed upon him by this House. In conclusion, I would remind the House that many cases of difficulty concerning the question whether an injury is, or is not, due to service have come before the courts, and the principles involved are well settled. In the light of the decisions given by the courts, my right hon. Friend has no doubt at all that this death was attributable to service, and that his decision was the right one to have reached.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.

  DISABLED WAR PENSIONERS (MOTOR CARS)
  DISABLED WAR PENSIONERS (MOTOR CARS)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Exports, Canada
  Exports, Canada
  Income Tax (Professional Profits)
  Income Tax (Professional Profits)
  Revenue
  Revenue
  Timber Substitution
  Timber Substitution
  Non-Narcotic Smoking Mixture
  Non-Narcotic Smoking Mixture
  Pool Promoters' Association (Interview)
  Pool Promoters' Association (Interview)
  United States Loans
  United States Loans
  Fiduciary Note Issue
  Fiduciary Note Issue
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (PENCILS)
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (PENCILS)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Exports, North America
  Exports, North America
  Paper Salvage
  Paper Salvage
  Emigrants
  Emigrants
  American Typewriter (Import Licence)
  American Typewriter (Import Licence)
  Imported Lenses
  Imported Lenses
  South Africa (Import Restrictions)
  South Africa (Import Restrictions)
  Anglo-Soviet Discussions (Timber)
  Anglo-Soviet Discussions (Timber)
  Jam and Marmalade (Imports)
  Jam and Marmalade (Imports)
  National Research Development Corporation
  National Research Development Corporation
  Business Premises, Scotland (Tenure)
  Business Premises, Scotland (Tenure)
  EARLY POTATOES, SCOTLAND
  EARLY POTATOES, SCOTLAND
  REMPLOY FACTORIES, WALES
  REMPLOY FACTORIES, WALES
  ELECTRICITY LOAD SPREADING
  ELECTRICITY LOAD SPREADING
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
  Central Land Board
  Central Land Board
  Development Charge
  Development Charge
SCOTLAND
  Hospital Beds, Glasgow
  Hospital Beds, Glasgow
  TERRITORIAL ARMY (RECRUITMENT)
  TERRITORIAL ARMY (RECRUITMENT)
  Furnished Lettings, Glasgow (Rents)
  Furnished Lettings, Glasgow (Rents)
  BRICKS, PLYMOUTH
  BRICKS, PLYMOUTH
  PAKISTAN (EX-GOVERNMENT SERVANTS)
  PAKISTAN (EX-GOVERNMENT SERVANTS)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Wrenbury—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

URMSTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
Read 2*, and committed, the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

GAS COMPENSATION CLAIMS
2.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will consider taking into account the alarming fall in the price of 3 per cent. British Gas Stock 1990–95 in settling the outstanding claims of gas companies for additional compensation under section twenty-six of the Gas Act, 1948.]
THE PAYMASTER - GENERAL (LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR): My Lords, under the terms of Section 26 of the Gas Act, 1948, the addition which may be made to the value of the gas securities as assessable under Section 25 is limited to the amount agreed to be necessary to offset the depreciation in their values due to the war causes described in the Act. It is not open to the Minister, in settling that addition, to take into account the possible effects of variations in the market price of the British Gas Stock in which compensation is paid.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: My Lords, arising out of that reply, I take it that the noble Lord realises that companies which have small claims have practically lost all chance of compensation.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, that is fully appreciated, and very much regretted.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: I thank the noble Lord.

ANGLO-CZECHOSLOVAK NEGOTIATIONS
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they are aware that the continuance of economic and financial negotiations with countries that respect neither religious freedom nor essential human rights must greatly weaken any representations which they may make on these subjects; and whether they will take this fact into account in the negotiations which are at present proceeding with representatives of the Czechoslovak Government.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD HENDERSON): My Lords, His Majesty's Government have on repeated occasions made it clear that they disapprove of State interference with religious liberty and human rights but I do not think it would be generally agreed that in this matter His Majesty's Government should take special action which would sacrifice the economic interests of this country at the present time. One of our objects in these negotiations is to secure payment of Czechoslovak debts due to this country and compensation for British interests which have been nationalised in Czechoslovakia.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, whilst I thank the noble Lord for his answer, which, as I think he will realise, I cannot regard as satisfactory, will he at least make it clear to the Czechoslovak negotiators, and through them to the Czechoslovak Government, that the religious persecution which is at present obtaining in that country must necessarily arouse great public resentment here and must, therefore, make the present negotiations more difficult.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I do not think that the trade delegation is a good medium for such representations. I would add that having regard to statements made by Ministers, both in your Lordships' House, and in another place as well as in discussion at the United Nations Assembly, the Czechoslovak

833
Government can be in no doubt whatsoever as to the views of His Majesty's Government and of British public opinion generally regarding religious persecution and denial of human rights.

LICENSING BILL
2.39 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 1:
Extension of State management to new towns
(3) In this section the expression "new town" means an area designated as the site of a proposed new town under section one of the New Towns Act, 1946, by an order (whether made before or after the commencement of this Act) which has become operative.
(6) The development corporation for every new town shall, as soon as may be after the commencement of this Act or the coming into operation of the order under section one of the New Towns Act, 1946, designating the site of the new town, whichever is the later, consult with every county and county district council whose area includes any part of the new town and with the licensing justices for every licensing district which includes any part thereof, and also with such other persons and bodies of persons as appear to the corporation requisite to be consulted, as to the constitution of the local advisory committee for the new town, and shall then prepare a draft scheme for the constituting of the committee.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT) moved in subsection (3) to omit "section" (where that word first occurs) and insert "Part of this Act." The noble and learned Viscount said: This is the first of a considerable series of Amendments which are to be moved, a number by me and not a few by noble Lords on the other side. The first Amendment is to leave out the word "section" and to insert "Part of this Act." This Bill, as your Lordships know, extends the existing area, what is commonly spoken of as the Carlisle area, to the new towns. When the new towns come on the scene they have normally, and I think always, a development corporation. But it is possible that
834
in the course of time these new towns will suffer, what shall we say, a sea change or, if you prefer it, a change of life, and having reached a certain stage, the development corporation will cease to exist. There are various passages in the Bill—for instance Clause 3 (1)—which require the Secretary of State to consult with the development corporation before acquiring land by agreement or compulsorily. Clearly, that clause presupposes that there is a development corporation to consult. Therefore we have to make it plain that under Clause 1 the areas designated under the New Towns Act will become State management districts, irrespective of subsequent developments in the new towns. These later clauses which contain provisions as to land or premises in new towns are dependent upon, the existence of the development corporation. The object of the Amendment is to make that clear. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 7, leave out ("section") and insert ("Part of this Act").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: I do not think that we have any objection to the first two of these Amendments, and perhaps it would be wise for me to say what I have to say on the third.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (3) to substitute "passing" for "commencement." The noble and learned Viscount raid: This Amendment leaves out the rather ugly word "commencement" and substitutes the word "passing." The reason for that is that the new clause which we are moving after Clause 18, which as your Lordships will see provides that,
"The provisions of this Part of this Act, except section seventeen thereof, shall come into operation on such date as the Secretary of State may appoint."
The reason for that new clause and for the consequential Amendments, which come here and in many places elsewhere in the Bill, is this. We had hoped that this Bill and the Justices of the Peace Bill would be passing through this House more or less contemporaneously—or indeed, that the Justices of the Peace Bill would precede this one. That Bill deals with the areas over which there are to be licensing justices, and I take this

835
opportunity of discussing a question which obviously should be carefully discussed on that Bill. But that Bill has repercussions on the present Bill, and we think the only way to solve the problem is to do this. Whereas Part I of this Bill will come into operation automatically on the passing of the Bill, Part II will come into operation on an appointed day, so that when the appointed day comes we shall be able to survey the whole provisions, both of the Justices of the Peace Bill and of this Bill, with regard to licensing justices
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 10, leave out ("commencement") and insert ("passing").—(The Lord Chancello".)
LORD LLEWELLIN: I think that is right. We have no objection to the first subsection of the Amendment which the noble and learned Viscount is to move after Clause 18, saying that Part II is to come into operation on such date as the Secretary of State may appoint. For the reasons he has given, there are obvious advantages in not having a fixed date in this Bill until we see when the other Bill can come into operation. From that point of view we have no objection whatever to the present Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to subsection (3):
"Provided that except in this section the said expression does not include any such area after the development corporation established therefor has been dissolved."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This is an Amendment, to which the noble Lord opposite is moving an Amendment, dealing with a matter on which I have briefly touched already. If your Lordships will look at the provision which occurs on page 5, line 9, you will see that it provides that
"…before acquiring any land in a new town (whether by agreement or compulsorily) the Secretary of State shall consult with the development corporation."
Noble Lords will see that these provisions must be on the basis that there is still a development corporation to consult. Taking this Amendment, and anticipating for a moment what would happen if I left out the words "except in this Section," I think that the affect of the Amendment would be to end State
836
management in a new town directly the development corporation was dissolved. The reason for that is that State management is established in the Bill by State management districts. From Clause 1 (4) and Clause 2 (1) you will see that this is so. The issue between us here is therefore this: Is it right, directly the development corporation is dissolved—which may well happen when once a town has attained maturity—to put an end to State management? In that event the owners will be concerned to dispose of their property. We do not want that at all. Once we have this experiment of State management in the new towns, we think it ought to run its course and go on running, notwithstanding that the development corporation, has come to an end. I cannot accept the proposal to leave out "except in this section." I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 11, at end insert the said proviso. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved to amend the proposed Amendment by omitting "except in this section." The noble Lord said: Perhaps this is the moment when I ought to explain what my Amendment is intended to do. It is intended to do more than the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor indicated. There are two sets of circumstances in which the development corporation may cease to exist. The first is when a development corporation has been appointed and for one reason or another no new town follows. It may well be that a development corporation is appointed for a district where it was thought a new town would eventually arise. If there is no new town, obviously there is nowhere in which to experiment and let State management run its course, if I may follow the noble and learned Viscount in using that expression. There will be no new town in which that course can be run. It seems to me that before the Bill leaves this House we ought to make some provision in case a development corporation ceases to exist in circumstances such as those.
The second set of circumstances has already been referred to by the noble and learned Viscount. The effect of cutting out the words "except in this section" would be that, when one of these new towns had been established, together

837
with a State management district started at the same time, if there were nothing abnormal about the district freedom would be given back to the people of that town to go for their drinks or meals to places in competition with one another, rather than always have to go to this State monopoly—which is what a State management district implies. As I said on Second Reading, I do not like this idea of a State monopoly. I believe it could have been carried out quite differently. Indeed, provision of new hotels and public-houses was made in rapidly growing areas before the war, without the setting up a State management district at all. Foe those reasons I would like to see my Amendment carried.
I do not know what the noble and learned Viscount may have to say about the first set of circumstances in which my Amendment would operate—namely, where a development corporation had been appointed, but was eventually dissolved and no new town was built. That may well happen, and I think we should make some provision for it. I would like my whole Amendment to be carried, but I quite see why the noble and learned Viscount objects to its operation in the second set of circumstances. That, of course, goes very much to the root of the whole policy behind this part of the Bill. The noble and learned Viscount seems to like it for some very odd reason, and I dislike it for very obvious reasons, as, I believe, a great number of consumers in the area will dislike it also. In that case, of course, there is a difference of policy. In order to enable the noble and learned Viscount to answer my first point, I beg to move the Amendment to the Amendment which the Lord Chancellor has already moved.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
In line 1, leave out ("except in this section"). —(Lord Llewellin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will briefly answer the noble Lord. The introduction of State management does not depend upon the setting up of a development corporation but on the coming into operation of an order designating an area as a new town. I do not suppose the Minister of Town and Country Planning would ever make such an order and then not proceed with the new town. I confess that this is rather a
838
novel point to me, and I am quite prepared to consult with the Minister about it and tell your Lordships more concerning it at a later stage of the Bill. But the test of a new town is the making of an order by the Minister of Town and Country Planning. Having made an order designating a particular area as a new town, I cannot agree that he would not go on with the order. However, it is a matter which merits consideration. On the main point, as the noble Lord has anticipated, I am afraid I am bound to stand firm and say that we cannot let this experiment—for experiment it is—come to an end merely by the accidental event of the development, corporation being wound up.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I do not think this is the moment to press this Amendment to a Division. I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for saying he will look into this particular point. Perhaps we might have a discussion between now and Report stage to see what can be done in regard to the matter. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment to the Amendment.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is the matter I have already discussed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 30, leave out ("commencement") and insert ("passing").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment deals with the difficulty about the county borough. As this Bill was drafted, we did not deal with the county borough at all, thinking it would probably have been dealt with by the other Bill. Now we have to deal with the matter, and we do it by inserting the words "local authority." Then your Lordships will see that have an Amendment down to add to subsection (9):
"In this section the expression 'local authority' means the council of a county, county borough or county district."
In that way we bring in the county borough—a course which, in view of all the circumstances, has become necessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 33, leave out ("county and county district council") and insert ("local authority").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 42, leave out ("county and county district council") and insert ("local authority").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 45, at end, insert—
("( ) In this section the expression 'local authority' means the council of a county, county borough or county district.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, leave out lines 7 to 8 and insert—
("(a) the expression 'local authority' means a county, town or district council").(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Restriction of sale and supply, otherwise than by Secretary of State, of intoxicating liquor in State management districts
2.—(1) No person, other than a person acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, shall sell intoxicating liquor by retail in a State management district, and no person, other than as aforesaid, shall supply intoxicating liquor in any licensed premises or club in a State management district:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply—

(a) to anything done in premises which were licensed premises or a registered club when State management came into operation in the district in which the premises are situated and have continued to be licensed premises or a registered club, as the case may be, since that time;

(b) to anything done under the written authority of the Secretary of State and in accordance with such terms and conditions as may be specified by him;

(c) to anything done on premises of a class specified by order of the Secretary of State.

2.59 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in subsection (1) to omit "or club." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is of some importance, and I would ask your Lordships to bear with me while I endeavour to explain the reasons which have prompted me to move it. Clause 2, as drafted, lays down that no intoxicating liquor may be provided or sold in new licensed premises, or in a new club, in the State management districts which are to be set up under the terms of this Bill, without the authority of the Secretary of State. What it really means is that when the Bill becomes an Act, no political club, no social club, no British Legion club, no golf club, no club for dancing and no night club which wishes to sell intoxicating liquor in these new State management areas can do so without the express authority of the Secretary of State, and subject to such conditions as he may lay down. Those conditions which he lays down may well follow the onerous modifications which are usually applied in the Carlisle area. As I understand it, the new towns, when they have been built and are housing the population, will consist of something like 60,000 persons, and those persons will in point of fact be subject to the wishes and the whims of the Home Secretary, as to whether or not they should have a club within the area where intoxicating liquor can be purchased.
I said on Second Reading that I thought the Home Secretary, in the case of political clubs, would be subject to intense political pressure to allow or disallow the formation of these political clubs. The Lord Chancellor—certainly in very mild language—took me to task and told me that he had no doubt in his own mind that that would not occur. The Home Secretary used words of a similar nature when the Bill was going through another place. That political pressure has been applied in the past I have not the slightest doubt, and I intend, if I may, to read to your Lordships two letters which have come into my possession which deal with a club in the north of England, a club which is many years old but which has not previously had a licence to sell intoxicating liquor. In the beginning of 1946, this club applied to the local advisory committee for a licence to sell liquor, and it was some time before

841
they received information from the Home Secretary that their application was, in point of fact, refused. The club caused a letter to be written to the general manager of the Carlisle and District State management scheme, who replied on April 17, 1946. Let me read that letter to the House, and your Lordships will observe what happened when this particular club applied to the local advisory committee.
The general manager begins by acknowledging the club's letter, and goes on:
"It is quite correct that your Club's application for permission to sell liquor has been before the local advisory committee. Obviously, you would know this, as Colonel Irwin was present and took an active part in the discussion.
You have not received any official notification on the subject so far because the Home Secretary's decision on the recommendation made by the local advisory committee has not yet been received. I should not, however, anticipate that he will do anything other than accept the advisory committee's recommendation. I will forward you the form of decision as soon as possible together with your copy of rules, et cetera.
Colonel Irwin, who presented the case for you, will no doubt be able to give you his impressions in greater detail, but broadly speaking the decision of the local advisory committee seemed to rest mainly on the fact that yours is a political club. They seemed to feel that if a club belonging to one political Party in Longtown were to be given permission to sell intoxicating liquor, that it would be very difficult to resist applications from either or both of the other Parties,"—
I need hardly tell your Lordships that there are no other clubs in that place—
"and in that event the whole balance of the position with regard to sale of drink in Long-town would be completely altered.
I understood that Colonel Irwin had some discussion after the meeting with certain members of the committee as to how, if at all, such an objection could be met, but I, naturally, have no information as to the details of this conversation.
Yours faithfully,
W. A. Goddard, General Manager."
He seemed to know a very great deal of what was going on.
I was fortunate to get hold of a letter which Colonel Irwin wrote to the club on March 28, 1946. He is much more definite with regard to the decisions which he thought had been reached by that committee. He wrote:
"With reference to your letter of the 11th instant. the application for the sanction of the State management scheme came before an ad-
842
journed meeting of the Social Advisory Committee the other day, but I regret to say that my recommendation that permission should be given for your Club to apply to the licensing justices for a licence was defeated by seven votes to two. The objection seemed to be based on the fact that the Club is a political one, and it was indicated that if the title was changed to 'Constitutional' instead of 'Conservative,' the application would have a better chance of succeeding."
I hope that the noble and learned Viscount, when he comes to reply, will not again tell me that political pressure is not applied. Fortunately, I also have a letter from the club itself, dated in April of that year, which I will not bother to read to your Lordships, but I would say this. According to the Secretary of the club there is only one club in the State management area of Carlisle which has applied for a licence since it was originally formed, and that was the Carlisle Labour Club, which had been granted a permit during the existence of State control. I think that for that reason, if for no other, I have a case which demands an answer.
May I now turn to one other point? As the Bill is drafted at the moment, the Home Secretary can give authority for any club to be set up which sells intoxicating liquor, but only on the conditions which he himself lays down. Those conditions in many cases have proved to be very burdensome to the club and, I suppose, to the area. The Working Men's Club and Institute Union Limited—for which I should have thought the Government would have some respect—went to see the Home Secretary, and they were fortunate enough to obtain from him innumerable guarantees, to which I should like briefly to refer. They finally received a letter from the Home Secretary who agreed these points with them: That he would not require that the permitted hours for the supply and consumption of intoxicating liquor should be those prescribed for licensed premises in the area; that he would not stipulate that no commission on intoxicating liquor supplied in the club shall be paid to, or received by, any officer or servant of the club; that he would not require that the prices charged for beer or spirits shall not be less than the retail prices ordinarily charged for beer or spirits of like strength in the public bars of licensed premises in the neighbourhood; that he would not stipulate that no intoxicating liquor shall be supplied in the club for consumption off the premises; that he

843
would not require that no intoxicating liquor shall be supplied to any person under the age of eighteen years, and that no condition should be imposed requiring the club to accept police entry.
I have searched this Bill pretty thoroughly but, so far as I can see, none of those guarantees has a place in this Bill. Home Secretaries come and Home Secretaries go. It may well be that the present Home Secretary—who is a very knowledgeable club man, and has been a member of clubs for many years, and also President of the British Legion —will loyally carry out the undertaking which he gave to the Working Men's Club and Institute Union Limited. But new Home Secretaries come, and there is no reason whatsoever why, on the appointment of a new Home Secretary, he should be bound in any degree whatever by the decision which his predecessor made on how he would treat clubs which were in these new State management districts.
I base my plea for leaving clubs out of this Bill on those two points but, in conclusion, I would remind your Lordships of the penal code which was decreed in France in 1810. So great at that time was the suspicion of everybody and everything in the period of the First French Empire, that it was provided in that code that
"no association of more than twenty persons whose aim is to unite every day or on certain days to occupy itself with … political or other subjects can be formed except with the consent of the Government or under such conditions as public authority may impose."
Although that form of despotism was defeated, the present Government have again, 134 years later, raised this same evil. I believe that we have a right to ask —indeed, they have an obligation to answer—whether the proposal outlined in this clause, giving the Home Secretary complete power to open clubs under State management, is not one of the main rules which must and does govern the formation of a Socialist society. It is on that case that I base my plea to your Lordships today, and I trust that I may have the support of the House. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 18, leave out ("or club").—(The Earl of Munster.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have never doubted that these clubs are power-
844
ful bodies and can exert considerable political pressure. I have listened to the statement of the concessions which the Home Secretary announced to the Working Men's Club and Institute Union, and I confess that if they err at all—I am not saying they do—it is on the side of too great latitude. I want to say frankly that, so far as I am concerned, I think this is a position which we ought to watch very carefully. I think all political Parties have walked over these hot bricks with proper caution. If it is right to try this experiment in State management—that is to say, to have the "pubs" under State control, as in Carlisle—it seems to me that it will become impossible if almost unlimited concessions are given to clubs; and if clubs are not to be under the Home Secretary's control whilst the "pubs" are, it creates a position which is quite unreal. I should not for one moment attempt to meet such a case half-way. I should meet it fully and say "I think this destroys the whole value of the experiment."
After all, the man who gets a licence to run a public-house has to demonstrate beyond a peradventure that he is a man of good character; and he is subject to all sorts of conditions and stipulations which are thought to be in the public interest. I have no doubt—though I am not for a moment saying that the vast majority of these clubs are not well conducted—that if they are really genuine clubs, where people come for social intercourse and the like (I do not mind whether political or not), and the matter of drinking is merely ancillary to that intercourse, that they are performing a useful function. But if it does occasionally happen—and please do not think I am making an attack on clubs at all—that these places become mere drinking shops, where social intercourse is at a minimum and facilities for drinking (and very often for drinking at times when drink is unobtainable at a public-house) are at a maximum, then I think it will be idle in this experiment to limit the public-houses but exclude the clubs.
I come now to the question of the granting of licences to political clubs, which is a critical one. I am sure that in the Longtown area of Carlisle there are long-established Conservative, Liberal and Labour clubs, and that the Liberal and Labour clubs have not obtained (and so far as I know have not applied for) a

845
licence. If that is right, then it is quite obvious that if you are going to grant a licence for the first time to the Conservative club, then, other things being equal, you must grant licences to the Liberal club and the Labour club. Therefore the weakness of having this concession granted to a political club is that it follows that it must be granted to three instead of one. Now, if the test of granting a concession to a club is that they should give reasonable facilities to obtain drink, bearing in mind the facilities in regard to public-houses and the like, I can well understand the licensing committees saying "Well, we do not think there is any case whatever here for granting a licence to all three clubs, and that means that we shall not grant one to anyone of the three." That seems to me a sensible way to approach it.
With regard to the Home Secretary, I am perfectly certain that in making up his mind whether or not to grant a licence to a club he would not allow himself to be actuated by Party political considerations. In my somewhat long experience of politics I have never known a Home Secretary, of any Party, who would do such a thing. I do not for a moment believe that there has ever been a Home Secretary, or any other Minister, who would prostitute himself by using his official position to confer favours upon a political Party just because he happened to belong to it. I have never come across such a case, and I am quite certain that that question did not arise in this instance in Carlisle. The Home Secretary has made very generous concessions, which the noble Earl read out, with regard to police inspection and the like; and, of course, it follows that if he gives those concessions to one club, political or not, he will ceteris paribus give similar concessions to other clubs. I am told that the Home Secretary had made it quite plain (column 296 of the House of Commons OFFICIAL REPORT) that, although that was the broad approach, he must nevertheless have regard to the circumstances of each particular case. That was his broad approach, yet if in the circumstances of some particular case it were desirable to make stipulations which ran counter to those general principles he reserved to himself the full right to do so. I think that is right and wise; it would be acting improperly if
846
the Home Secretary were to announce before hearing a case what he is going to do. The most the Home Secretary can do is to indicate his general approach whilst reserving in each particular case the right to consider the case to see whether or not he should depart from the principles of the general approach.
A broad answer, therefore, is as follows. I am entirely opposed—and I speak for the Government—to the proposition that whilst we put public-houses under the control of State management we exempt clubs. I believe that that would be a completely wrong approach to the matter, and I do not attempt to conceal that that is my attitude. It is the attitude of the Home Secretary and it is the attitude of the Government. Therefore I must tell your Lordships quite frankly that I have nothing whatever to give and no concession whatever to make. If this experiment is to succeed, it must be an experiment which extends over the whole field and does not leave such an obvious gap as leaving clubs out of control. I very much regret, therefore, that I cannot accept this Amendment.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The noble and learned Viscount made an announcement on the question of political clubs and free purchase in any one town. Will that apply in the future in these new towns? Let us take one place where a new town is to be built Do I understand the noble and learned Viscount to say that, if there is a Conservative, a Labour and a Liberal club there, in no circumstances will one of them be granted a licence to sell intoxicating liquor unless the other two clubs also apply in the area for a similar licence?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I would not lay down any broad general principle like that, but if a licence were granted to one it would require rather exceptional circumstances not to grant it to the others. Though. I do not assert that that must always happen, I should have thought that, as a matter of broad general principle, having granted licence to one, the fair-minded man would desire to do it to the other two.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I want to follow up this point a little if I may. In replying to this matter, the Lord Chancellor has laid down that clubs have got to come under this control because you

847
cannot try this general experiment—I think those were practically his words —if you exclude them. The general experiment of running public-houses and clubs side by side has been in existence in this country for hundreds of years. So far as the ordinary brewer is concerned, the two have run quite happily side by side. You can run public-houses and clubs in the same area, and both can be quite agreeable places of resort for those who wish to use them. As soon as the State comes along—and this absolutely condemns nationalisation—it cannot be done if the State is going to have a club as a rival to its nationalised State management area. That is the whole tenor of the Lord Chancellor's speech this afternoon. You cannot have a new working men's club to start up independently because it may interfere with the profit that otherwise would be made by a State managed "pub"; you cannot have a British Legion club starting up because it may draw away some of the people who would otherwise patronise the State public-house. That is the only reason why they are put in, and that is the reason why the Home Secretary has this power to vet them—in order to prevent competition from his own State managed houses.
That could be the only reason. I think that is an extremely bad one. Over the country as a whole in the past we have been able to start up a British Legion club, a working men's club, a Conservative club, a Labour club or a Liberal club, where people having the nexus together of being ex-Service men, or of belonging to one or other of the political Parties, may assemble, have their drinks together, their talks together and their social intercourse together, with the kind of people they want to meet without, perhaps, the outsiders being there who naturally would be allowed in a public bar. That is the kind of thing that this Bill is going to stop. Then the noble and learned Viscount goes on to say that the Home Secretary has made "very generous concessions." Very generous concessions! He is taking away a long-established right of the people in those districts of the country, and it is said that he is giving "very generous concessions" because, if he grants a licence for one of these clubs, he is going to do what has always been allowed and will still be
848
allowed in all other parts of the country, except the ill-fated Carlisle and these ill-fated new development areas.
That is not a generous concession at all. What he is doing by this is taking away from the people in this area the right which people in every other area of the country will, I hope for years to come, still enjoy—unless, of course, this is what is familiarly known as the "thin end of the wedge," and we are all hereafter to be told that the whole of the country is to be a State management area and that without a fiat from Whitehall nobody is to be allowed to start any club. That is a monstrous proposition. To say that never more, unless somehow you get round an advisory committee and obtain the assent of the Home Secretary, is anybody to start a new club in this area for any of these purposes for which they can also enjoy a drink, is really to me quite a monstrous thing. I very much hope that this Committee to-day will say that they too consider it a monstrous proposition.
LORD TEVIOT: I was most distressed to hear from the noble and learned Viscount that these working men's clubs were only drinking places. I have a certain amount of experience of them, and I find that many other recreations other than drinking take place there—for instance, darts, shove-ha'penny and many other old-fashioned pastimes. These places are also generally the basis of the local football club and cricket club, and so on, outside anything that could be organised in a "pub." I do hope that the noble and learned Viscount will take a kindly view with regard to those other activities of the working men's clubs.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I made no sort of attack on these clubs at all. In the case of the great majority of them, I had no such criticism to offer. I said that the drinking there was merely ancillary to other club activities, but that there were occasional clubs which were drinking shops. If I did not say that, that is what I meant.
LORD TEVIOT: If I misunderstood the noble and learned Viscount I apologise, but I do hope that these rather exceptional cases will not carry more weight than they ought, because there are exceptional cases in every instance.
3.26 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We have had what has, I think, turned out

849
to be an unexpectedly important debate upon this Amendment, because the facts exposed are such as to cause considerable anxiety to a great many of us. The Lord Chancellor did not really attempt to deal with the correspondence which the noble Earl, Lord Munster, read out. There was a definite statement made that, if the club had been willing to change its name to "Constitutional," it would have had a better chance of having a licence than if it kept the name of "Conservative." That is a definite bias of a certain kind. The Lord Chancellor attempted to answer that, as I understood him, by saying that it was not a question of a licence being provided to a club because it was Conservative or of any other Party; it was because the other two clubs, the Liberal and the Labour clubs, had not got licences. He added what I thought was very important, that they had not applied for licences, and that all these clubs should be treated exactly alike. I think there is no difference of opinion in any part of the House on that, but it is rather ludicrous to say that, because a Labour club does not apply for a licence, a Conservative club should not have one; or because a Liberal club does not apply for a licence a Labour club should not have one. If a club behaves itself properly there is not the slightest reason

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

why it should not have a licence. To deny it a licence in one case is to deny it one of the elementary principles of British liberty.
The noble and learned Viscount also said that, from inquiries he had made, he was told that there was adequate provision of public-houses in the area. A public-house is not the same thing as a club. The noble and learned Viscount himself probably belongs to a club, a political club, which may allow its members to drink. He would not be at all satisfied if he were cold that this club could not provide drinks, on the ground that there was an adequate supply of "pubs" in the district. Some people like to go to clubs and some like to go to "pubs." There is no reason why people should not be provided with the same facilities as in. "pubs," if that is the sort of life they prefer. For all these reasons, the Government are on a very bad wicket here. All sensible opinion of every Party would be against them on this point, and we have no option but to hope that the Government will give very serious consideration as to whether they can reverse their decision.
On Question, Whether the said words shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 40.

CONTENTS

Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor)

Calverley, L.

Holden, L.

Chorley, L. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth [Teller.]

Huntingdon, E.

Crook, L.

Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.

Darwen, L.

Morrison, L.

Rochester, L. Bp.

Faringdon, L.

Pakenham, L.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Quibell, L.

Ammon, L.

Henderson, L.

Shepherd, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Salisbury, M.

Maugham, V.

Hayter, L.

Townshend, M. [Teller.]

Swinton, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Templewood, V.

Llewellin, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Monkswell, L.

Bessborough, E.

Aberdare, L.

Moyne, L.

Howe, E.

Baden-Powell, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Rochdale, L.

Lindsay, E.

Belstead, L.

Saltoun, L.

Munster, E.

Carrington, L. [Teller.]

Schuster, L.

Onslow, E.

Cherwell, L.

Teviot, L.

Rothes, E.

Derwent, L.

Teynham, L.

Glentanar, L.

Waleran, L.

Allenby, V.

Grantley, L.

Wolverton, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Hawke, L.

Wrenbury, L.

Hailsham, V.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next two Amendments are consequential, but the second does not make sense as it stands at the moment, and I think I ought to move it in this way: to leave out the words "or a registered club, as the case may be,". That is the Amendment to page 4, line 25. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 22, leave out from ("premises") to ("when").—(The Earl of Munster.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not going to ask the Committee to divide again. I regard this and the next Amendment as consequential on the Amendment which has just been made. As to the new form in which the noble Earl moves the second consequential Amendment, again I shall not ask the Committee to divide. The Committee understand that I object to all three Amendments.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 25, leave out ("or a registered club, as the case may be,").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Acquisition of land
3.—(1) For the purposes of his functions under this Part of this Act the Secretary of State may—

(a) by agreement purchase or take on lease any land, whether in a State management district or elsewhere;

(b) subject to the provisions of this section, acquire by compulsory purchase any licensed premises in a State management district and any land in such a district required for the erection or extension of, or otherwise for use in connection with, any premises in a State management district in which the sale of intoxicating liquor by retail is, or is to be, carried on on behalf of the Secretary of State:

Provided that before acquiring any land in a new town (whether by agreement or compulsorily) the Secretary of State shall consult with the development corporation.
3.39 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (1) to omit paragraph (b). The noble Lord said: We now come to Clause 3, and having passed from clubs we now come to "pubs." I do not think anybody can disagree at all with Clause 3 (1) (a), which allows the Secretary of State by agreement to purchase land—
852
and in land, I presume, is included the houses and, if necessary, the licensed premises upon it. Then we come to Clause 3 (1) (b), which empowers the Secretary of State compulsorily to purchase existing licensed premises. I really do not see why he should do that compulsorily. I have no doubt that I shall be told by the Lord Chancellor that this State management experiment must have a fair run, and that it cannot have a fair run if there is anybody, even the licensee of an old public-house or hotel, in competition with it.
Let us consider the town after which the noble and learned Viscount takes some part of his title, Stevenage. There, I suppose, the Cromwell Arms—which is no doubt well-known to the noble and learned Viscount—could be compulsorily acquired by the Home Secretary and taken out of the hands of the people who own it and of the person who manages it. It is true that later on we come to a clause which states that in some circumstances the licensee may get a job as manager if the Home Secretary thinks fit. It is rather monstrous, is it not, that you should say that in any of the State management areas you should have the power to buy everyone else out because, although free enterprise can prosper in competition—one brewer against another brewer, one licensee against another licensee—in a State management area if there were any such competition the whole finances of that State management area might break down. That seems to make this Bill, as it were, the mouthpiece for condemnation of the efficiency of State management. It can be nothing else.
Although we may agree, reluctantly, in this Bill, to State management being applied in new houses in the area, the old houses in that area should be allowed to carry on under the old managements which, in many of these old towns and villages, have served the people well in the past. That is the dispute between us. I suppose I shall be told that there must be an absolutely free run without any competition for State-managed enterprises, otherwise nationalisation will break down. If that is to be the answer, it completely condemns the idea that nationalisation is either needed or popular. I want to preserve some measure of competition, some freedom of choice for the people living in such an area, so

853
that they may, if they wish, go to places other than State-managed public-houses. For that reason I beg to move, the Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Paee 5, leave out lines 1 to 8.—(Lord Llewellin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: What is the point of State management at all? Surely it is this: that in regard to drink the Home Secretary and the local advisory committee have a chance of planning as a whole the future arrangements of the area. That is the whole point of it. That being so, I say that if this Amendment is accepted it means that you are by a back-door method striking at State management, and there is nothing left to it. It may well be that the State management authorities will not want to interfere with the existing public-houses. They may or they may not. But unless they are to have the power to interfere, it is obvious they will have no power to plan as a whole in regard to this scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, in this Amendment wants to prevent them having that power to plan as a whole. What is he seeking to do? He is seeking to say, in this Amendment, that there can be no compulsory purchase of any licensed premises in a State management district, and, more than that, that there shall be no power to acquire compulsorily, land for the building of premises. If that is so, if the authorities, the local advisory committee and the Home Secretary, are to be put in that position—and be it remembered that this is a State management area; that is to say, an area in which Parliament has thought right to entrust to them the whole arrangements of the drink trade in the area by way of experiment—what is being said to them in effect by this Amendment is: "You shall not have the right to lay a finger on any existing licensed house and you shall not have the right to acquire any land compulsorily for the building of any licensed house."If that is to he the case then the Home Secretary clearly will have no power to manage the area as a whole, and the whole conception of State management is struck at from the very beginning.
With regard to this Bill it is clear, as I said on Second Reading, that we must stand firm on the principle that we must
854
have the power to take over all the public-houses in the area of the new towns. I went on in my speech to say:
"the extent to which we exercise that power and the time at which we exercise it are obviously matters on which the local advisory committee ought to be consulted and to have a say."
By that I stand. I maintain that unless that power is to be conceded and the right is to be granted to exercise the power as may be thought proper, the whole conception of State management, based as it is on the possibility of regulating the drink trade in the area, becomes a snare and a delusion and is absolutely worthless. Therefore, I am sorry to say that I can make no concession. I can make no advance to meet the noble Lord. It seems to me that this is a fundamental division, and I ask your Lordships not to accept this Amendment.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I wonder whether the noble and learned Viscount, before he concludes, could further explain subsection (1) (b) of this clause. That provides that the Secretary of State may, subject to the provisions of the clause, acquire by compulsory purchase any licensed premises in a State management district, and it goes on to say:
"and any land in such a district required for the erection or extension of, or otherwise for use in connection with, any premises in a State management district in which the sale of intoxicating liquor by retail is, or is to be, carried on on behalf of the Secretary of State:"
Does that mean land including buildings? Does that mean that anyone who may live in,a house bordering on a public-house in a State management district can suddenly have his land compulsorily acquired, and his buildings too? Does it mean that he can be turned out of his house for the purpose of enlarging licensed premises, for example for making a bowling green, or for anything else in that line which the Secretary of State may think fitting? If that is actually to be the case in these State management areas, then no man will have any certainty or security that the house in which he lives may not be compulsorily acquired for the purpose of erecting, enlarging or extending a public-house.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Of course it must be assumed that the Home Secretary will exercise his powers of control under the Act like a reasonable human being. I have no doubt that if

855
the Home Secretary and his advisers were to behave like pocket Hitlers and as tyrants generally, all sorts of things might happen. But the effect of the clause, as the noble Earl knows, is to confer upon the Home Secretary the power, after consultation, of acquiring land or premises in order that there may be constructed, or that the existing premises may be adapted for the purpose of, a public-house, in order that persons living in the town may have reasonable facilities for drinking. That power the Home Secretary must have if he is to regulate and plan the whole of the drink trade of that area.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I must say that I am not at all satisfied with the explanation which the noble and learned Viscount has given. If your Lordships will cast your minds back, you will recall that the genesis of this measure is that here are new towns with a new problem. The original way in which it was proposed to deal with this problem was for some advisory committees to ascertain which brewers or other people were willing to build licensed houses in these new towns and come to arrangements between them with a view to getting enough but not too many licensing facilities in any of these new towns. That function has now been taken over by saying that any new hotel or public-house in one of these new towns shall be owned only as part of the State management area, and therefore that problem is solved.
But it does not mean that because there are some existing houses and hotels, we are deprived of planning facilities for an area as a whole. We know of these in advance of making a plan and can plan accordingly. Therefore, there is no necessity to say that because there happens to be a house here and a hotel there it hampers planning as a whole. It does not in the least hamper the overall general plan. It makes no difference to the facilities available in a district, except with regard to the kind of beer and wine served, whether one of the existing hotels is managed by the State or by free enterprise. It is a facility already there, and before we start to make an overall plan we must take it into account. We have now taken clubs out of the scope of the Bill, but even in the Bill as it was originally drafted, existing clubs were to be allowed to continue. Why? Because
856
they did not upset the overall planning arrangements of an area, as we knew where they were. Why have we to do anything at all in regard to existing premises?
The noble and learned Viscount said that the Amendment would not allow the Secretary of State to lay a finger on any existing premises. I would let him lay a finger on them, if the licensee and owner allowed him to do so. What I would not allow him to do is to commit the kind of rape contemplated by the compulsory purchase powers in this Bill. He could take over by consent any of these premises, but I would not let him compulsorily acquire them in the way that is contemplated. Why should a State management district, run as a commercial undertaking by the State, have compulsory powers that a private individual does not possess? If the Home Secretary has an hotel and wants to put a bowling green beside it, why should he be able to pull down a house belonging, say, to the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, after taking it by compulsory purchase? Why should he not make a proper arrangement with the noble Lord and buy his house, if those extra facilities are essential for his hotel? The use of compulsory purchase powers for naval, military or air force purposes which are for the genuine defence of the country, are justifiable and have long been justifiable; but why have these powers in order to carry on a commercial enterprise? Why should the Home Secretary have these facilities over his commercial rivals? I cannot see why, unless he needs these additional powers because he wants to eliminate competition and to buy land at knock-down prices, as agreed by the district valuer, in order to show a balance in the accounts.
I believe that this measure is going to become unpopular in the new towns when we begin to turn old-established licensees out of premises they have occupied for a very long time and deprive people of the kind of drinks they have been accustomed to have. Not only to prevent your Lordships having the unwanted experience of going round the Lobbies once again this afternoon, but in order to allow this State management scheme to have enough rope to hang itself in the public estimation, I do not intend to press my Amendment to a Division, and I will not move the further Amendments

857
as they are all consequential. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Provision of alternative accommodation where licensed premises acquired
4.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (2) of section five of the New Towns Act, 1946 (which relates to the provision of accommodation where land is acquired by a development corporation), a development corporation shall not have any duty to afford, to a person formerly carrying on a business of selling intoxicating liquor by retail on land in a State management district, any opportunity of obtaining alternative accommodation for such a business. But the Secretary of State shall as far as practicable secure that any resident tenant of licensed premises in a new town, which are acquired by the Secretary of State under section three of this Act, shall have the opportunity to remain the tenant of the said premises under conditions not less favourable than those under which he was tenant thereof immediately before the premises were so acquired.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1) to leave out all words after "business," where that word occurs a second time, to the end, of the subsection. The noble and learned Viscount said: I think we may discuss this and the next Amendment together. We propose to insert a new subsection in place of the second half of Clause 4 (1), which was an Opposition Amendment proposed on Report in another place in order to protect the livelihood of tenants of licensed premises acquired by the State. It was accepted by the Home Secretary on the understanding that some revision would be necessary; first, because the provision was confined to tenants and it was pointed out that an owner-occupier or resident manager should have the same protection as a tenant, and secondly, to make it clear that closure of the premises was not necessarily debarred. The Opposition in another place argued that the words "as far as practicable" covered the case of a man not fit for his job, and I confess I think they are sufficient for that purpose.
It is now proposed to replace the second half of the clause by a new subsection referring to a "resident tenant or manager," a phrase which is already defined in Clause 4 (3), so as to include any resident licensed holder, and including the words
858
"if the business previously carried on in the premises is continued by the Secretary of State."
Examination of the position has demonstrated to us that a further alteration is needed. The Opposition Amendment now embodied in Clause 4(1) provided that an existing tenant, who becomes a tenant under the State after the premises are acquired, should do so under conditions not less favourable than those previously in force. But in any case of compulsory acquisition, the matters in respect of which a tenant is entitled to compensation include any loss of his tenant's rights. It follows, therefore, that unless the State simply took over the existing lease, there would have been an overlap between the tenant's rights to compensation and the proposed right to remain a tenant under conditions no less favourable than those of the previous tenancy. In other words, the State would have been required both to pay compensation for the loss of tenant's rights and also, so far as practicable, to preserve those rights.
Having regard to the provisions we have made for compensation, it is clear that the most the State can be expected to undertake to pay to a tenant after acquisition of the premises is what I may term "the rate for the job" of managing them, irrespective of any profits above that rate he may have been making as a tenant. For this the new subsection provides, and there can be no doubt about its meaning, as appropriate minimum rates are laid down by orders made under the Catering Wages Act. I hope your Lordships will find that this new subsection carries out the intention underlying the Amendment which was moved on the Report stage, and it was accepted subject to the qualification that revision would be necessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 8, leave out from ("business") to end of line 14.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I rise only to say a few words, really on the next Amendment which the Lord Chancellor has down on the Marshalled List. It is true that it was made quite clear that revision would be necessary when the Bill came to your Lordships' House, and the noble and learned Viscount carries out the revision by the Amendment standing

859
in his name on the Order Paper. I wonder whether he would consider leaving out the words in his proposed subsection, "so far as is practicable." It seems to me that wherever we can we should give the licensee, the resident manager or tenant, the right to continue in the premises, even though they are compulsorily acquired. It seems to me that if you give power to the Home Secretary to acquire these premises, then the licensee or manager has no definite right to continue in occupation. The premises might conceivably be old and well-established, with a quite admirable manager in charge. We believe that to decide to get rid of a manager who has been there for many years would be an extremely unhappy and unfortunate thing to do. Therefore, I make the suggestion to the noble and learned Viscount, and perhaps he will consider it between now and the next stage of the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will gladly mention the matter to the Home Secretary and find out what he thinks about it. However, it is my impression that it would not be possible to leave out these words, I am speaking from recollection but I think I am right in saying that they were suggested by the Opposition to meet this very case. The Home Secretary has this obligation thrust upon him. If it is not practicable, what then? It might not be practicable for several reasons. First of all, it might not be practicable because the existing tenant or manager might be in failing health and unable to carry on any longer—he may still be alive, but be bedridden. In such a case, I take it the noble Earl would not desire that he should continue as manager. Equally, the man might be quite incompetent at his job. In that case, also, the noble Earl would not desire that he should continue as manager. Therefore, I think we should do well to adhere to these words, which, after all, are words suggested by the Opposition to meet this sort of case. Though I will gladly undertake to see that the matter is considered afresh by the Home Secretary, as the noble Earl requests, I do not think we can leave out the words "so far as practicable" in view of the possibility of the sort of cases that may arise.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: If I may make a suggestion, it seems to me that it would be useful if the words "used his best endeavours" could be inserted somewhere in the clause. Those are the sort of words I should expect to find in an agreement of this kind. I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord Munster, would agree with them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 23, at end, insert:
(" ( ) The Secretary of State shall so far as is practicable secure that a resident tenant or manager of licensed premises acquired by the Secretary of State under the last foregoing section shall have the opportunity, if the business previously carried on in the premises is continued by the Secretary of State, of being employed in the carrying on thereof on terms not less favourable than those appropriate to a manager employed in a business such as was carried on in the premises before their acquisition.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is to meet the point that there may be two holders, and not merely one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 28, after ("holder") insert ("or one of joint holders").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Commencement of foregoing provisions of Part III]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The object of leaving out Clauses 15 and 16 is to find room for the insertion of the new clause which comes after Clause 18, which your Lordships will see on the Marshalled List. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 15.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Transitional provisions as to licensing authorities]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 16.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: I understand why Clause 15 has been left out—indeed, the noble and learned Viscount has already explained it to us. But Clause 16 makes transitional provisions as to the licensing authorities. Broadly, it provides that arty type of action started before this Bill becomes law shall go on in the same way as it was started. As I understand it, the Lord Chancellor is going to substitute for Clause 16:
"An order of the Secretary of State…may contain such transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State expedient in consequence of the coming into operation of the said provisions of this Part of this Act."
And then:
"The power … shall be exercisable by statutory instrument."
The Government introduced the original Clause l6 in the Bill, and I would like to know why it is now sought to depart from the method contained in Clause 16, which I should have thought was the right one. I think we are entitled to a little more explanation on this point than we have been given. The noble and learned Viscount has already told us about the date, on which we are agreed. There may be some perfectly good reason for leaving out Clause 16 which we have not yet heard.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will do what I can to indicate to the noble Lord why we thought it necessary to do this. The original conception in Clause 16, as the noble Lord said, was that arrangements should be made as there set out. Transitional provisions, of course, cannot be drafted until we know the appointed day. When this Bill was framed it was known that the Justices of the Peace Bill would deal with separate commissions of the peace for non-county boroughs, and it was felt that the case for the Government's proposal in this connection should be stated when the Justices of the Peace Bill was under consideration, and that it would cause confusion if that proposal were discussed on a Bill confined to the licensing aspect. The Licensing Bill was therefore framed so as to keep the position in non-county boroughs entirely open for discussion on the other Bill, and it leaves untouched the present provisions as to licensing authorities in non-county boroughs.
We had always hoped that, before the Licensing Bill was passed, the Justices of the Peace Bill would have made such
862
progress as would establish the future position of non-county boroughs, and so make it possible to set forth in the Licensing Bill the future arrangements its respects all licensing authorities without controversy in that connection as respects the non-county boroughs, that matter having been cleared up. It is now clear that the Justices of the Peace Bill will not pass into law in time for next year's licensing arrangements to be made on the basis of its provisions. We think that it would cause great confusion to bring into force piecemeal the new licensing arrangements, and the relevant provisions of the Justices of the Peace Bill are to 'take effect from an appointed day. The only convenient plan seems to be to adopt the same course in the present Bill. That is why we think it right to leave out Clause 16, and to substitute a new clause.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am still not quite certain about this. It may be because I am not quite so cognisant of the position under the Justices of the Peace Bill as I should be. I would ask the Lord Chancellor this. Under the rules which the Home Secretary is to make—which are merely transitional provisions—is he going to do anything new, or will he say merely that during the transitional period the old practice of the licensing justices shall continue?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: What I anticipate is that, subject to the difficulty of fixing the day, the old system will continue until then, and then on the day fixed the new system will come into force.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move this new clause. I have really discussed the purport of this clause already, and I do not think I need say anything further about it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved.—
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
Commencement of Part II
".—(1) The provisions of this Part of this except section seventeen thereof, shall come into operation on suet date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.
(2) An order of the Secretary of State under this section may contain such transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State expedient in consequence of the coming into operation of the said provisions of this Part of this Act.
(3) The power conferred on the Secretary of State by this section to make orders shall be exercisable by statutory instrument."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Special hours certificates for certain hotels and restaurants]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is little more than a drafting Amendment. The word "frequenting" rather conveys the idea of the person being an habitué who continually frequents or goes there, whereas "resorting to" applies to casuals as well. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 38, leave out ("frequenting") and insert ("resorting to").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 [Special hours certificates for certain clubs]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Subsection (1) of Clause 20 provides for the grant of special hours certificates for clubs by
"the Metropolitan police magistrate for the police court division in which the premises are situated."
Clause 23 provides for revocation by the
"magistrate by whom the certificate was granted."
It might therefore be argued that a special hours certificate for a club could be revoked only by the individual magistrate who granted it. The Amendment meets the point by referring in each case to "the magistrate," which we define later on as a magistrate for the division. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 8, leave out from the beginning to ("is") in line 9, and insert ("magistrate").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: This is obviously an improvement, and we have no objection to it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Later permitted hours where special hours certificate in force]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (3) to omit all words from "relates" down to the beginning of proviso (b) and to insert:
864
"that is to say:—

(a) notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1921, the permitted hours shall be the hours from half past twelve in the afternoon to two o'clock on the following morning, with a break from three o'clock until half past six in the afternoon, so however that this paragraph shall not affect the sale, supply or consumption of intoxicating liquor at any time on Sunday;

(b) paragraph (d) of section five of the Act of 1921 (which authorises the consumption of intoxicating liquor with a meal within half an hour after the conclusion of the permitted hours if the liquor was supplied during the permitted hours and served at the same time as the meal and for consumption with the meal) shall have effect, in relation to the conclusion on any day except Sunday, of the second part of the permitted hours, as if the words ' with a meal ' and the words from 'and served' to 'with the meal' were omitted; and

(c) section three of the Act of 1921 (which provides for an extension of an hour in certain premises as respects intoxicating liquor sold for consumption with a meal) shall not apply:

Provided that—

(i) if on any occasion when the permitted hours would apart from this proviso end at two o'clock in the morning, music and dancing is not provided after midnight, the permitted hours shall cease at midnight, and if on any such occasion the provision of music and dancing ceases at a time between midnight and two o'clock in the morning the permitted hours shall cease at that time;

(ii)"

The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment, although it looks rather formidable, is little more than drafting. The main object of the Amendment is to remove any possibility of doubt being cast on the meaning of the subsection by arguments as to whether questions of drinking on Saturday nights from midnight onwards are questions of week-day or Sunday drinking. In one sense, of course, they are an extension of the Saturday drinking, and in another sense they are drinking on Sunday. The concluding words of the new paragraph (a) make it quite clear that the Saturday permitted hours will end at midnight. This was always the intention. An Amendment to provide for extensions to 2 a.m. on Sundays was proposed on Report stage in the House of Commons but was withdrawn after it had been pointed out on behalf of the Government that the proposal would open up an additional field of controversy. There is, however, the possibility of argument that subsection (3) as it stands in the Bill

865
would not have the intended effect. The subsection was framed on the basis that Section 2 of the Licensing Act, 1921, which deals with permitted hours on Sundays, would rule out any extension of the permitted hours on Saturdays beyond midnight. But it might be argued that, as this would be a question of extending the week-day hours allowed under Sections 1 and 3, Section 2 would not apply. The new paragraph (a) will leave no basis for any such argument. The revised draft also deals with other minor points, and if your Lordships want any reference to them I will gladly make it. I think I have said enough to show the reason for this Amendment which I have described as little more than drafting, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 8, leave out from ("relates") to ("nothing") in line 29, and insert the said newords.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23:
Revocation of special hours certificates
23.—(1) At any time, not earlier than the expiration of twelve months from the granting of a special hours certificate, while the certificate is in force the Commissioner of Police for the metropolis may apply to the licensing justices or magistrate by whom the certificate was granted for the revocation of the certificate on the ground that while the certificate has been in force—

(a) the premises or part of the premises to which the certificate relates have not been used as mentioned in paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section nineteen or paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section twenty of this Act, as the case may be; or

(b) a person has been convicted of having on the said premises or part contravened section four of the Act of 1921 (which prohibits the sale, supply or consumption of intoxicating liquor outside the permitted hours),

and if the justices or magistrate are or is satisfied as to the ground of the application they or he may revoke the certificate.
4.18 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1) to omit "not earlier than the expiration of twelve months from the granting of a special hours certificate, while the certificate" and to insert "while a special hours certificate." The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amend-
866
ment deals with a point which was overlooked during the Report stage in another place. The clause sets out the ground on which the Commissioner of Police may apply for the revocation of a special hours certificate, and at present empowers the commissioner to apply
"at any time, not earlier than the expiration of twelve months from the granting of a special hours certificate, while certificate is in force…"
The effect of the Amendment is to omit the reference to the expiration of twelve months. That reference was originally included when the proposals for special hours related only to licensed hotels and restaurants and the only ground proposed for revocation was similar—though not exactly similar—to that stated in paragraph (a) of the present subsection (1).
As it originally stood, this ground was that the premises were not being habitually used as was intended when the special hours certificate was granted, and the object of twelve months' grace was to give the hotel or restaurant a year in which to work up to full use. The question was raised as to the meaning of the word "habitual" and it was asked whether it covered, for example, the use of special hours on alternate days. The conclusion was that such a practice would not prove attractive to tourists and would give rise to administrative difficulties. For that reason the Bill was amended by the insertion of Clause 24 (2), which makes it plain that, apart front temporary interruptions and the provision made in Clause 21 for seasonal certificates, nothing less is contemplated than regular use for dancing and refreshment six days a week. In these circumstances it would clearly be wrong to allow occasional use to continue for a year before the police could take action, and it was never intended to allow a year's grace as respects breaches of permitted hours, which are made a ground for revocation by paragraph (b) of the subsection. That is the reason for this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 1, leave out from ("time") to ("is") in line 3 and insert ("while a special hours certificate").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: I do not think we have any objection to this Amendment. When it comes to the new subsection I may have something to say.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY: This is really consequential on the Amendment which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor explained a moment ago, in that it substitutes the word "magistrate" in the way he explained for the words which appear at present. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 4, leave out from ("justices") to ("for") in line 5, and insert ("if the certificate was granted under section nineteen of this Act, or to the magistrate if it was granted under section twenty thereof").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, at the end of subsection (1) (b), to insert:
"or that on the whole the persons resorting to the premises or part are there at times when the sale or supply of intoxicating liquor therein is lawful by virtue only of the special hours certificate, for the purpose of obtaining intoxicating liquor rather than for the purpose of dancing or obtaining refreshments other than intoxicating liquor."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment provides an additional ground on which the Commissioner of Police may apply for the revocation of a special hours certificate and is designed, so far as possible, to meet two points which were raised when the provisions for the special hours were extended to registered clubs on Report stage in another place. The first of these points is that under Clause 19 hotels and restaurants which apply for special hours certificates must satisfy the conditions laid down for reduced licence duty. These include a requirement that the liquor receipts must not exceed half (for a hotel) or three-fifths (for a restaurant) of the total receipts, but no comparable condition is imposed as respects clubs. Secondly, the clubs which apply for special hours certificates are likely to be proprietary clubs including, perhaps, clubs formed in replacement of existing bottle parties; and while some proprietary clubs and bottle parties provide perfectly respectable entertainment of the kind now in question for their members and visitors, it was suggested that some guarantee must be provided to prevent a special hours certificate continuing if what happens is that the club members and visitors sit drinking round an empty dance floor while music is provided from time to time.
We have given further consideration to the question whether a fair and effective
868
check on the liquor receipts of clubs which obtain special hours certificates could be devised, but after going into it I say quite frankly that it seemed quite impracticable. After all, a comparison between liquor receipts from members and total receipts would be quite ineffective, as charges for liquor could be reduced if subscriptions were raised. A comparison between expenditure on liquor from the club funds and total expenditure from those funds—even if an appropriate proportion could be arrived at—would, on the one hand, be unfair to the clubs, as it might impose on them a necessity not imposed on hotels and restaurants of evening out their annual purchases of liquor and so perhaps missing favourable opportunities of large purchases, and, on the other hand, the type of night club proprietor for whose elimination the check is intended would probably be fully equal to producing the most plausible accounts of total expenditure up to any necessary figure.
Clearly, then, what we must have is a test based not on accounts but on observation of what actually happens, and it is thought that the words proposed to be added to paragraph (b) of Clause 23 (1), while avoiding any suggestion that a certificate can be revoked because a fair proportion of the patrons prefer to watch the dancing instead of dancing themselves, will certainly enable the police to secure a revocation in any case where the dancing is confined to one or two couples or to cabaret artistes and is a mere pretext for additional hours for drinking. It was not thought necessary to insert a ground of this kind for revocation when the special hours provisions were confined to hotels and restaurants, but if such a provision is included there seems to be no justification for excluding hotels and restaurants from its scope.
So we get the difficulty that whilst on the one hand it is good that we should have places where, so long as they are decent, young people can go and enjoy themselves and where drink is served—always provided that the drink is ancillary to the entertainment and the dancing and the like—it would on the other hand be utterly wrong to have clubs like this and give these added hours if all that is being done is to afford facilities for a great deal of drinking and nothing much else. The difficulty is to know where to

869
draw the line. I think we have done the best we can by these words. On the whole, the persons using the premises are there at times when the sale or supply of intoxicating liquor is lawful, not for the purposes of obtaining intoxicating liquor but rather for the purposes of dancing and of obtaining refreshments other than the intoxicating liquor. If you are dancing and a little drop of drink happens to go down your throat you are all right! But if the dance is a mere excuse for pouring liquor down your throat, it is wrong, and these words will, we hope, divide the sheep from the goats. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 17, at beginning insert the said words.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: I think the whole Committee will be indebted to the noble and learned Viscount for describing these night clubs so accurately as he has. I was glad to think he was reading most of the time from a brief. As I was listening to the Lord Chancellor I was picturing the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, at one of these places, sitting down having got tired of dancing, and having a little refreshment, so that he might go on again. I can envisage the manager coming up to him, if he sat there too long or had taken an extra drink of some sort, and saying: "My Lord, you can remain here if you will either have a dance or will now take a lemonade instead of the liquid which we have just been providing to your Lordship." Those awkward situations, of course, may occur! It may be perfectly all right. Nobody would ever think that a place that the noble Lord went to was anything but a most respectable place, or that he was not there for the most respectable purposes.
Obviously, it will be difficult for the manager to know when to intervene and when to turn out somebody who perhaps has not had enough dancing and who has spent rather more of his time taking intoxicating drink. I can see great difficulties arising in these places. I am happy to think that I do not waste much of my money in frequenting such places, and therefore those awkward situations will not, I think, arise in my case. I am not certain that I could invent any better words than those provided by the noble and learned Viscount, but I can foresee some of my noble friends (not all of them)
870
in embarrassing situations sometimes being requested peremptorily, though they are quite exhausted, to take the next dance or they will have to leave the premises. That is the kind of fate which may be in store for anybody who goes to these places. Perhaps, on the whole, we had better accept the words that the noble and learned Viscount has put before us.
LORD ROCHESTER: I am grateful to my noble friend for his solicitude! It only shows where we get to when we sacrifice principle to expediency. However, I would like to thank him for his consideration, because I am reminded that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor also referred to my younger days when he said I may have been a "gay young thing." I should like to apologise to the House for not having been here sooner, but I was at Rochester on the Water Board, feeling that it was more necessary to secure God's pure water for my friends down there than to be up here debating intoxicating liquor. It only shows how this House goes wrong when I am not here! I am distressed to hear that my noble friend's Amend rent on Clause 2 was carried in my absence. Needless to say, had I been here I should not have been able to support him in the Division.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, after subsection (1) to insert as a new subsection:
"( ) At any time while a special hours certificate granted under section twenty of this Act is in force the Commissioner of Police for the metropolis may apply to the magistrate for the revocation of the certificate on the ground that the revocation thereof is expedient by reason of the occurrence of disorderly or indecent conduct on the premises or part to which the certificate relates; and if the magistrate is satisfied as to the ground of the application he shall revoke the certificate."
The noble Lord said: Now that we have had this pleasant and amusing little interlude, I beg to move the Amendment that stands in the name of my noble and learned friend. This Amendment enables the Commissioner of Police to apply for the revocation of a special hours certificate on account of disorderly or indecent conduct. It is confined to certificates given in respect of clubs, because at licensed premises disorderly conduct, as your Lordships are probably aware, is already covered by the general law, while indecency is covered by a condi-

871
tion attached by the London County Council to all licences for public music and dancing. The requirement in Clause 20 (1) (a) that a club must obtain a certificate from the London County Council before it can obtain a special hours certificate was included for the purpose of safety, and in that connection it is clearly desirable to have the advantage of the technical knowledge and long experience of the officers of the London County Council. But any question of disorderly or indecent conduct is more appropriate to be dealt with by the police in the course of their duties as respects hours and other matters. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 18, at end, insert the saidsubsection.—(Lord Charley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24 [Supplementary provisions as to special hours certificates]:
LORD CHORLEY: This is the last of the three Amendments which hang together, the purport of which was explained by my noble and learned friend in connection with the Amendment to Clause 20, page 15, line 7. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 38, at end insert—
("(a) the expression "the magistrate", in relation to any premises, means a metropolitan police magistrate for the police court division in which the premises are situated; and
(b)").—(Lord Charley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY: The object of this addition to Clause 24 (2) is to make it clear that a special hours certificate is not to be granted, and may be revoked, unless an adequate proportion of floor space is provided for dancing. I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is essential that what is sometimes called a "postage stamp" floor should not be allowed to fulfil the requirements and in that way be a cloak for drinking facilities. This clause has been re-drafted to secure that end. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 4, at end insert ("; and references in the said provisions to providing dancing shall be construed as references to
872
providing facilities for dancing which are adequate having regard to the number of persons for whose reception in the premises or part of premises in question provision is made").—(Lord Charley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 [Prohibition of consumption of intoxicating liquor outside permitted hours at parties organised for gain.]:
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved to leave out subsection (8) and insert in its place:
"(8) In the case of premises in a part of the metropolis specified for the purposes of subsection (1) of section nineteen of this Act, the following provisions shall have effect:

(a) before the first day of February, nineteen hundred and fifty, any time at which the consumption of intoxicating liquor would be lawful on premises of a club as respects which subsection (3) of section twenty-two of this Act had effect for the time being shall be treated for the purposes of this section as not being outside the permitted hours;

(b) where it is proposed that such premises shall become premises of a registered club, application may be made for the grant of a certificate under the Second Schedule to this Act and of a special hours certificate under section twenty of this Act before the registration of the club and its occupation of the premises, and accordingly references in that Schedule and section to a registered club and premises thereof shall include references to a club proposed to be registered and to premises proposed to be occupied by the club."

The noble Lord said: Subsection (8) provides that Clause 25, which applies to bottle parties the latest permitted hour for licensed premises, shall come into operation on January 1, 1950. It was added to the clause on Report stage in another place, and was put forward as a means of enabling those bottle parties, which could quickly qualify as clubs under Clause 20, to do so without being put out of action in the meantime. Obviously, the time will be insufficient where any substantial alterations are needed to satisfy the safety requirements of the London County Council, and there could be no question of allowing a prolonged period of grace. But the best bottle parties (if I may use that expression), though evading the spirit of the law, have kept within its letter and have made their contribution towards meeting the demand for decent night entertainment in London. The purpose of Clause 25 and the preceding clauses is to end the evasion but to provide a respectable

873
way of meeting the demand for night entertainment. The Government therefore accepted the Amendment, subject to further consideration of its terms in relation to other clauses.
The scheme of the new subsection (8) is as follows. In the first place, the coming into operation of the clause is not postponed beyond the passing of the Bill, except in the area in central London in which special hours are to be allowed under the preceding clauses; and within that area paragraph (a) provides that, as soon as the Act is passed, drinking at bottle parties must be kept within the hours permissible under special hours certificates. Secondly, whereas the Amendment accepted in another place postponed the operation of the whole clause to January 1, 1950, the limited relaxation described above will operate for a period of a further month. This is in order to avoid the inconvenience of a last-minute rush of work just at the busy time of Christmas. Thirdly, paragraph (b) makes the necessary administrative concession of enabling the bottle parties to apply for London County Council and special hours certificates while they are actually in, process of conversion into registered clubs. Otherwise, the steps required for obtaining a special hours certificate would be delayed by procedural difficulties, and even with the extra month the time is none too long for the completion of these steps, if structual alterations and things of that sort are to be carried out. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page l9, line 44, leave out subsection (8) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Chorley.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: As I understand it, putting it shortly, this postpones the date from January 1 to February 1, with a few consequential changes. We have no objection to that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 26 to 28 agreed to.
Clause 29: [Restriction of retail sales by wine or spirit dealers without justices' licence]:
4.42 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN had given notice of two Amendments to subsection (1) of which the first was to delete "or" in
874
paragraph (c). The noble Lord said: The Committee will see that I seek to put in another purpose in Clause 29 (1) in the shape of paragraph (e). That clause reads:
"Subject to the provisions of this section, and notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) of section one hundred and eleven of the Act of 1910 … the said subsection (1) shall not authorise a dealer to sell any spirits or wine by retail at any premises without a justices' licence except—

(a) to a person holding an excise licence for the sale of intoxicating liquor;

(b) to a mess or registered club;

(c) for delivery outside Great Britain; or

(d) to a person engaged, at the premises in question or elsewhere, in any business carried on by the dealer."

I seek to put in paragraph (e) to this effect:
"for the purposes of carrying on a bona fide wine and spirit business supplying customers regularly throughout the year."
Hitherto, and indeed until this Bill becomes law, a grocer in a small town or village, or anywhere else, has been able on getting an excise licence to sell wine and spirits in his shop without getting a justices' licence in advance. I see no reason why that practice should be discontinued. I know that in the past when there has been a shortage of wines and spirits a certain number of "quick sales" shops have arisen, particularly in London, and these shops have been selling all sorts of concoctions. They have sprung up and carried on this business perhaps only in the month of December, for the Christmas trade.
I do not want to encourage those people, and I believe the decision to leave out a provision similar to that which I am moving was largely aimed against them and not at the bona fide village or small town grocer who has, as it were, always tested the marl, et by sales on an excise licence before he has applied for a justices' licence. If we leave out this class of person it will be very difficult for anyone to prove need to the justices, because you cannot very well prove need unless you have in some way tested that need, which can be dove at present under an excise licence. I do not want to favour these "mushroom" liquor shops, and I think we ought to be able to find some appropriate words without pushing on the Licensing Benches in villages and country towns throughout the country applica-

875
tions for sales by a new grocer, or whatever he may be, in what has hitherto been a perfectly legitimate trade under an excise licence. Those are my reasons for moving this Amendment. If it is thought to be so wide that it will let in the "mushroom" shops, I hope we may find words to exclude them. It is not my intention to include them, and I hope I have excluded them by my words "bona fide" and "regularly throughout the year." That was the intention behind those two phrases. I think I have explained the matter sufficiently and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 28, leave out ("or").—(Lord Llewellin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Clause 29 is, in effect, an Amendment of Section 111 of the Act of 1910. The clause reads:
"Subject to the provisions of this section, and notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) of section one hundred and eleven of the Act of 1910"—
it defines what that is—
"the said subsection (1) shall not authorise a dealer to sell any spirits or wine by retail … without a justices' licence."
Section 111, I think I am right in saying, applies only to premises which are exclusively used for the sale of intoxicating liquor. Therefore, I do not think the grocer's shop comes into the picture at all. Obviously, it is not a shop which is "exclusively used for the sale of intoxicating liquor." It does not come within Section 111, as I understand it, and therefore is not here dealt with. But there is plenty for the Amendment to bite on, and personally I have some sympathy for the Amendment though I cannot sec my way to accept it, and I have been completely defeated in trying to find a way.
May I take, for instance, a perfectly reputable establishment which has a number of branches? I am talking about the wine and spirits trade, and we can all think of such an example. At present, if they see a village shop and think they would like to try to establish a business there, they will get the shop and will start off with only an excise licence. Then, having tested the market, subject to restrictions which are applicable to an excise licence, they will, at the next appropriate session, go to the justices and apply for a
876
licence to sell by retail. That is what has been going on and, so far as perfectly reputable shops are concerned such as the noble Lord and I can think of, I personally think that it worked well. On the other hand, very often under that style of trade there has sprung up a very undesirable type of trade. There are the little "mushroom" shops which come into being at or about Christmas and which sell very inferior drink at exhorbitant prices; and then, having done that and having to a large extent exploited the public, after Christmas is over they disappear. Everybody in the trade wants to strike at those shops because, be it observed, it is an anomaly. It was never intended that Section III should operate to allow sales by retail under excise licence, unless such sales were merely incidental to the business of a wholesaler.
This matter was very carefully considered by the Royal Commission which reported on it in 1929. May I read to your Lordships the relevant paragraphs? They are paragraphs 600, 601 and 602. I had better read them in full because they set out the argument fully.
Paragraph 600 reads:
"To the general requirement of the licensing law that all sales by retail required to be authorised under a justices' licence there is one notable exception, the 'bottle shop.' Under an exemption contained in Section III (1) of the Act of 1910, if a wine or spirit dealer desires to carry on the sale by retail for off-consumption of spirits or wines he may, provided that (i) only intoxicating liquors or, in addition to these, non-intoxicating drinks are sold on the premises, and (ii) the premises are self-contained, take out a retail excise licence without first obtaining the corresponding justices' licence. Such establishments have been called 'bottle shops.'"
In Paragraph 601 the Commission go on to say:
"We regard the provision as anomalous. It may have been justified in the past when it was first introduced. We do not think it now is. It presents a means by which persons may carry on retail sales of intoxicating liquor without the approval, and possibly contrary to the judgment, of the licensing justices. It offers a means by which, without check, an area may become overlicensed, and the schemes of licensing justices frustrated. It denies to the citizens of the neighbourhood the opportunity which they ordinarily have of expressing their views before the licensing justices in regard to the establishment in their midst of liquor retailing businesses."
Then, in Paragraph 602, they state:
"We, therefore, recommend that the exemption should be abolished and that persons at

877
present trading under licences obtained under it should be required to obtain a justices' licence."
That is the provision. I have looked at it from this point of view: is it possible for the excise authorities to differentiate between the two classes of people between whom we all want to differentiate—the perfectly reputable firm which wants to open a new branch and the very disreputable people who indulge in this practice which I have mentioned, and which the whole trade and all decent people must deplore? Frankly, I do not think it is. The excise people are concerned merely with a man coming forward presenting the appropriate form, paying the appropriate sum of money and getting his licence: it is not part of their function to differentiate. They are in no way fitted to do so, and I do not think it is desirable that they should exercise discretion in trying to winnow the grain from the chaff. If discretion, as between one set of people and another, is to be brought into play at all, it cannot be done by the excise authorities. But it can be done by the magistrates. After all, that is what they are for—to differentiate between the worthy and the disreputable cases. Therefore, I see nothing for it but to say that these people shall have to procure justices licence.
In making up their minds—if they possess that common sense which I am sure they nearly all do possess—the justices will surely have regard to the question of whether the applicant is really a man who wants to start a branch establishment of a business—that he is prepared to risk his money in the venture, thereby showing in the best possible way that he believes there is an opening in the area. I should hope that the justices would extend favourable consideration to that man. Certainly, in so far as may be, the Home Secretary in his circular would make it quite plain that he does not want unduly to handicap that class of people. On the other hand, undesirable people who open these shops, who take advantage of what is undoubtedly a gap in the legislation to establish what is entirely a retail business, would be stopped. I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment, not because I have not sympathy with it, because, frankly, I have. But, as I say, I am satisfied that the excise people cannot differentiate between the unworthy and the worthy. Their task is
878
simply to collect money and grant licences. In this instance the responsibility for differentiating must rest with the magistrates. I think we may leave it to them to ascertain whether people coming before them are undesirable people trying to take advantage of this gap in the law and, on the other hand, we may rely on them not unduly to handicap the perfectly reputable people who in the past have provided reasonable facilities for the public to buy drink. As I say, I am sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment, but I hope that what I have said will give noble Lords some small satisfaction.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for the sympathetic way in which he has dealt with this Amendment. I will withdraw it now, but perhaps the noble and learned Viscount and I may have a talk to see whether, between now and Report stage, we can find some words to meet the case. I am certain that, as always, he will be willing to do that. In view of the reasons which he has given for not accepting it, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 32, leave out ("commencement") and insert ("passing").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The same applies to the next Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 10, leave out ("commencement") and insert ("passing").—(The Lord Chancellor)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR had an Amendment on the Marshalled List after subsection (4) to insert:
"( ) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (5) of section twenty-six of the Act of 1910 (which prohibits the ordinary removal of a licence if objection is made by certain persons therein mentioned), where application is made to justices for the removal from any premises of a licence to which this subsection applies, that is to say—

879

(a) a licence granted in respect of the premises by way of renewal by virtue of subsection (2) of this section, or

(b) a licence granted in respect of the premises by way of renewal of any licence to which this subsection applies granted in respect of the premises.

the justices may, if they think fit, make an order authorising the removal notwithstanding that objection to the removal is made by any such person (other than the holder of the licence) as is mentioned in the said subsection (5)."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment covers more or less the same ground as the Amendment which follows it, and which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. I think I prefer Lord Llewellin's Amendment to my own. In those circumstances, if convenient to him, I shall be prepared not to move my Amendment but to accept his—subject, of course, to what I shall have to say about it.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved to add to the clause:
"(6) Where a justice's licence is granted for the sale at any premises of any spirits or wine by retail for consumption off, but not on, the premises, then the provisions of section twenty-six of the Act of 1910 shall have effect in relation to the said licence as if in paragraph five thereof the words 'by the owner of the premises from which the licence is to be removed, or' were omitted."
The noble Lord said: I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for what he has just said. Both of us, I think, are out to achieve the same object. I understand that my Amendment is so drafted that it will operate in respect of off-licences, whereas I am told that the one which the Lord Chancellor is not moving would be limited to licences converted into justices' licences under Clause 29. Perhaps that is the reason why he prefers my Amendment to his own. I am not at all sure that he may not have to readjust the wording of my Amendment, but I believe that it carries out quite a worthy object. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 35, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Llewellin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will accept the Amendment which the noble Lord has proposed. I have already indicated my willingness to do so, it being understood that the drafting of the noble
880
Lord's Amendment requires some attention. He will understand that I accept it in that way. The reason why I prefer his Amendment to mine is because his is rather wider, and I do not see why in this case we should not go wider. I accept this in principle, on the understanding that I can come back to it on Report stage to see whether we can agree on appropriate drafting.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 30:
Persons under eighteen not to be employed in bars
30.—(1) If any person under the age of eighteen years is employed in any bar of licensed premises at a time when the bar is open for the sale or consumption of intoxicating liquor, the holder of the licence shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds in the case of a first offence, or twenty pounds in the case of a second or any subsequent offence.
5.0 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to add to subsection (1):
"Providing that this section shall not apply to a son or daughter of the holder of the licence not being under the age of fifteen years."
The noble Earl said: The Amendment which I now move reduces the limitation on the age at which young persons can be employed in a bar. This clause was inserted during the passage of the Bill in another place and it covers all licensed premises throughout the country, so that from the passing of this Bill no young person under eighteen will be allowed to be employed in bars and licensed premises: that is to say, he cannot be employed to wash the glasses, or fetch and carry drinks from one part of licensed premises to another. There may be a great deal to be said for limiting the employment of young people in licensed premises, but I have been told that the clause as it stands will prohibit a licensee and his wife from ever being able to go out during the time the public-house is open to the public. Therefore, it is suggested that we should put in a proviso permitting the son or daughter, not being under the age of fifteen, to help their parents if there is a need for it. I do not think this would damage the Bill in one way or another and I put it to the

881
noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for his consideration. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 42, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Munster.)
LORD ROCHESTER: I have already apologised to the Committee for not having been present when the noble Earl moved his Amendment to Clause 2. I am glad to be hack from the scenes of my youth where, according to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, I may have been a "gay young thing," at least in time to deal with this Amendment. I would suggest that this is a most pernicious Amendment. Seldom has a Bill been more stripped of its most beneficial proposals than this one has been, and I sincerely hope that the Government will not be a party to weakening this clause. The lowering of the beer tax, the amending of the Licensing Act of 1921 to fix the latest permitted hour of sale at 10.30 o'clock instead of 10, the provision for intoxicants to be sold and consumed in clubs in London until 2.30 a.m., have followed one another in quick succession.
Though persons under eighteen may not drink in a bar, the law at present permits them to serve drink. The clause which the noble Earl seeks to weaken by his Amendment affects the whole country and not only the new town areas. It is good to have young people guarded, on whichever side of the counter they may live. That is about the only bright spot left in the Bill. Then again, the Amendment, if accepted, would put a premium on brewers up and down the country seeking managers to hold the licence who have families of young people between the ages of fifteen and eighteen. I do not think the noble Earl has added to the attraction of his Amendment by suggesting that he moved it in order to allow licensees and their wives to leave the premises in charge of a young person between the ages of fifteen and eighteen. That, to my mind, is an argument in favour of retaining the clause in its present rigidity. I hope that the Government will not weaken this clause. These young people should be protected on whichever side of the counter they may happen by accident to live.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER: I would ask the noble Earl not to press
882
this Amendment. In regard to the question of young persons serving behind bars, does the noble Earl think that if you have in your veins the blood of a publican, you are immunised from the demoralising influences which would affect ordinary young persons of seventeen? Again, I wonder whether he considers that a publican who is a father would be more careful of his own children than he might be of other people's children, and more likely to protect them from the demoralising influences from which this clause tries to protect young people. Apparently, that is not so, because the publican and his wife are to retire and, as it were, leave the floor to the boy or the girl of fifteen. My knowledge of publicans leads me to believe, as the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said previously this afternoon, that publicans are men of high character. Most of them would never dream of using their own boys and girls of fifteen in this way, and those who would must be prevented from exploiting them.
LORD CALVERLEY: This is a dreadful Amendment and I hope the House will not allow it to ire withdrawn, bur will negative it—that is the practice of another place. The noble Earl is unjust to the publican in suggesting that he would go out of the house and leave it in charge of children of fifteen plus. The noble Earl is putting too great a burden upon the police and is making the work of the licensing justices more difficult. It looks as though the noble Earl knew only the Carlton Club and had never been in a "pub" in his life. I hope the House without further ado, will negative the Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Before the noble and learned Viscount replies, may I say this? Let us get this matter in its right perspective. At the present moment the position under law is that a boy or girl under eighteen is allowed inside a public-house but is not allowed to be served with intoxicating liquor. The Amendment which my noble friend has moved does not permit the ion or daughter of a licensee to be served with intoxicating liquor. Under the law, as it will be if this Bill goes through unamended, boys or girls under eighteen will be allowed to be in the bar when it is open to the public, and they will be able to help washing up glasses before and after closing hours

883
and to arrange for opening time. What they will not be allowed to do is to help the father and mother in serving liquor. That is the only distinction. I do not think it is one of very great principle.
LORD MARLEY: I would like to ask this question: If the publican has married a girl of seventeen, does she come under this restriction?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should like notice of that question. Frankly, I do not know. I must say that I think this is a bad Amendment. It may or may not be true to say that it does not damage the Bill, but what we have to think of is what damages the child. I would ask the noble Earl—and I am certain what the answer will be: Would he like a child of his at the age of fifteen to be working in a bar and serving behind a counter? I am astounded that the proposition should be put forward. If we do not want to do it in the case of our own children, we have no right to do it in respect of those of anyone else. I do not suggest for a moment that all "pubs" are haunts of vice, or anything of the sort, but I do think that for a child at the age of fifteen years to spend his or her working life in a "pub" is very bad. The Gowers Committee dealt with this matter, and this is what they said in paragraph 275 of their Report:
"The Intoxicating Liquor (Sale to Persons under Eighteen) Act, 1923, makes it an offence for a licence-holder to supply liquor to a juvenile, or for a juvenile to buy liquor, for consumption in a bar."
"Juvenile" there means under eighteen years of age, and we are talking about fifteen here. The Report continues:
"We regard it as anomalous that a licence-holder may nevertheless employ a juvenile in a bar; and we recommend that such employment should be prohibited by statute."
I am quite convinced that we should prohibit by Statute the employment of juveniles in a bar.
The case cited by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, of the mother and father going out in the evening, perhaps going to the pictures, and the little girl who has just reached her fifteenth birthday spending the evening behind the bar and running the place, is a deplorable one. That is quite something, coming from me because unlike the noble Lord, who said that he
884
has never been to a "pub," I have been often. I would not in any circumstances contemplate a child of mine being placed in that position; and neither would any parent who was considering the welfare of his child. Therefore I must say, definitely and strongly, that I reject this Amendment.
LORD O'HAGAN: I should like to express what I believe to be the feelings of a good many noble Lords on this side of the House. I am sorry to differ from those sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, but I feel that this is not advisable and is not in the best interests of the children.
LORD HAWKE: May I associate myself with what my noble friend has just said? There may be things to be said in this respect, but I believe people will think this a very shocking thing if it is pressed to a Division.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for the observations he has made on this Amendment, which I never intended to press to a Division. However, it is well worth while to consider for a moment what this clause does. The noble and learned Viscount, in all his glory, says that it is a monstrous thing for a child to be employed in the bar of licensed premises; that it is disgraceful that the child should serve drink (I do not ask that the child should serve drink); that it is disgraceful that the child should go into the bar and hear the common everyday talk which may go on; it is low and demoralising. But in this clause the noble and learned Viscount does not cover clubs. There are hundreds of young boys, well under the age of eighteen, who are employed in clubs all over the country. I did not for one moment expect that Lord Rochester would know anything about it, because his knowledge of public-houses must be very small—indeed, if he had not drunk so much water at Croydon perhaps he would not have been so ill. As for Lord Calverley, I am afraid his knowledge of clubs and "pubs" must be very slender indeed. However, I do not desire to press this Amendment. If the noble and learned Viscount is determined that his child shall be treated in a proper manner, and not go into licensed premises, then we should apply it to everything. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD CALVERLEY: I hope it will be negatived.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 agreed to.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, after Clause 30 to insert the following new clause:
Extension of the Act of 1945
".Section fifteen of the Act of 1945 (which provides for the expiry of that Act) shall have effect as if for the word "five" there were substituted the word "eight.""
The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will remember that the Licensing Planning (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1945, does what it says, and allows the temporary planning provisions to be made. I am told that the complete provisions will not be made within the five years. It has been suggested to me that this is a convenient opportunity for making that five years into eight years, when it is considered that this Act will have served its term and will no longer be necessary. If that is so—and the noble and learned Viscount will know whether or not it is—I think this is a good opportunity of extending it, so that it may not expire before its full work is done. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 30, insert the said new clause,—(Lord Llewellin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is true that the licensing planning committees will not be able to complete their work, and it is true that an extension of three years is desirable. But having said that, I am bound to say that for technical reasons this is not a convenient instrument in which to do it. The expenses of licensing planning committees are defrayed by the local planning authorities, and the proposal would therefore involve an increased charge on the rates and, in consequence, an increased charge on the Exchequer Equalisation grants. This was not provided for in the money Resolution in another place. Consequently, in order to insert such an Amendment as this we should require a further money Resolution. I have no doubt that this Amendment, which was down on the Report stage in another place, was not carried because it would have been technically out of order. I think the way to deal with it (the noble Lord will see I am at one
886
with him in his purpose) is to continue the Act from year to year, under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act in order to avoid any consequent need for annual reappointments of members. Your Lordships will see that we have provided in Clause 31 that the term of appointment shall in future be for three years. In that way we shall be able to achieve what the noble Lord desires in his Amendment. Though I am entirely at one with him in that, we cannot, for technical reasons, do it this way.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount. The Amendment was not called on the Report stage in the other place, and no doubt the reason why the Speaker did not select it was because it was outside the Money Resolution. The explanation which the noble and learned Viscount has now given will afford considerable satisfaction to those employed in working the 1945 Act. That explanation could not be given in the other place, and I think it is convenient that it should have been given now. It is obvious, for technical reasons, that the method suggested by the noble and learned Viscount is better. I have achieved what I wanted by the statement which the noble and learned Viscount has made, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 [Terms of appointment of members of licensing planning committees]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is the formal Amendment which I have moved several times. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 29, leave out ("commencement") and insert ("passing").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 32 to 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Power to amend constitution of London Licensing Planning Committee]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Clause 36 enables the Secretary of State, by statutory instrument, to reduce the number of members of the London Licensing Planning Committee

887
"by reason of any reduction under the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1948, in the number of petty sessional divisions in London.…"
Clause 13 of the Justices of the Peace Bill, however, contains general provisions as to the division of counties into petty sessional divisions. These provisions apply to London, and it is therefore desirable to replace the particular reference contained in the words quoted above by the general words proposed in the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 18, leave out from ("of") to ("the") in line 19 and insert ("the reduction under any enactment (whether passed before or after the passing of this Act) of").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 37 and 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 [Permitted hours in the metropolis]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: These are formal Amendments. If I may I will move them all together.
Amendments moved—
Page 28, line 9, leave out ("commencement") and insert ("passing")
Page 28, line 14, leave out ("commencement") and insert ("passing")
Page 28, line 17, leave out ("said commencement") and insert ("passing of this Act")
Page 28, line 23, leave out ("commencement") and insert ("passing").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Repeals]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment relates to the commencement of Part II of the Repeal Schedule, and is consequential on the postponement of the commencement of Part II (except Clause 17) to an appointed day. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Pace 29, leave out line 20 and insert ("date specified by order under section (Commencement of Part II) of this Act.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First Schedule:
State Management Districts
Part II (Ancillary functions exercisable by Secretary of State):
3. The provision of entertainment or recreation at premises in a State management district provided by the Secretary of State for the sale of intoxicating liquor, meals or refreshments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I wish the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, were still here, because he would regard this as another bright spot in the Bill, for here we deal with water. The Amendment is required because under the Water (Scotland) Act, which we passed recently, special water districts were outlined as from May 16, 1949. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 28, after ("except") insert ("that part of that parish which immediately before the coming into operation of section nine of the Water (Scotland) Act, 1949, was known as").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.26 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in paragraph 3, after "entertainment" to insert:
"other than the showing, except to private audiences, of cinematograph films commercially produced for exhibition to the general public."
The noble Lord said: Now we come to Part II of the First Schedule which refers to "Ancillary Functions exercisable by Secretary of State." Your Lordships will see at the top of page 32 that one of the functions is:
"The provision of entertainment or recreation at premises in a State management district …"
My reason for inserting the words in my Amendment is that, so far, cinemas have never had licences attached to them. The London Pavilion, for instance, carries a liquor licence when it is open for plays with human actors, but when it is used as a cinema the bar is always closed down. There are other cases I could cite where liquor licences have never been attached to cinematograph houses. To put it the other way round, here I am seeking not to attach a cinematograph house to a liquor bar. Nobody will have any objection to somebody in a public house, whether it is State managed or not, showing a film accompanied by a

889
talk. It would obviously be right in the case of a film which somebody had taken personally and where a lecture was given. But I think it would be wrong to attach licences to cinemas, or to allow a full-scale cinema performance to be given in a public-house. It would be a departure from our present practice, whether it be done in State "pubs" or free enterprise hotels or "pubs." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 1, after ("entertainment insert the said words.—(Lord Llewellin)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I can assure the noble Lord at once that the Home Secretary does not contemplate going into the film business, neither does he contemplate showing rival film exhibitions in public houses. The noble Lord will see that Part II is described as "Ancillary Functions exercisable by Secretary of State." One of the ancillary functions is that specified in paragraph 3. If I remember my Latin correctly, ancilla is Latin for "handmaid," and obviously they are functions which are not the primary functions but the assisting functions. I think the Amendment is unduly restrictive. Suppose, for instance, there is a cycling or rambling club who are showing films of their own activities. That obviously would be proper and right, and they should not be stopped.
LORD HAWKE: That is free entertainment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendment reads:
"other than the showing, except to private audiences, of cinematograph films commercially produced for exhibition to the general public."
The general public would be there, because you would not have a selected audience. At any rate, we all agree that things of that sort should not be prevented, There are instructional and documentary films produced by the Central Office of Information, who also have other films produced for general exhibition. I am told that the Amendment would rule out the exhibition of these films and also the exhibition of entertainment films along with such films as it would permit.
LORD LLEWELLIN: But is what is produced by the Central Office of Information really "commercially produced for exhibition to the general public?"
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I believe so. I am told there may be in certain cases, perhaps in Scotland and possibly in Cumberland in connection with Carlisle, certain districts so far away from the local cinema that the local residents would greatly appreciate a weekly showing of even purely educational films, if a suitable room were available. There would he rare cases of that sort. But we have not the slightest intention of going into the film business. We think it better to rely on the general words, which make it plain that the entertainment is to be ancillary to the main purpose of State management.
There was much talk about this matter in another place, and after amendment in Standing Committee paragraph 3 of the First Schedule contained the provision to promote, in State-managed districts where refreshment is sold by the Secretary of State, entertainment in licensed premises. The wording was criticised then; it was said that the Secretary of State might use his powers to add cinemas or greyhound racing tracks. To meet this point we amended the paragraph on Report, so as to make it clear that the prime purpose for which the premises were provided must be the sale of liquor, meals or refreshments. The Home Secretary then made the Amendment, and Mr. Grimston, speaking on behalf of the Opposition, said:
"I think this meets the point we raised in Committee, that the Secretary of State should not be able to use sale of liquor as a peg on which to hang a far larger enterprise."
So I hoped and expected that we had met the point by these general words, making it plain that the main purpose of the premises was to be the supply of drink and so forth. I hope the noble Lord will rest assured with the statement that, save in the most exceptional case—the sort of case I have mentioned as possibly arising in Scotland or Cumberland, where it would be appropriate to give some sort of weekly showing—we do not contemplate going into the film business.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am sure the intentions of the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary are strictly honourable—they always are. But I wonder whether I may give an example that occurs to my mind. Take the case of a dance band in a restaurant. I should

891
have supposed that a dance orchestra in a restaurant was ancillary to the main purpose, which is eating—and, as the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, is not here, I can also say drinking. But in the case of a cinema you might get a competitive element which would bring about a much more elaborate form of entertainment in itself. I am sure that that is not the intention here, but I wonder whether the Lord Chancellor, if he cannot give us an answer now, will be able at a later stage to say that the Home Secretary would give a direction of some kind to the management (who presumably, once they are set up, will try to make a success of the thing) to provide that these cinemas should not be in competition with the cinema industry. If that could be done, I think everybody would be satisfied.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will gladly do that. I will see if I can get the Home Secretary's consent to something of that sort. I am, of course, not committing him to anything. He might even consider an amendment of the words. We do not want to run a cinema business, and I should like to look at the matter and ask my right honourable friend whether he can do anything to allay the fears that the Home Secretary is going into the cinema business. He has not the slightest desire so to do.
LORD LLEWELLIN: In view of the last remarks of the noble and learned Viscount, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second Schedule agreed to.
Third Schedule [Enactments repealed]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The effect of these two Amendments is to transfer subsection (5) of Section 40 of the Act of 1910, which relates to the disqualification of justices for licensing work, from Part I to Part II of the Repeal Schedule. Part I deals with enactments to be repealed as from the commencement of the Act, and Part II with enactments which are now to be repealed as from the day appointed for the commencement of Part II of the Bill (except Clause 17). Clause 18, which contains the new provisions as to dis-
892
qualification of justices, will not come into operation until the appointed day, and the same should apply to this Amendment of Section 40 of the 1910 Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, leave out lines 38 and 39.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: I have no objection whatever to the transfer from Part I to Part II. But was the Lord Chancellor quite right in saying that Part II with enactments was to be repealed as from the day appointed?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think I was right but I will check it up.
LORD LLEWELLIN: The noble and learned Viscount said, I thought, that everything in Part II of the Third Schedule of the Act was to be repealed as from the day appointed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am now told that the answer is that the heading is altered: it is a matter of printing.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am much obliged.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move this drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 21, column 3, at end, insert ("in section forty, subsection (5)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
The Title:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The fact that the Bill has been amended means that certain words in the Title may not be appropriate and may not be coextensive with the words of the Act. We must therefore extend the Title. We have also to take into account Clause 30 of the Bill, on the employment of persons under eighteen years of age. Another Amendment is to cover Clause 38 of the Bill, regarding the fixing of notices on church doors. That Amendment was moved by a private Member on Report stage in another place. All these Amendments seek to ensure that the Title correctly states what the Bill does. It is

893
a matter of form, but it should be right. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
In the Title, line 9, leave out ("provide in certain cases for later") and insert ("amend the law as to").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: We have no objection whatever to any of these three Amendments. It seems to me that one of the sensible things about this Committee is that we always defer the Title to the end, and then make it fit what we have done in the meantime.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment has already been referred to. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Line 11, after ("dealers") insert ("to restrict the employment of persons under eighteen in bars;").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment also has been dealt with. I bee to move.
Amendment moved—
Line 14, after ("licences") insert ("to make further provision as to certain notices;").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Title of the Bill, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

VEHICLES (EXCISE) BILL [H.L.]
5.42 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is another of these Consolidation Bills. They are coming thick and fast. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill he now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2*. Bill, together with a Memorandum laid before the House on the 22nd June last, and any representations made with respect thereto under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

MARRIED WOMEN (RESTRAINT UPON ANTICIPATION) BILL [H.L.]
5.43 p.m.
Order of the Davy far the Second Reading read
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be read a second time. It is a Bill to carry one step further the process of removing the inequalities between men and women which have survived from the old Common Law of England. It is a Bill to remove a legal restriction upon the right of a woman to do what she likes with her own property, a restriction commonly known among lawyers as a "restraint on anticipation." I will be perfectly frank in telling your Lordships that this Bill was not part of the original programme of the Government. It owes its origin to the implications or a Personal Bill, which was passed by your Lordships' House, called the Mountbatten Estates Bill. That is a Bill to remove the restraint upon anticipation in that one particular case. I am told that, as the result of the introduction of this Bill, that measure has now been withdrawn in another place.
That Bill followed the normal procedure of your Lordships' House with regard to a Personal Estates Bill. It was considered by a highly expert Committee appointed by your Lordships for the purpose, consisting of the Lord Chairman of Committees, Lord Hailsham, Lord Simonds, the late Lord Uthwatt and Lord Kershaw. On this Committee reporting in favour of the Bill, I introduced it into your Lordships' House and it passed through all its stages without opposition. It attracted some public attention in the Press, and there is a Motion on the Paper in another place in the names of certain Conservative Members, criticising the Bill on the ground that it does not go far enough; that while it removes a hardship from one particular woman, the hardship is one that ought to be removed generally from all women who now suffer from it. I confess that that point seemed to me to merit consideration. The more I considered it, the more I became convinced that, in the circumstances of today, the restraint upon anticipation is a hardship in practically every case where it applies, and there is now no reason why it should not be removed generally.

895
The history of the matter goes straight back to the days when, by the Common Law of England, a husband was entitled to all the property of his wife. Any property which she had before marriage and any property which came to her during the marriage fell completely under her husband's control, and he could do what he liked with it. From the sixteenth to the end of the eighteenth century, inroads upon the husband's rights were made by predecessors of mine in this office. That was because the total incapacity of a married woman to own property appeared more and more unsatisfactory and illogical. Property could be given to trustees in trust for the married woman for her separate use. It was found that that involved the proposition that the married woman could dispose of such property as an unmarried woman could. Before the end of the eighteenth century, it had become clear that to give a woman that right was to put her at the mercy of her husband. By one means or another, he could induce his wife to sell or mortgage her future income and hand him the proceeds of the sale or loan.
The Court of Chancery came to the rescue. Lord Thurlow was the first Judge to devise this restriction, and he and Lord Eldon, by their decisions, established it as valid in law. It was established that, by imposing a restraint upon anticipation, a wife could be effectually prevented from disposing of her future income and thereby protected against her husband. It was said at the time that she was protected against both the kicks and the kisses of her husband. Gradually it became the invariable custom of those lawyers who prepared settlements and wills to insert the clause whenever property was to be left in trust for a woman. The restraint did not operate until she married. It operated during her marriage, but ceased the moment her husband died or the marriage became dissolved, and it attached again to any property left when she re-married.
After the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, when all the property of a married woman became her separate property and not that of her husband, the scope of the restraint became very wide indeed, and what had originally been invented as a protection for a married woman against her husband became less and less necessary for that purpose, and
896
came to be regarded by those interested in the emancipation of women as an anachronism which ought to be removed. The matter was referred by my predecessor, Lord Sankey, to the Law Revision Committee, an expert Committee of which four of your Lordships' House were members—Lord Wright, Lord Goddard, Lord Porter, and Lord Schuster. That Committee unanimously recommended that in all future instruments a clause retaining the restraint should be void. The Committee refrained from recommending the abolition of a restraint in instruments already executed.
I should like at this point to refer to what that Committee said, in order to get it on record, because I believe they put the matter as plainly as it can be put. In paragraph 20 of their Report, dated 1934, they say this:
"This makes it necessary to examine the institution know as 'restraint upon anticipation' and to make a recommendation upon it. This institution is somewhat technical, and we shall do our best to describe its main features in simple and non-technical language. The 'restraint upon anticipation' means that in the case of a married woman, and only in her case, it is possible, by inserting the appropriate clause in the settlement or will whereby property … is settled upon her as her separate property … to prevent her, during her marriage, from disposing of or charging by way of anticipation the corpus of that property (that is, the fund or capital itself) or the income accruing from it or both. Such a clause is said to impose a 'restraint upon anticipation,' and in practice to-day it is usually confined to preventing her from anticipating the income, that is to say, disposing of it in advance and before it becomes due. The effect of it is not only to protect her property from her husband, which was the original object of settling it upon her for her separate use, but also to protect it from her creditors and from herself, from her own extravagance, generosity, speculations, or natural desire to comply with her husband's suggestions for its use. The way in which it protects her from her creditors is that if they obtain a judgment against her, they cannot enforce it against so much of her property as is subject to a 'restraint,' either by causing the capital to be seized and realised or by attaching the income before it reaches her hands. From one point of view, this may be called protection against creditors; from another it appears to be a not very creditable means of defeating creditors, and a means not open to an unmarried woman or to a man. Moreover, even when such income has come to her hands and is thus freed from the restraint, it cannot be made available to meet her liabilities under a contract entered into by her at a time when that income had not accrued due and was therefore covered by the 'restraint.' Incidentally, now that many married women engage in professions, trades

897
or business the 'restraint' clause may have the effect of preventing a married woman who is enjoying an income from settled property from raising capital, by a charge on that income, of start or help her in her profession, trade or business."
Then the Committee call attention to the fact that the law has been somewhat modified by the Bankruptcy Act and by the Law of Property Act. They go on to say:
"We have considered whether we should recommend either preserving the ' restraint upon anticipation' in its present state or giving the Courts wider power to modify it in proper cases, or abolishing it entirely. We have come to these conclusions: (a) that, however useful it may have been over a century ago when it was invented and received the approval of the Court of Chancery, its continuance is no longer consistent with the present position of married women, to whom alone it applies: (b) that the restraint upon anticipation' should be abolished by legislation as regards all settlements, whether made by deed or will, which take effect after such legislation comes into force or after such later date as may be provided by it."
That was the Report, and when that Report was received the drawing of the line between the past and the future incurred a good deal of criticism. Five bodies united to press for the Bill to be made retrospective—the National Union of Women Teachers, the Open Door Council. St. Joan's Social and Political Alliance, the Six Point Group and the Women's Freedom League. If, they said, the Bill were not made retrospective, it would mean postponing the coming into effect of the complete reform of the married women's property law until almost the end of the century. They quoted with approval the view of the Law Revision Committee, that the restraint "provides a not very creditable means of defeating creditors," and also that it is "no longer consistent with the present position of the married woman." They maintained that the restraint is based on the presumed irresponsibility of the married woman, and that this is not in accordance with her dignity as an adult human being.
They pointed out some of the results. It meant, they said, that some married women—in general, those already married and therefore older—were to be kept under a ban in relation to the use of their property, which in future it was to be illegal to place on the property of other married women, in general the now unmarried and, therefore, younger. These
898
older women, they said, were to have a lower status. The restriction was to keep them in a position said by the Law Revision Committee itself to be "no longer consistent with the present position of the married woman." Should these women desire to use their restrained property before it came into their hands, they were to be required to incur what they said was the humiliation and expense of applying to the court for an authorisation to deal with their own property. The court was, in their case only, to have power to decide whether or not the particular use a woman wished to make of her own property was or was not in her interest. Other women and men, married or unmarried, they said, were to be considered as responsible human beings, able to decide for themselves what was best for themselves. They said that it meant a continuation of the complication of the law of the married woman's property, which was unfair to all married women and to those who had dealings with them. It meant that those injustices, as they so regarded them, should continue so long as settlements which had already become effective were in force—that is to say for another fifty of sixty years from that time.
My Lords, I must say that I think those objections have great force. Although, of course, it is true that a fool and his money are easily parted, my experience is that that applies as much to fools in trousers as to fools in skirts. But it was decided—and I have no doubt decided on what then seemed good grounds—to carry out the recommendation of the Committee. The result is that an Act was passed—the Law Reform (Married Women and Tortfeasors) Act of 1935. I think that that was a very intelligent decision at that time. The reforms recommended by the Committee were exceedingly bold, and fourteen years ago it was possible to say that such a restraint might have been in the interests of some married women.
Since that date, of course, taxation has increased and the whole position has been radically altered. A clause which had been put in as a matter of routine by settlors and testators, as a protection of a married woman against her husband, has now become nothing less than a frustration of the settlors' desire to benefit the married woman. Compare the

899
case of a married woman who has property under a settlement executed before 1935 with that of the ordinary married woman of to-day. The ordinary married woman of to-day can, if she thinks fit, raise a little ready money, either by pledging or selling part of her future income or, if her children are of full age, by agreeing with them that some of the trust funds should be sold and divided between them in equitable proportions. The married woman under a pre-1936 settlement can do no such thing—that is to say, so long as she is married, if her husband should die, or if she should divorce him or he divorce her, she immediately regains her freedom to use her money as she likes, and in the interval before she marries again, she may agree with her children, if they are of full age, to dispose of as much of the trust property as she and they think fit.
I believe it to be almost impossible to find a case in the conditions of the day in which the continuance of the restraint can be to the benefit of the married woman. I invite your Lordships to consider the implications of the Mountbatten Estate Bill. If that Bill had been passed (and your Lordships passed it through this House—in my view on good grounds), it might be followed by Personal Estate Bills introduced successively by every married woman who could afford the expense of bringing in such a Bill; and Parliament, if it had passed the Mountbatten Estate Bill, would find there were no grounds on which it could properly refuse to pass the other Bills. The only married women who would not benefit would, broadly speaking, be those who could not afford the expense, unless there were one or two who succeeded in running up debts and were relying on the restraint clause to keep their creditors at bay. I do not think that this would be justice, and in my view the only proper course is to remove all these restraints by means of this Bill.
My Lords, that leads me to one further topic. Some attention has been drawn by the Press to the possible effect on the Exchequer of removing these restraints, and I think I should say something about that. The effect of this Bill on the Exchequer is purely incidental. If a man or a woman, not subject to restraint, spends or gives away half his
900
or her property, there is, of course, less property left to be taxed. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue cannot and do not complain of this; they continue on their way, taxing what they find and not taxing what is not there.
There may be exceptions. If, for instance a man gives away his property to his relatives, hoping to avoid death duties, and dies within five years of making the gift, he fails in his object. The property is liable to estate duty as if it had still been in his possession when he died. That is the effect of a general liability, applicable to men and women alike, whether married or unmarried. To single out one particular class of married women and to restrain them from doing what they wish with their property, for the sole purpose of being able to tax it, would be most unfair. That is not part of the policy of His Majesty's Government, nor, indeed, would such a policy, even if it were just, be effective, because even if the property of a married woman were artificially kept intact until the end of the marriage, it by no means follows that it would remain intact between the end of the marriage and the time when estate duty came to be assessed.
I need say little about the wording of the Bill itself. It has only one substantive clause. Subsection (1) abolishes restraints upon anticipation generally. The wording follows the wording of subsection (1) of Section 2 of the Act of 1935. The greater part of that section consists of provisions for drawing the line between the past and the future. Subsection (2) of Clause 1 of the Bill repeals those provisions. The remaining subsections and the Schedules contain consequential amendments and repeals in other Acts. It is true that none of us favours retrospective legislation, and we are all reluctant to proceed in such a way as to upset what may have been stipulated by settlors. But I justify it without any hesitation in this way. I believe that if any settlor who in pre-1936 days imposed restraint upon anticipation in regard to a woman upon whom he was settling property could have lived to see the circumstances of to-day, and could see the way in which that restraint was operating, he would have said: "Had I known this I would never have imposed this restraint." Therefore, I do not think we shall breach the wishes of these people. Had they been here they would, I am

901
confident, have said we were doing the right thing in carrying this through to provide for and help the married woman. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2*.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
6.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, neither the Lord Chancellor nor I is a Chancery lawyer. We have both been brought up in what we like to think is the robust and more comprehensible atmosphere of the Temple. If I say a few words now about this Bill it is certainly not with any claim to speak with exceptional experience of the rather difficult subject matter. The Lord Chancellor is evidently wholeheartedly breast high with the whole business. He cannot imagine that there is anything at all worth saying on the other side, and he presents himself in the agreeable pose of the champion of married women in general. I wish to do all that is right and fair by married women and by everyone else, but I hope I may point out to him that the problem here to he solved is not quite so simple as he evidently thinks. It is not an uncommon thing for a man who has some money to leave or to settle to wish to secure that those who share in his bounty will share in it on terms which will secure that they do not waste it. In the case of a man, the usual way in which it is done is by providing either what is called a "discretionary trust" or by providing that if the beneficiary makes any attempt to dispose of the property or to sell his future interest, there is forfeiture, and the property passes to the next person named.
Any solicitor who is really skilled in his business—and, if I may respectfully say so, I think any lawyer who really has practical experience of the matter—knows that that is the way in which it is customary to secure that property which does not belong out and out to the beneficiary, but which is given to the beneficiary by will or settlement on certain terms, is protected from the individual's recklessness or gambling habits or what you please. I conceive that in such cases the settlor, the testator, is entitled, since he is disposing of his own money, to say: "I dispose of it on these terms." He can do that, of course, whether the beneficiary is a man or a women. No
902
question of sex comes into it and no question of marriage. Therefore, if you take this first clause as it is in the Bill—whether it was meant or not I do not know—you will find that that sort of restriction upon alienation will not be altered by the Bill at 311. No restriction upon alienation is touched by the Bill unless it is the sort of restriction which could not have attached to the enjoyment of that property by a man.
What I have described, which is well known to those concerned with such matters—the ordinary way in which a provision may be made to protect the proper use of, say, a life interest given to a man—is, as I have said, normally, either by a discretionary trust under which a trustee has the duty to give to the individual adequate amounts from time to time or, on the other hand, a provision that the interest will be forfeited altogether if the individual seeks to alienate it or to dispose of it. All that is to remain. There is nothing in this Bill which is going to do justice, if it is justice, to those people. But what happened in the case of married women in the past has been this. I do not differ at all, so far as I understand the history of the subject, from what the Lord Chancellor has said as to its origin. I rather think it was Lord Thurlow who discovered this most ingenious process and got it supported in Chancery, in the interests, I believe, of an individual who was a relation of his.
But, however that may be, this doctrine of restraint upon anticipation is absolutely limited to the case of a woman who is married and living under what the law calls "coverture." The money which is provided for her is not necessarily provided out of her own efforts. It is very likely—indeed, it is very often—provided by her ancestor, her father or someone else. In the case of a marriage settlement it is often provided in the form of quite modest sums by the respective parents, in view of the fact that the girl is going to be married. It provides that she is to have an income of so much, and proceeds to attach to it the condition that it is to be an income which is subject to a restraint upon anticipation. That is the thing, and the only thing, with which this Bill deals. It is a very much more serious change in the law than one would suppose from what the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor aid. It means that however long ago the marriage settlement

903
was made, whatever good reason there was for the parents to impose a condition which would restrain the married lady from anticipating her income, it is all to be cancelled.
I must call the specific attention of the House to the fact (although the noble and learned Viscount has already referred to it) that when this matter was gone into by the Committee to which the noble and learned Viscount referred, and whose Report he has quoted, and when Parliament, as recently as 1935, carried an Act on the subject, it contained, as one would expect, a provision for preventing retrospective effect. If that is not done, it means that any marriage settlement which was made before 1935, though properly and deliberately made by those who provided the money with this condition attached to the income which the wife is to receive, is to be altered retrospectively. The people who made the provision may be dead. The provision itself may be a most reasonable provision. None the less, from the moment the Lord Chancellor's Bill goes on the Statute Book, the whole of that is to be struck out, though deliberately contracted before 1935.
Contrast that with what Parliament did when they made this change in the law in 1935. I approve of the change they made. I think the idea of introducing for the future this very recondite conception of restraint upon anticipation is a very good thing, but to say that that should apply to everything done before 1935, to all marriage settlements entered into solemnly at that time between the parties, is a different matter. When the 1935 Act was passed, it provided that:
"Nothing in this subsection shall interfere with or render inoperative any restriction upon anticipation or alienation attached to the enjoyment of any property by virtue of any provision attaching such a restriction contained in any Act passed before the passing of this Act or in any instrument effective before the first day of January, 1936."
Those words in the Statute preserved past marriage settlements and did not seek to look behind what had been done by people who had put their money into a settlement for the purpose of providing for the next generation. It quite deliberately provided that they could not interfere with marriage settlements of people before their time, and the Act,
904
which received the Royal Assent in August, 1935, applied only to marriage settlements made in 1936 and onwards.
The Lord Chancellor's Bill may be a Bill which seeks to do, in general terms, what is sought to be done in the Mountbatten Bill. I am not concerned with that. We are not considering the particular interest of anyone in England at all; we are considering whether this is a good change to make in the law as a whole. If it is carried out, two remarkable consequences follow. First, it is the most flagrant example of retrospective legislation of which I have ever heard. It cancels the terms of every single marriage settlement that was made before the beginning of the year 1936, and there are hundreds and thousands of them in existence at this moment. Many people in all parts of the country have been living under these marriage settlements. I think it is a matter which requires very substantial justification. It is evident that neither the Committee which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor quoted, nor the Act of Parliament to which he also referred, conceived that such a thing would be right, for both Committee and Act of Parliament confined themselves solely to what should be done in the future.
But it has a second consequence, about which the noble and learned Viscount said nothing at all. I do not claim to be a great expert in this branch of the law, but I have tried to understand it and I am very much astonished about this result. The sons of a family may in ordinary practice be restrained from anticipation of income, not by the doctrine of restraint upon anticipation but by the ordinary methods, which I have described already, of discretionary trusts or by forfeiture if there is an attempt to deal with the interests. All that is to remain. The men are not to be relieved of anything at all; but the married women, in whose case in practice I can assure you any good family solicitor would secure the same result by the process of inserting this provision against anticipation, get their freedom. I do not know why the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor should say that this Bill is one of those noble Bills which are to equalise the position between men and women.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think I said anything of the kind. The noble and learned Viscount has been caricaturing for some time what I said. I would ask him not to try and caricature what I said.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am sorry, I thought the noble and learned Viscount said that this was a noble Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think the noble and learned Viscount thought I said the word "noble." He knows perfectly well I said nothing of the sort.
VISCOUNT SIMON: The noble and learned Viscount seems to be a little annoyed with me. I will content myself with saying that this is not a Bill which makes any contribution to the equalisation of the law between men and women. I understand the noble and learned Viscount would agree with me.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not. I entirely and fundamentally differ. That is exactly what the Bill does.
VISCOUNT SIMON: It must be one thing or the other. The Bill must either do something for the equalisation of the law between men and women or it does not. I am only saying, from such limited knowledge as I have, that it does nothing whatever to relieve the man who finds that his income provided in a settlement or a will is restrained from being used by the methods ordinarily employed, whereas it does, in fact, whether rightly or wrongly, remove that restraint in the methods ordinarily employed in the case of a married lady. I do not think the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has followed me.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Indeed, I have. In so far as a discretionary trust is concerned, it is not touched at all, either in the case of a man or a woman. So far as restraint upon anticipation is concerned, it applies only to married women during coverture. That it does deal with, and does away with.
VISCOUNT SIMON: We are there quite at one. I am sorry the noble and learned Viscount feels so "touchy" about it. The observation I want to make is this—and certainly those engaged in drawing up marriage settlements will confirm it. In the ordinary way, a married woman is
906
restrained from using as she will what she has been given by the method of restraint upon anticipation. That is a method which can be applied only in the case of married women during coverture. On the other hand, the ordinary way to restrain a man given an income which he is not to use as he likes is by methods which are not the same but which produce the same result—namely, discretionary trusts or forfeiture if there is any attempt to dispose of interests. All I am saying—and I do not think there is any doubt about it—is that this is not a case, therefore, which equalises the law between men and women, whether the Lord Chancellor says that or not—and I apologise most sincerely if I am mistaken. I say, in any case, that it does not do so. In fact it releases one kind of person from a restraint which the settlor was disposed to make, even though the settlor made it long ago, but it does not do anything whatever to remove a similar restraint, expressed necessarily in a different form, which is applied, in what are thought to be proper cases, to a man's benefit.
I am not in the least hot about this matter; I am, for my part, concerned only that we should appreciate what we are doing. What we are proposing to do is to enact retrospective legislation applied to the case of married women in connection with restraint upon anticipation, when in practice in the case of men a similar protection of the income is provided by methods which are not the methods of restraint upon anticipation at all. I assume that the Lord Chancellor appreciates that fact, and I should be greatly surprised if anyone who is really acquainted with Chancery practice would not agree that this is a Bill that deals, not with the two cases, but is confined entirely to the one case, and deals with it retrospectively. I respectfully suggest to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack that the matter ought to be looked at from that point of view, and, if it is not, there is a certain danger, in view of his eloquence and enthusiasm, that we may make a bigger change in the law than we really intend.
6.22 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, it is always a difficult matter to intervene in a case where two eminent gentlemen are not in agreement. Nevertheless, I have to

907
say what I think in this matter, and I must say without hesitation that I agree with the view put forward by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. I think his description of restraint on anticipation is perfectly correct. Those who wish to read an account of it in different language, but precisely to the same effect, can be referred to the 12th volume of the History of English Law, by the late Professor Holdsworth, at page 324 and the following pages. There is only one thing I would add to what the Lord Chancellor has said on the history of this matter; it is not in the least in opposition to anything he said, although it is important to bear it in mind in dealing with the argument of my noble and learned friend Lord Simon. It is that, according to English law, if you give a man property, or give him interest in property, such as a life estate, you cannot put any fetter on the way he shall use it. The law has always regarded that as repugnant and, therefore, any attempt to do it is void.
If any noble Lord wants an incidental view to that effect, it so happens that my eye has caught page 326 of this 12th volume of Holdsworth, which begins with the words:
"In fact, this great exception to the principle that the owner of property cannot be prevented from alienating it freely, can be justified both on technical and on substantial grounds."
The great exception is the exception which the author has been expounding in the preceding three pages, which explains how, in the case of women—and, I ought to add, in the case of a married woman, and no other woman—it is possible by a gift, by a settlement or by some instrument or other such as a will, to provide that the property is given to the married woman, or to the woman when married, with a restraint on anticipation. This is not Common Law at all, and common lawyers may not fully understand it, if I may say so with great respect. This was an equity doctrine invented, as has already been said, by Lord Thurlow. For many years it was not certain, and had not been decided beyond doubt, that property to which the woman while married was equitably entitled could be tied up by the restraint on anticipation. Ultimately, after many decisions, it was found that it could be so tied up. If anybody interested in the
908
whole thing cares to study the great decision of Lord Cottenham in Fullett v. Armstrong (Milne and Craig) he will find the authorities dealt with; that great Lord Chancellor explained how it was that this striking exception to the ordinary Common Law had been permitted, and how it had been worked out in the way in which it has been stated by the Lord Chancellor.
That being the position, I want to point this out. It is entirely wrong to suppose that the doctrine of discretionary trust, which my noble and learned friend Lord Simon has said is commonly adopted, or a clause which says that a man shall hold property given by a third party until he goes bankrupt, or until he allows somebody to levy execution on his goods and chattels, has any resemblance whatever to this restraint on anticipation. You are not then interfering with a man's enjoyment of the property he is given; you are saying he shall hold the property until something happens: it might be until he goes to Rome; it might be until he gets his hair cut—any possible termination of his estate or his interest can be given. The words in the Bill we have before us,
"…no restriction upon anticipation or alienation attached … to the enjoyment of any property by a woman,"
do not, in my opinion, cover such a case as an equitable trust in favour of a man, his children and his relatives. That is not a restriction on anticipation; it is a diminution of his property. He is given by the trust only that which the trustees in their discretion think fit to hand over.
Nor is it a restriction upon anticipation to say that if he goes bankrupt the interest comes to an end. There is no anticipation there. He holds the property until he becomes bankrupt, or other things happen which put an end to his estate. So it is wrong to suppose that the interests which my noble and learned friend Lord Simon has so well explained—subject to the criticism which I make—come within subsection (1) of the Bill before us, which deals simply and solely with the restriction upon anticipation or alienation attached or purported to be attached to that enjoyment of the property by a woman under coverture. It relates not to the termination of the property, but to its enjoyment.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am very glad to learn from the noble and learned Viscount, but is it no restriction upon alienation attached to the enjoyment of property to say that a man is to enjoy the property as long as he does not seek to alienate it?
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My answer is: Certainly not—nothing of the sort. That says the man has a limited property. That is not the enjoyment. It means that his interest in the property comes to an end in a certain event. I have suggested a ridiculous event, but the common one is that he should go bankrupt. That is the restriction of his enjoyment. He governs the property until he goes bankrupt. That is not regarded as the same thing in law at all. The difference is that the restriction that he may enjoy the property until he goes bankrupt is a perfectly good Common Law statement of his interest. That is Common Law, and the other depends upon a view of equity—upon which at one time there was doubt and on which Lord Thurlow chose, with some advantages at that time, to express a view,. There is a difference between this sort of situation and the cases which my noble and learned friend has cited as showing that the proposed subsection (1) goes too far. The words in the Bill refer not to discretionary trusts or terminable trusts, but simply and solely to restriction upon anticipation such as those I have mentioned.
I hope that. I am always frank in dealing with anything, particularly where law is involved. I do not like the drafting of subsection (1), because it puts in words which I think have misled my noble friend and which, at first sight, misled me. After the words:
"purported to be attached, to the enjoyment of any property by a woman"
it says:
"which could not have been attached to the enjoyment of that property by a man …"
That is an interesting piece of law, but it is absolutely ridiculous to a lawyer because, of course, the restriction of anticipation during coverture could not possibly affect a man, and, therefore, the words are not good. There is no permanent restriction of alienation on the enjoyment of any property by a woman. The only person who is ever going to enjoy anything under the first part of this
910
clause is the woman, and what is the good of saying that is not to attach to a case where we are talking about the enjoyment of property by a man?
The reason why it is put in is a somewhat curious one. Section 2 of the Law Reform (Married Women and Tort-feasers) Act, 1935, shows clearly that the Legislature is going to deal only with this separate property of a married woman or property belonging to the daughter of her marriage, or with property acquired by her or devolving upon her as a married woman. Then there is a proviso which my noble friend read. But that proviso does not, in my opinion, refer to those classes at all. What the proviso is putting in, rather curiously, is a statement as regards restrictions imposed by an Act. I am going to complete the story in a moment, but this is what it is dealing with mainly. I think it is dealing there with restrictions imposed on certain noble gentlemen—I think the Duke of Wellington was one, and one or two of our great admirals were others—mho were given property by an Act of Parliament which they were not to alienate. "This," says the proviso to the 1935 Act," we are not touching at all."
It then goes on to say:
"…or in any instrument executed before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-six."
I am in a difficulty at the moment in knowing how that applies to the preceding section, which does not deal with men or the powers of men, but simply with the powers of women while married. My noble friend is making a mistake here, and I must put him right. Subsection (2), which he did not read to the House, says:
"Any instrument executed on or after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, shall, in so far as it purports to attach to the enjoyment of any property by a woman any restriction upon anticipation or alienation"—
and then there is added, for what reason I know not—
"which could not have been attached to the enjoyment of that property by a man, be void."
That is the section which says that no restraints upon anticipations are good if they were imposed after the date of the Act.
I must say a word on the vigorous way in which my noble friend attacked this

911
Bill as a flagrant example of retrospective legislation because, he said, it left the boys subject to their difficulties and conferred these advantages on the girls.
VISCOUNT SIMON: No—because it referred to past marriage settlements.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: That is one thing, but surely the noble Viscount also said that it was not fair to the boys. I wanted to point out that in truth the effect of this Bill, if it becomes an Act of Parliament, is to put the girls, or the women, into exactly the same position as that in which the men have been for hundreds of years. They both can be made subject to discretionary trusts. There is nothing to prevent a discretionary trust for a girl. There is nothing to prevent giving to a woman who may or may not marry rights which come to an end if she goes bankrupt. In these days a woman can be made bankrupt, which was not the case originally, with the result that ever since the 1935 Act came into effect women have been made, where it was thought to be necessary, the subjects of discretionary trusts. You can give your money or anything you like to Mary Jane, with trustees to hold it for her and with certain other people—generally relatives, of course—to be employed in a discretionary rôle. There is nothing to prevent that either in the case of a boy or a girl.
I think that this Bill—the reasons for the justice of which have been admirably stated, if I may say so, by the Lord Chancellor—should pass. I do not shirk the point that, with regard to instruments which came into effect before the Law Reform Act of 1935, the position is this: that ever since the beginning of 1936 women who married after that date have been free from restraints on anticipation. The women who were already married in 1935 have been subject to that restraint, and the position now is that the man may say that, if he had known the position earlier, he could have made the girl subject to discretionary trust, but never thought of doing so because there was an easier way of doing it. I confess that I am wholly unable to see any injustice in this measure, for the reasons which have been explained, and I support the Bill.
6.41 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I should like to add a word or two to this extremely interesting discussion—not by way of intervening in the legal argument but merely to show how it strikes the common man. The first thing that has certainly been established is that this is a pretty substantial measure. The second thing is that I was greatly interested in what fell from the noble and learned count on the Woolsack, which echoes what many of us have said: that the weight of taxation which is now imposed necessarily and inevitably leads people into doing things which they would not otherwise have done. The third thing that strikes me is that it is very odd that we did not hear anything about this Bill before.
I am not going to say anything about the merits or demerits of the Private Bill which passed through this House. If I had taken strong exception to it I should no doubt have spoken against it. It went to a Committee here which held that on the whole it was justified, and it then passed to another place. But I do not think I should be either impertinent or irrelevant if I took leave to observe that if that Bill had not gone into rather still water in another place we should not have had this Bill brought here. I am not saying there is not a case for relieving married women in instances in which it is justified and where it is right and reasonable to overrule the declared wishes of the testator. But that is a pretty strong thing to do. After all, if we once get into the habit of general legislation, and of feeling that we can undo all that has been done and settled in the past, we are creating a rather dangerous precedent. The Lord Chancellor admitted that that is true. But at the same time one does find terribly hard cases. Of course, no one can look into the mind of a man who took a certain course twenty or more years ago. It may well be that if a testator had been able to look forward to the world we are living in to-day he would not have done all he did do or he might not have done it in the same way.
I am going for a second to entrench on legal ground. I do so, not to express a legal opinion but merely to give my experience in trusts, not as a lawyer but as a person who has come constantly into contact with trusts. Some discretionary

913
trusts for a son or daughter are, of course, as strict as a restraint on anticipation. On the other hand, my experience has been that a wider discretion is as a rule left to the trustees; they are not just automata. One of the most common forms is that there is a general restriction that the daughter is not to anticipate the income, but discretion may be given to the trustees to anticipate a small part of the capital—perhaps, for example, in a case of a youth, to use in some way for the youth's benefit. That is a discretionary trust. But surely there is a halfway house between this absolute removal of all restraint on anticipation under these past settlements—a thing which the Lord Chancellor very fairly said the Committee were dead against when they reported and Parliament was on the whole against in 1939—and the complete bondage of maintaining the restrictions. Otherwise anybody who had enough money might come and present a Bill, which would be unfair, because the people who had not so much money, and who perhaps needed relief just as much, or even more, would not be able to get it. Is there not a halfway house?
It is very common for trustees to apply to the court if there is jurisdiction. It is a very cheap process as I well know, because it can be done on an originating summons—provided you give the power. Of course, if the trust is absolute there is no right for anybody to go to the court for relief.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Is that quite so? A section of the Act says that a married lady who had property in restraint of anticipation could none the less apply to the court, and that if the court thought proper they could give relief.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Is that so? Then what are we doing with this Bill? I am sorry; I ought to have known about that. But I certainly assumed that there was no way out.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: For a particular purpose—for instance if one of the daughters of the marriage is going to get married, or something of that sort—the lady who is restrained from anticipation can go to the court and, for that particular purpose, if the court thinks that the application is in her interest, the court has power to make an order notwithstanding the restraint. That is for a particular purpose, and that is all.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: May I carry it further? That is for doing something for the daughter. May I take the case which I think the Lord Chancellor indicated, where a woman wanted to get at some money? She would not be able to get more than she could raise upon her life interest. But could a woman who, under a settlement, is restrained from anticipation, go to the court to-day and say, "I want to raise some money. Therefore, I propose that I should be allowed to anticipate nine-tenths of my income," and upon that sell her life interest to somebody and with it buy an annuity or an insurance policy?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, can say much better than I can, but that would not be granted. I think the practice of the Chancery Judges is to want to see some particular, specific and peculiar cases such as I have mentioned. They would never do it at all in that general way.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Then apparently the general provision does not go far enough to satisfy what the Lord Chancellor said he thinks is a reasonable thing to do. On the other hand, I must say I rather boggle at the complete reversion of win at a testator has laid down in his settlement. I should have thought that it might be a wise thing to say: "There should he power to approve the removal or the lightening of this restraint upon anticipation in a case where the court is satisfied that it is in the interests of the woman that that should be done." As I say, Parliament having given that general power, the court would have the general discretion. It would not be an expensive application. As I understand it, could be made on an originating summons, for that is quite a cheap way of doing it. The Chancery Judges in Chambers, who are well accustomed to doing this sort of thing to-day, are very wise and understanding people. If it be said that some of these women have quite small estates and even that is too much to do, I would point out that where an estate is small or at any rate below a certain figure, it has not been uncommon to say: "Very well, you can go to the county court." That is a possible elaboration. I suggest that, if the House gives a Second Reading to

915
this Bill and it goes into Committee, it might very well be worth further consideration whether something on those lines would not be a fair compromise between the complete restriction and the complete removal of it.
LORD CLYDESMUIR: I rise only to ask a question. I note that in Clause 2 (2) of the Bill the Act is not to extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland. I am aware that the law of Scotland differs widely from the law of England. It may be that this point has been fully considered, but I shall be grateful if the Lord Chancellor, when he rises to reply, can say what are the Government's intentions regarding Scotland, and whether this matter is fully under consideration.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, this discussion proceeded in the earlier stages on so Olympian a level that I had no intention of intruding into the "closed shop," but, as the result of the intervention of my noble friend, Lord Swinton, I wish to say only a very few words. Had I spoken before the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, I should have been groping about to express in intelligible English what I felt to be the need for impressing upon the House something which had impressed itself upon my mind—namely, that a very clear distinction is to be drawn between the type of provision in a discretionary trust or a forfeiture, and that in a restraint upon anticipation. Listening respectfully, as I always do, to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, I was struck by his saying, and repeating on more than one occasion, that these were similar restraints. I find it difficult to persuade myself that that in fact is so. I confess, again with great respect, that when the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, was opening his objection to this Bill I thought he was expressing an objection to some of the provisions of the Act of 1935. Obviously in that I was wrong, because he later gave vent to his entire concurrence with those provisions.
We cannot dismiss entirely from our minds the fact that the Mountbatten Bill passed through this House and that no exception was taken to its provisions, although it was framed, I believe, to achieve the same object in a particular case as this Bill is intended to achieve
916
generally. No exception was taken to it, and it proceeded without criticism through the House. Expediency alone can, or at any rate should, never be a reason for altering the law. If expediency conflicts with justice, justice should prevail; but if expediency and justice in any instance go hand in hand, I can see in such a case no reason why the law should not undergo amendment. I believe this to be an example of that situation. Therefore, so far as I am concerned, I desire to support the Bill.
6.57 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I briefly reply to this discussion which, greatly to my surprise, has engendered neat, although I had thought it was the last type of Bill to do so? Some of the heat was on my part. I must say that I found the speech of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, wholly lamentable. I still think so. I think so for several reasons. First, I think that to introduce the question of discretionary trust was most unfortunate. It only befogs the whole issue. This Bill has nothing whatever to do with discretionary trust—nothing whatever. It is a wholly different topic and subject matter, and I cannot conceive why that was introduced. Of course, if the noble and learned Viscount is under the impression—and he said so several times and, therefore, perhaps he is—that the restraint imposed by a discretionary trust is similar to a restraint upon anticipation—if he is under that strange illusion, then I can understand some relevance in bringing in discretionary trust. But I hardly think that, on reflection, he would consider the two cases are in the smallest degree in pari materia.
Next, the noble and learned Viscount seemed to suggest that I had almost concealed from the House—or, at any rate, that I had glossed over the fact—that this Bill was retrospective, and that I had referred to it as a "noble Bill" and passed over that matter in silence, The noble and learned Viscount will be good enough to-morrow to see what I did say. He will find that I devoted a large part of my speech to the fact that this was retrospective, and I justified the retrospective element in the Bill by saying that, in the changed circumstances of today, the testators or settlors, if they were

917
aware of the changed circumstances of to-day, might well have said that, in effect, we were carrying out their wishes. At any rate, the suggestion that I had concealed from the House, or at any rate not brought out, the fact that this was a Bill dealing retrospectively with certain matters, certainly was unpleasant to me.
VISCOUNT SIMON: May I say that I hope the Lord Chancellor will understand that I had no intention of suggesting that? If I did, I am the first to say that I am sorry. I do not think the Lord Chancellor has quite appreciated the point that I made, perhaps rather obscurely. It may be that settlors and testators in times past would think that some qualification was right, but naturally it was not put into discretionary or other clauses at the time because the restraint upon anticipation did everything they wanted; and perhaps more. My whole point was that in the past that has not been done, which makes it rather strange simply to cancel the whole thing in one sentence.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Viscount in one respect is quite incorrigible. He said that the restraint did all they wanted. But it did not; it applied only to the coverture. If the husband died, or if someone divorced his wife or the wife divorced the husband, it ceased. The point about a discretionary trust is that it attached always, while this applied to a woman only in certain conditions. When I was a young man in the law there still used to be a textbook which was called Persons Under Incapacity, and they were classed together as "infants, lunatics and married women." Upon my word! when I see what married women have sometimes to put up with, I am inclined to think there may have been a grain of truth in that.
Let us consider the position. Are we going to forget the fact that the Mountbatten Bill came up and has been passed by the Committee, over which I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simonds presided? We set up a Personal Bills Committee, and if a Bill has been passed by our Personal Bills Committee, it is a quasi-judicial process. We always have eminent Judges presiding, and it has never been opposed by the House of Commons—never in history, as I under-
918
stand. That Bill was passed, and I certainly thought it would go through the House of Commons without any question. But persons on the Conservative side there put down a Motion to the effect, that "If you are going to do it in this case you ought to do it in all cases." That is how the trouble arose.
Therefore, the position simply comes to this. We have got to do it in every Bill in which the person has enough money to go through the process of promoting a Bill. That is a more expensive process than an originating summons in the Chancery Court. When I reflected upon this matter, I could not see that we were justified in not acceding to the form of Amendment which was put down by the Tory members in another place. I do not claim this to be a "noble" Bill, but I claim it to be a good common-sense Bill. I waited throughout the noble and learned Viscount's speech to hear what he was going to say about the problem. I think he rose without knowing whether he was going to vote for or against the Bill, and I think he sat down in the same condition. I do not think he knows.
But what is the answer to this? If you are going to do this in the Mountbatten case, are you going to decline to do it in other cases? If you are going to do it in all cases, why not do it by means of one general Bill, rather than by a series of individual Bills, at considerable cost to the parties? That is the proposition which I put forward. I do not say, and I never did say—and the noble Viscount knows that I never did say—that this was a "noble" Bill. But I do say, that we can strip this matter of all the extraneous and irrelevant circumstances that have been introduced. This is a simple case of a good common-sense Bill which I commend to your Lordships. In regard to the question of Scotland, I do not pose as an expert on the equity law of my own country, still less of Scotland; but I understand that Scotland had no doctrine corresponding to this restraint on anticipation. I will find out whether or not I am right in flirt view, and I will communicate with the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SOUTHAMPTON HARBOUR BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1*; and referred to the Examiners.
SWINDON CORPORATION BILL
Reported, with Amendments.

STATUTORY ORDERS (SPECIAL PROCEDURE) (SUBSTITUTION) ORDER, 1949
Draft Order in Council proposed to be made under the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for an Address to His Majesty, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
House adjourned at seven minutes past seven o'clock.