Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether the House is to sit on Friday, and, if so, what business will be taken?

It will be necessary to ask the House to meet on Friday. We shall take the Report stage of the Horse Breeding Bill, and, I hope, the Third Reading; also the Second Reading of the Emigration Bill, and, if time permit, the Second Reading of the Naturalisation Bill.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "other bodies or bodies of persons" and to insert instead thereof the word "ratepayers."

The question of continuation schools is primarily one for the parents of the children, and it would be regretable of amongst those consulted there exists an element which is somewhat distrusted in this House and whose co-operation in education, while it may be desirable, is already sufficiently represented on the county councils and the education committees themselves. If the continuation schools are really to provide the best education for the children themselves and not merely make them useful hands for the factories and farms, then it is extremely important that the discussions of these schemes should be carried on in the absence of what I may call the interested parties and in the presence of the parents of the children themselves. We want a scheme of education which will teach the children between fourteen and eighteen the wider side of education and not the specialist brand, which devotes them to hedging, ditching, the milking of cows, or the working of machinery. Therefore, I think some such Amendment as this is absolutely necessary in order to prevent the exploitation of the children.

I am afraid that I cannot accept this Amendment. I do not think it achieves the object which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has in view. If it is desirable that there should be representations from ratepayers, I think it is also desirable that the representatives of bodies interested in education should be heard, for the reason of the interest they have in education. For instance, it is desirable that a university should be able to make representations with regard to education in its capacity not as a ratepayer but as a learned body.

I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words,

"A council in preparing schemes under this Act shall have regard to any existing supply of efficient schools or colleges not provided by local education authorities, and to any proposals to provide such schools or colleges."

I hardly think this Amendment needs to be commended to the Committee as it is quite in conformity with the spirit of our educational law.

I really think that this Amendment ought to have been introduced with a more important and serious speech than that which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman. It opens up a very wide subject and adds very considerable danger to the proposal to establish continuation schools. We have passed the Clause by which a new type of school is to be brought into our educational system, a continuation school for boys and girls above fourteen and up to eighteen years of age. I want to see these schools, first of all, as much as possible under public control, and secondly, as far as possible, such as will at once gain the support, interest and confidence of both parents and pupils. The Amendment, which is an afterthought to the Clause, endangers both those objects. If in a place where a continuation school has to be provided under the Bill some rich person thinks he will carry out his own fads or ideas he can provide a school at his own expense, and having done so the public will have no right to say, "No; we will have such a school as we want." Suppose a landlord in the. place is a Roman Catholic and everybody else in the place is strongly Protestant. The landlord can establish a continuation school on Roman Catholic lines entirely under his own control, and, if it is efficient—that is, if the equipment, the staff, and other conditions are favourable—he can prevent any Protestant school coming in. That is quite obvious as I read the Amendment. I do not want to raise the religious bogey, although I think it is possible that it might be an actual danger. Take, for instance, a large employer of labour with a factory in the district. He might say, "I will establish an evening continuation school which will teach all the young people how they would best qualify to work in my factory." He might say, "I am going to offer you the opportunity of good and regular employment at good wages for having attended my school," and if that school is efficient that has got to be the provision there. If it is adequate in numbers for all the population of that place, any alternative will be ruled out. You are giving, first of all, religious cranks an opportunity that they never ought to have; you are giving employers and capitalists an opportunity that they never ought to have; and, supposing there is a man who has been carrying on a private school which has been inefficient, you are giving him a chance, by getting advances from friends or in some other way, of putting his premises into such a condition as to render it an efficient school and thus making a good business out of it. Public control of education in this matter will not have a chance. The President of the Board of Education, I am convinced, does not see the dangers of putting in this Amendment at the demand of people who have got special rather than general and wider objects of education in view. I must oppose it, and, if I do not succeed in my opposition, I hope at any rate that I shall get my Amendment which I have put down to insert the words "and suitable." I will not move it at the moment, because I should like to know what arguments the President can really advance in opposition to the case which I have put forward.

My hon. Friend credits me with more originality than I really desire to claim. The Amendment is merely a substantial restatement of an unrepealed Clause in the Act of 1902. In Section 2, Sub-section (2), of that Act it is laid down:

"A council in exercising their powers under this Part of this Act shall have regard to any existing supply of efficient schools or colleges, and to any steps already taken for the purposes of higher education under the Technical Instruction Acts, 1889 and 1891."

I merely propose substantially to repeat that provision in this Bill.

The right hon. Gentleman must understand—I think he is rather slipping the point—that the schools to be set up under this Bill will be different in character from the schools set up under the Act of 1902, and they will be worked differently. Hardly two schools will be worked alike. I think it would be a very bad thing if there should be a multiplication of these schools. The fewer schools not under the education authorities the better, and if this means the setting up of private or semi-private schools with which the local education authorities have nothing to do, then I think the Amendment is a very bad one

There are several questions of the utmost importance raised by this Amendment, which, from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, would appear to be of an entirely harmless character. The right hon. Gentleman himself opposed a similar Amendment when it was moved at an earlier stage of the Bill, and he objected to it on more than one ground. He told the Committee that it was unnecessary, and he men- tioned the existing Statute law. Why is it necessary this afternoon? The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the provision in the Act of 1902, but that provision related to higher education, and dealt with schools for which fees were charged, whereas the continuation schools, at all events, to be provided under this Bill are to be free of all fees. We hope many more of the schools will be free. It is, therefore, surely relevant when inquiring as to existing schools and colleges to consider whether they are free of fees, because if they are private institutions and charge fees they offer no solution of the public demand for popularly controlled free education. There are, therefore, many points of educational importance in connection with this Amendment.

indicated dissent.

I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that it is so. Let me give him another reason, and then hear his reply. A scheme may be put forward to provide certain types of continuation schools. Some private firm—I will not say from any unworthy motive—may propose to set up its own system of continuation schools. You are giving a direct Instruction to the local education authority to consider such a proposal, not yet carried out, of a private firm to set up its own system of continuation schools for its own workpeople. I carry with me in my interpretation of the Amendment my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Marriott). The right hon. Gentleman will therefore see that this is not a drafting point, but is a point of real importance, if you are going to have a free and popularly controlled system of education.

I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to bear in mind that this Amendment is mandatory. It says, "A council shall have regard," etc. I would also like to point out that the proposal goes further than the Act of 1902. That Act, in the words just read by the President, says, "A council shall have regard to existing schools" and "to any steps that may have been taken." The Act of 1902 required that the steps should already have been taken, so that the character of the new institutions which the council was required to consider would be clear. Instead of those words, we find the Amendment says" and to any proposals that have been made." That is a most fishing sort of sentence to insert in an Act of Parliament. A proposal might be faked up in half an hour, and the council is directed to have regard to it. It might be a proposal made just to embarrass the council. There is no qualification. It might never have effect given to it. It might be made just to prevent anything being done. There are two suggestions that might be made. In the first place, the words "and to any proposals to provide such schools or colleges" might be left out altogether; and, secondly, if anything in the nature of them is to be inserted, then the more cautious words of the Act of 1902, of which I am not such a slavish admirer, might be used.

I am sorry to have to come back to the same point again, but this Amendment is extremely dangerous from the works schools point of view. I wish the hon. Member opposite had said something about the admirable works schools established by men like Mr. Cadbury. Although some of these disinterested employers have works schools running on voluntary lines, I am perfectly certain that as soon as this Bill goes through we shall have proposals for works schools from a very large number of other very much interested employers. You will have all over the country the natural desire of the ratepayers for economy, combined with the natural desire of employers for a trained body and a tied body of workers. You will have those two desires co-operating to establish all over the country not continuation schools as ordinarily understood, but continuation schools of a trade type. I am against educating young people between fourteen and eighteen simply in the trade in which they are working part-time at that age. I am very much surprised that the President of the Board of Education has adopted this proposal, because from all his previous speeches I have understood, and the Committee has understood, that he himself regards this Bill as containing the principle of a liberal education, whereas, if this Amendment is passed, it will give a great fillip— far more serious than the Committee at present understands—to a trade education instead of a liberal education. I hope the hon. Member opposite will press this question to a Division, because I regard it as being vital to the direction in which our education is to move.

I agree with the last speaker to the extent that I think the Amendment is one of considerable importance and substance.

It makes no change at all.

I did not say it was a question of change; I said it was a question of some importance and substance. I am perfectly well aware of the provision of the Act of 1902 to which the President referred. I would suggest that, although the Amendment does not introduce a change in the existing law, to bring it into this Bill is a point of considerable importance. If hon. Members go to a Division, I hope the President will adhere to the position he has taken up, because what I believe he has in mind is an attempt to meet to some extent the views of those of us who have very strong opinions in regard to the subsequent Clauses of this Bill, particularly Clauses 8 and 22. I do not know that that will commend itself to other hon. Members. Our great desire in regard to this Clause and other Clauses of the Bill is to have the greatest possible variety, and not to impose upon the country any dull and drab uniformity in the type of schools. For that reason I hope the President will adhere to his Amendment, and, if he does, I shall support him.

:I understand that the right hon. Gentleman attaches little or no importance to this particular Amendment.

indicated assent.

And that is an Amendment of little substance, if any. If that is his view, as it is, I would suggest that he should drop it altogether. One point is whether or not these schools and colleges mentioned in the Amendment are to be free. If they are not to be free, it means that, because a certain district has provided private schools or colleges, which rich people will be able to pay for, the provision is going to be worse so far as the poor people are concerned. That is bound to be the result of an arrangement of this kind. I am quite sure also that it will give a stimulus to works schools. Sometimes, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Wedgwood) has suggested, these schools may be run on excellent lines, but there is also a real danger that their object will be not so much to turn out good citizens as to turn out good plumbers, carpenters, and joiners. You are opening the door to that kind of thing by this Amendment. Seeing that the President himself attaches practically no importance to it, and that it was not in the Bill as drafted, and in view of the divided opinion that has been expressed, the right hon. Gentleman might well agree to drop it.

I agree that this Amendment seems to be quite unnecessary. In fact, it is not consistent with the declaration in Clause 1, which states:

"With a view to the establishment of a rational system of public education …"

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is carrying that out. While no one objects to any number of rich men or any other class of people, if they care to do so, starting schools of their own, to go out of our way to put in a Bill which is an attempt to establish a national system of education a saving clause saying

"A council …shall have regard to any existing supply of efficient schools or colleges not provided by local education authorities, and to any proposals to provide such schools or colleges,"

seems to be going rather against the principle of a national system of education. Why should we support this Amendment, which would really invite the Board of Education to go out of its way to encourage outside bodies or religious bodies to set up works or other schools which will not come under the control of this Bill? The Amendment does not give control to the Board of Education. Before we go to a Division I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what he means by the words "shall have regard to." Does he mean that the education authorities are to be encouraged or discouraged to proceed with various schemes for schools that are not under their authority? We ought not to pass an Amendment which governs our system by having regard to schools provided by outside bodies over which we have no control.

I should like to back up the appeal of my hon. Friend to the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment. Undoubtedly there is a danger that schools may be set up of a special kind, whose only qualification is that they shall be efficient, which may be fee-charging, which may exclude a larger number of very young people whom we want to get in the scheme of national education, and may include by favouritism individuals from amongst them. If there be such a danger of the erection and existence of these schools not under popular control and not forming part of the system of national education at all, surely it is better to remove it by leaving the development of this particular form of education under popular control as intended by the Bill, if I understand its purpose at all, and if the right hon. Gentleman really attaches so much importance to it, and if, as he says, it is already embodied in the previous Act, is it worth while to carry it through against the opposition which evidently exists?

A good deal of misapprehension has gathered round this Amendment, and I think hon. Members, in criticising it, attach too much importance to the phrase "shall have regard to." We are asking these local education authorities to provide general schemes for education in their special areas. We are asking them, in fact, to provide schemes for secondary education, which we expect greatly to develop through the operations of the Bill. It is obvious that the local education authority, when it is considering what its policy shall be with respect to the development of secondary education, must have some regard to the existing secondary schools, and it would be absurd not to. Similarly, with regard to technical education. It would be ridiculous for local education authorities to embark upon extension schemes for the development of technical education without any regard to existing schemes, and that is what I meant when I said the Amendment would simply constitute a rule of ordinary prudence which a well-advised local education authority will naturally follow. Consequently, I do not think there will be any practical difficulty. On the other hand, in several quarters of the House there has been a feeling that it would be desirable in this body of administrative suggestions or regulations, which is really what the Bill comes to, to reaffirm the principle laid down in Section 2 of the Act of 1902, in order to meet this feeling which exists that possibly in some cases local education authorities will not have regard to the existing provision of education. Hon. Members have also assumed that if you accept this Clause you open the gate to all kinds of undesirable forms of schools, work schools and others, which will be totally exempt from the control of the Board. Nothing of the kind. I propose, however, to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. King).

I have pointed out that the last words of the Amendment go further than the Act of 1902. They are of a fishing character; they are vague, and they ought not to be included in an Act of Parliament—

"And to any proposals to provide such schools."

Anyone may make a proposal. Nothing may come of it. In legislation that we pass upstairs there is nothing more common than these proposals which are put forward to embarrass actual suggestions, and of which nothing at all comes. Here is a bad example of the same kind which goes a great deal further than the Act of 1902.

Here, again, the right hon. Gentleman is a little over-apprehensive. Let us suppose a local authority is planning a scheme of secondary education in its area. A secondary school may actually be being built. Is it to take no account of such a scheme as that?

The Act of 1902 covers that.

I think it would belong to the discretion of the local education authority to consider how far the proposal is a genuine one and how far it is going to be carried out. Obviously the local education authority can be trusted to use its own judgment in a matter of that kind, and it would not take account of proposals which were perfectly flimsy. The proposals would be substantial.

Do I understand that under this Amendment an existing school which is fee-charging might be treated in substitution for a school to be set up under the Act?

No!

That is not clear. With regard to existing schools, it Bays nothing about not being fee-charging.

:I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "efficient," to insert the words "and suitable."

I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words,

"In schemes under this Act adequate provision shall be made in order to secure that children and young persons shall not be debarred from enjoying the benefits of education through inability to pay fees."

The right hon. Gentleman has not explained this. It looks to me as if it must impose a charge upon someone. If the benefit of the education is to be had without paying fees, there must be a charge imposed upon someone. It is not in order to impose a charge now without a Resolution having been passed in Committee of Ways and Means.

The Resolution already passed in Committee covers it.

:I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "enjoying," and to insert instead thereof the word "receiving."

I am not certain whether we could find the word "enjoying" in many Acts of Parliament. I have not been able to find it. Therefore, I move to substitute the word "receiving."

I will accept that Amendment.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "of" ["benefits of education"], to insert the words "any form of," and after the word "education" to insert the words "by which they are capable of profiting."

The last line of the Amendment would then read,

"shall not be debarred from receiving the benefits of any form of education by which they are capable of profiting, through inability to pay fees."

I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is willing to accept this Amendment, and although I do not like the phrase "by which they are capable of profiting," I understand the right hon. Gentleman wishes that limiting phrase put in. Therefore, I move it in that form and express my thanks to the right hon. Gentleman.

Another Amendment to the proposed Amendment has been handed in, but I am afraid it will not read in the form in which it stands. It raises the question of maintenance. There will be another opportunity later of dealing with the point.

I should be much obliged if the Minister of Education would tell us the effect of the Amendment. Can he tell us the additional cost which would be entailed? It is evident that it must entail some additional cost. It may be that the addition is not very great. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the number of people who are likely to benefit by this Amendment, and what would be the cost to the ratepayer or taxpayer?

:If a person desires to obtain free education for his son or his daughter, will he have to sue in forma pauperis for it?

It is impossible to give the right hon. Gentleman (Sir F. Banbury) an exact figure. It is very difficult to estimate the extent to which the children of poor parents are able to benefit by secondary school education. In good times there is a considerable flow into the secondary schools, but in bad times that flow is cheeked. There has been a considerable flow of children into the schools, and that flow no doubt will be considerably augmented if the local education authorities will come forward and pay the fees. Obviously the figure will be variable. In any case, even without this Clause, the Board of Education in considering schemes submitted by local education authorities will naturally have regard to the provision of scholarships and maintenance allowances in the various schemes. Already there are free places, maintenance allowances and scholarships, although in my opinion that provision might be very beneficially increased.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the point I raised? How will they get free education in these schools?

:At the present moment, in virtue of a Regulation which we owe to the right hon. Member for North Monmouth, there are a very considerable number of free places allotted in every secondary school which receives Government Grants. There will be no difficulty in increasing that number

I am much obliged for the explanation. Do I understand that it is within the power of the Board of Education, without this Clause, to increase the number of free places which are already granted?

Under Regulation.

Not beyond the 25 per cent.? Then this is really an addition to the powers of the Board. If this Amendment is passed, there is nothing to prevent the Board of Education saying that the whole of the places in a secondary school shall be free. The original Amendment says that in schemes under this Act adequate provision shall be made in order to secure that children and young persons shall not be debarred from enjoying the benefits of education through inability to pay fees. Therefore the only check upon the whole of the places being free is that the parents will have to prove their inability to pay fees. It is difficult in these days to say who is able and who is not able to pay. Everybody seems to think they are not able to pay, and everybody wants something for nothing. Therefore this Clause, to that extent, does enable the Board of Education to grant free places over and above the existing limit of 25 per cent., and might enable them to give free places to everybody, always providing that the people could prove that they could not pay the fees.

The 25 per cent. is fixed by Regulation, and not by Statute. Therefore the Board of Education could at any moment amend the Regulation in that respect and require a higher proportion of free places in respect of any school in receipt of a Government Grant. It is always open to a local education authority to establish a new secondary school in which every place would be free. There is nothing to prevent it. All that this Amendment does is to call the attention of local education authorities to the fact that the Board of Education has a very strong interest in the provision of free places, and in considering the adequacy of schemes which are submitted to them by local education authorities that consideration will be held in view.

There is a point beyond which, I think, they should not go, because it will throw an additional burden on the ratepayer or the taxpayer. On the Second Reading of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman mentioned £10,000,000 as the estimated cost. Was this included?

This was not included.

With regard to the effect of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse), with the spirit of which I am in agreement, I should like to ask a question. What is to be the test and who is to be the judge of their ability to pay? It might obviously be the parents of the children or the Board of Education or the managers of the schools who would be the judges of the matter, but there is nothing in the Bill to elucidate this, and it is desirable that something more precise should be inserted either here or in some other part of the Bill.

In the ordinary course I take it that the local education authority would submit a scholarship scheme, and that in the conditions of obtaining the scholarship some evidence would be shown. The test might be some kind of examination. I think that we can trust the various bodies charged with the administration of education to discover whether or not children are capable of profiting by different classes of education, and I do not think that it is necessary to go very much more closely into the matter at this stage. A very large number of scholarships and free places in secondary schools are awarded at present, and in all cases some means are taken to inquire as to whether the child is capable of profiting by the instruction to which it is admitted under the free places regulations, and those requirements I believe will continue substantially.

:I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should consider between now and the Report stage whether some provision could not be made with regard to children in the rural districts who live some distance away from the school. In Wales there is a large number of children of considerable mental ability who are still deprived of secondary education on account of the cost. Children in the towns, who are near the schools, can avail of the opportunities, but children living some distance away are prevented from attending secondary schools on account of the cost of travelling and maintenance during the day, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it would not be possible to empower the local education authorities to give either subsistence allowance or travelling expenses in such cases?

I will consider that.

The position is becoming clear now. I will go back to my example of the works school and we shall be able to see—

We must not have the same speech on a series of Amendments. The Amendment on which we are at present simply says that provision shall be made for the children of poor parents so that they shall not be debarred from secondary education by inability to pay fees.

If you will allow me to make my speech, no repetition will be involved. This question is complicated by the question whether the children can pay fees. My suggestion is that at the back of this scheme is a system of assisting the works school from the ratepayers' or the taxpayers' profits. These schools have got to become free. The scheme will be put before the local education committee. There will be a proposal by the manufacturers of the district to establish these schools, but they will say "we cannot establish them without payment. It is true that the present schools are run without payment, but we do not see why we should establish these schools without payment." Therefore they will be schools which will be paid for by public money in order that children may be trained for those occupations. That is what it comes to. A 20 or 25 per cent. basis is not enough. Of course, if the problem is for manufacturers to have subsidised schools or pay for schools of their own, obviously they will choose subsidised schools; and I protest against that.

I beg to move, at the beginning of the Clause, to insert as a new Sub-section:

"(1) The Board of Education shall draw up and lay upon the Table of the House a sample scheme upon which local education authorities can base the scheme to submit to the Board."

I do not mean by this Sub-section that the Board of Education shall lay down any hard-and-fast scheme for the local education authorities to adopt, but when we are putting before the country an entirely novel scheme for secondary education for children it is certainly desirable that the Board should frame some sample schemes for country districts and town districts and mining districts, showing the lines on which this secondary education should proceed, and whether it should be given on four days in one week for a couple of hours each day, or on one whole day or on two half-days, and in what form instruction should be given in these schools. Judging local education authorities all over the country from the one which I know, I am quite sure that the Staffordshire Education Authority would wish for some outline of what the Board proposes under this Bill, and it will be of the greatest importance to members of this Committee if we also knew what the Government were proposing. We have had a great deal of sympathy from the President of the Board against excessive devotion to vocational education, and we have heard from all quarters expressions of popular sympathy with liberal education. We have had intimations that what will be taught will be English, reading, mechanics, general mathematics, and, generally speaking, the wider courses of which we have ourselves had experience. But all that would be much better impressed on the local education authorities if there were a scheme drawn up by the Board of Education showing what the Board intend them to do.

After all, local authorities are given a certain amount of latitude in dealing with different interests and industries in different parts of the country, but without sample schemes such as are proposed broad agreement of policy will be lacking. We know now more or less what this Bill intends for the children of the country, but the councils all over the country have not heard the speeches in this House, and have not heard the Minister of Education, and do not really grasp what is intended by this Bill. For their advantage, as well as for the homogeneity of the scheme produced and for the advantage of the children who are to be educated, it would be extremely desirable that these samples should be provided. I go so far even as to think that it would be an advantage to the Board of Education itself to set itself, on the supposition that this Bill will become law, to draft the sort of scheme it would like to see adopted by a sample county council or a borough council. I have had letters on this subject from, among others, so great an educational authority as the Dean of Lincoln, and all to whom I have spoken and from whom I have heard on the subject say that those who are to be in the position to draw up these schemes would welcome some outline scheme from the Board of Education as to what they are intended to do. I cannot think that there can be any objection to that, and I do urge the President to accept this Amendment and to say that these schemes shall be proceeded with at once.

I sympathise fully with the interest which my hon. and gallant Friend takes in the procedure, and I agree with him that it will be necessary for the Board of Education to co-operate with the local education authorities in the production of schemes. It is, indeed, our very full intention to do so. We intended to invite the local education authorities and their officers to co-operate with us in framing heads of their respective schemes, but I think it would be unwise and contrary to the general policy of the Bill for the Board to come forward at this moment with model schemes. What we want to do is to encourage the initiative of local authorities and to furnish the local education authorities in each area with such help as we can give. The schemes which maybe suitable for a country district are not necessarily suitable for a town district, and what suits one town may not necessarily suit another. We desire a great deal of elasticity in the arrangements. In one district the arrangement of hours, for instance, will be quite different from what it will be in another. I imagine that when the heads of schemes are worked out they will undoubtedly include such items as the provision of buildings, domestic instruction, advanced elementary instruction, general technical schools, central schools, scholarships, maintenance allowance, medical treatment, after-care, and choice of employment. All those items will naturally figure in a normal scheme, but it is undesirable at the present moment for the Board to come forward with a particular model scheme which might be quite unsuitable to a large number of areas.

I listened with great interest and a considerable amount of sympathy to the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New-castle-under-Lyme, and I have listened to the whole of the Debate this afternoon. In reference to model schemes, I think that the Departments are only too ready to encourage the laying down of model schemes. On the practical side, I am quite certain that if, in response to the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion, the Board of Education were to lay down a model scheme, that model scheme would become a bone of contention all over the country, and all the local authorities would be perplexed by criticisms and counter-criticisms over that unhappy model scheme. Surely we have to learn this fact in connection with our education, that if you are to have any sound system there must be local initiative both on the part of the teacher and the local authority, and without that initiative you cannot possibly have an efficient education or an efficient school. You may have a local authority producing an inefficient school, but you cannot possibly have an efficient school without it. Do let us leave the teachers and local authorities to work out their own salvation by a little hard work and experience, and by having regard to their own circumstances and their own requirements, which they know better than anybody else. Do not let us leave, as the hon. and gallant Member suggests, this matter in the bands of Departments or bureaucrats, who are only too ready to law down lines for schemes of education. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment.

The hon. Gentleman has taken up the role which I usually adopt in this House, and I apparently have taken up the role which he usually adopts. But I do not support bureaucracy against local initiative, and what I want to guard against is officials of the local authority meeting together and drawing up a scheme of education about which nobody knows anything locally, and which is adopted by the Board of Education and becomes the law of the land. What I wish is that a draft of the scheme locally prepared should be published in the local papers, so that everybody who desires to know will learn what the scheme is which has been prepared by the local education authority. I want the matter to be subject to local opinion, and not that you may call it local initiative where a scheme is prepared by officials, and say what a divine institution is the British Constitution.

The next Amendment, standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson), touches upon Section 17 of the Act of 1902, and it should come up in the form of a new Clause.

On the point of Order. This Amendment was put down in the name of the hon. Member for Attercliffe and by myself, in identical terms, on Clause 1, and we were informed that the proper place would be Clause 5. Therefore my Amendment now appears upon the Paper. Of course it has reference to a particular scheme submitted under Clause 5, according to the general law of the land.

The Clause with which we are now dealing makes provision for a scheme of education, in consultation with the local authorities, and the hon. Member should bring up his proposal in the form of a new Clause showing to which Clause, in connection with their education scheme, it is to apply. If the Amendment were introduced at this point, it would only have partial application.

I beg to move, in Subsection (3), to leave out the words "after such conference or public inquiry," and to insert instead thereof the word "thereafter." This is purely a drafting Amendment.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the meaning of the Amendment?

Sub-section (3) contemplates the Board of Education disapproving of a scheme after a conference or public inquiry, and it is obvious that the words "after such conference or public inquiry" would make it necessary for a conference or an inquiry to be held. The Board of Education would be bound to offer a public inquiry, and, if that be refused, then, if these words are omitted, the Board can "thereafter" lay before Parliament a Report stating their reasons for disapproval.

Surely it appears in the Sub-section that there "shall be a report of the public inquiry (if any), stating the reasons for disapproval." I admit that I have not read the Clause very carefully, but I do not see what the object of the Amendment is.

Sub-section (2) provides that the Board of Education shall offer to hold a conference with the representatives of the local authority, and, if requested by the authority, shall hold a public inquiry. It is quite possible that the offer of a conference may be declined, and also that the authority might not press for an inquiry, and therefore the words at the beginning of Sub-section (3), "after such conference or public inquiry," would not apply, if no conference or inquiry had been held, and "thereafter" it would be a matter for the Board of Education to notify the authority.

The next Amendment, which stands in the name of the right hon. Member (Mr. Rawlinson), is one which I am unable to accept in the form in which it stands. It is too indefinite altogether, and I do not know what it means. The Amendment must be brought forward in a definite form. The same applies to the Amendment which follows, in the name of the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King).

I see by Sub-section (3; of the Clause that in the event of the local authority and the Board of Education disagreeing about a scheme the Board are enabled to report to Parliament upon any action that they may have taken. I would like to know in what form that Report is going to be laid before Parliament, and what opportunity this House will have of passing its opinion upon that Report? Unless some opportunity is given the House to consider the Report of the Board, I do not see much reason for laying it before Parliament.

The object of the Report is to inform Parliament as to the action taken in regard to any scheme; and as regards the form in which the Report is made, that, of course, will depend very largely upon its substance, but the only object is that Parliament shall be fully informed about the matter. In regard to details, I would point out that it would neither be profitable to Parliament nor to education that such details should be discussed.

Are we to understand that no action will be taken on such a Report when laid before Parliament?

The usual course of action would; be open to the House, namely, to move the reduction of the Estimate, and the reduction to be carried.

I hardly think that is a satisfactory answer in regard to the power to revise any action that may have been taken. The point of greater substance is that the Board of Education ask the local authority to have a public inquiry, and the local authority say, "We are not going to do what you want us to do." Who is to decide between the Board and the local authority? I submit there should be a Committee of the House, or some tribunal, to decide the matter between the central and the local authorities. As I understand, the Board of Education is absolutely supreme, and all the speeches we have heard about local initiative really come to nothing. If the local authority refuse to have an inquiry, then there should be an independent tribunal to decide whether the Board of Education or the local authority is right or wrong. The explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary is extraordinarily good from the Parliamentary point of view, but do any of us understand what this provi- sion means? According to the Parliamentary Secretary, the position is that Parliament is to be informed. Is Parliament really to be the judge between the Board of Education and the local authority? I am anxious that some other tribunal, or Committee of the House of Commons, should deal as between the Board of Education and the local authority; at any rate, something of that kind is highly desirable. Summarised, the case stands thus: The local education authority brings up a scheme, and the Board of Education disapproves of it, and asks for a public inquiry. The local education authority stick out against that inquiry, and the Board of Education still disapproves the scheme. The only result is that the Board is bound to take action under this Clause, and report upon that action to Parliament. They report upon their action, or, again, they need not take action: so what is the meaning of the provision? If it merely means that the Board are to present a Report to the House of Commons, then I submit that there should be some tribunal to decide between the Board and the local education authority.

The hon. and learned Member is more royalist than the King. Clause 4 and Clause 5 are agreed Clauses as between the Board of Education and local education authorities. Discussion went on for several months very carefully, and every word of this Clause was agreed upon. The local education authority is perfectly satisfied with the arrangement that is now proposed, and I submit that under this arrangement the local education authority have a very much more complete guarantee than they have now that their schemes shall be carefully and deliberately examined by the Board. After all, a public inquiry has been held, and I think it would be very undesirable if the responsibility of the President of the Board to this House were in any way weakened or diluted by the establishment of a Committee. I feel the President ought to be responsible for the policy of the Board, and especially when such a point is raised as a diminution of Grant, a step that is only taken as a last resort in a case of proved and established inadequacy of provision, and I feel that in producing a Report after public inquiry, and in submitting that Report to Parliament we are meeting the case

:Is there any limit of time within which the Reports are to be laid before Parliament?

No. Every security is given.

The Under-Secretary has said that we shall have the usual opportunity of discussing it on the Vote for Education or on the Adjournment. Suppose, after this Report is made, a Vote for Education does not come up. That opportunity is lost. The Adjournment is a very uncertain question. I do not know if I am right, but I have the impression that when a Report is laid on the Table in this way it can only be raised after 11 o'clock at night. You will see, therefore, if you look at these means of raising the subject matter of the Report they are exceedingly limited, and I think you can only conclude that the opportunity is a very slight one indeed.

I think I can go a step further. To get a Division on the question, whether a Report should be accepted, is a matter of even greater difficulty. It has to be moved "That this House doth disagree." The very unusual phraseology of the Bill is that they shall report to Parliament. I do not know any precedent, though my right hon. Friend may have many in his mind. I should like to know what discussion he thinks there will be and what chance we have to divide on this. I rather gathered he did not mean the House to have that power. I gathered him to say he wished the Board of Education to have complete power, and he did not intend the House to have power to divide on whether the Report should be accepted or not. I do not know in the least what the right hon. Gentleman is referring to when he says that all the local authorities were content with this Clause. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows that it is a red rag to me to be told that the House of Commons should give up its power on something which occurs when I was not present, whether some education authority was there or not. The House of Commons is fighting for its rights in a most vital way, and when the head of a Department says, "It is all right, the thing has been settled, do not exercise your own judgment upon it," I think the House of Commons is giving away something very vital which will affect those who come after us. Some of us may not be here much longer. It is an easy way of giving away the rights of the House of Commons. The question is, Are we satisfied? If we are, it is all right. As to being more royalist than the King, I should like to say where I got this Resolution from. I got it from the Teachers' Registration Council, and it is not likely that they would take alarm on a question like this unless there were something in it. If we are the people dissatisfied and wish an Amendment moved, I do protest against giving away our rights because the local education authority is satisfied. Let us come to the simple point here. Does the President of the Board of Education mean to press the point he made in his answer to me, that he thought it would be a pity the responsibility of the President of the Board of Education should be whittled away by having to submit the question to this House.

:I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman did not understand me. I did not mean to intimate that the House of Commons should not be perfectly free to divide on the Report. Of course it will be free to divide on the Report.

I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that point, but what does it come to? Is it a real offer you are making us or not? Anybody who has been in the House so long a time as the hon. Member for Ipswich (Sir D. Goddard) knows it is absolutely impossible. An hon. Member who has not been here as long as I have will probably find in the Green Book the way it is to be done. But the hon. Member knows how difficult it is even in a properly drawn Act to raise a question after eleven o'clock on an Order which stands on the Table at any particular moment. It is so difficult as to be almost impossible. That is why it is much better, if possible, that Parliament should delegate its power to some other tribunal in cases where it can be done. It is a small point, but I do think it is important we should be satisfied ourselves.

I think there is no doubt whatever about the procedure referred to by my hon. and learned Friend. If you intend to have an opportunity of discussing a Report or any scheme laid before the House, the formula in an Act of Parliament is contained in this: it states that the Report or scheme shall be laid on the Table of the House, and unless objection shall be taken by the House within thirty days or two months, it shall have effect. That course is not followed here, and therefore you could not possibly raise an objection in the same way as you could under the Clause of an Act which referred to the laying of a Report on the Table of the House. That may be right or it may be wrong, and the President may be quite right in maintaining his point. But as to the fact of procedure, it raises no doubt in my mind whatever. We have to deal with these things over and over again, and we know what schemes are open to discussion and what are not. If a scheme is on the Table of the House and has to lie there, you can raise discussion after eleven o'clock and go on. Of course an Adjournment Motion, we know, comes to an automatic ending at a certain hour. There is another question under this Clause I would like to put to the President of the Board of Education, and it is of more material importance. Under this Clause, if the Board of Education fails to come to an agreement, it has to lay the Report before Parliament, stating any action which it intends to take. Action of what sort? Merely in the way of withholding or reducing Grants that are payable? But the whole scheme falls to the ground. Are you not going to take power to establish an alternative scheme? Is your alternative to be that if you cannot corns to an agreement all you are to do is to fine the local authority by depriving it of its Grant, and the poor locality is to go without a scheme all together? Surely the President must take power of substituting a new scheme, so that the whole locality should not be entirely deprived of the benefit of any scheme at all. All you can do is to lay a Report on action of a strictly limited kind, withholding or reducing the Grant. You have not the power of substituting a new scheme, and that is what I want the President to tell us: Is he going to leave the scheme simply floating in the air or take power to float a new scheme?

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the procedure in this case will not mean that the Report will be laid on the Table of the House?

No.

"Will be laid before Parliament." Is it to be laid on the Table of the House? If it is not, in what way can the question be discussed? So far as my recollection goes, the only way you can discuss it would be by private Member's Motion, and the only chance of getting a discussion would be by obtaining time for a private Member's Motion, The chances in a crowded Session are practically nil, and therefore the chances of the House discussing and expressing an opinion on a Report so laid amounts to nothing at all. I am sure something more than that must be passing through the mind of my right hon. Friend, and if he can give the House some assurance that the Report so laid will be discussed, he will find it necessary to amend his Bill when he comes to the Report stage.

I think there is a confusion between two methods. Those documents which are laid on the Table for thirty days or two months arc documents which, at the end of that period, have the power of a Statute, and it is necessary to provide means of challenging those documents and preventing them having the force of law. The question now before the House is that in any case—not one in a year, or perhaps not one in five years even, judging from past experience—where there may be a dispute between the Board of Education and the local authority on a comparatively small point, in order that the Board of Education — an arbitrary Board of Education—in the future might not use this particular Clause in an offensive way, it is provided that the Report of the inquiry, if there has been one—I suppose a verbatim Report of the evidence and the judgment of the person holding the inquiry who is usually distinguished by discernment and legal knowledge—should be placed before this House, and there should be a notification of the intention of the Board of Education to withhold part or the whole of the Grant payable to the particular authority unless it assents to the terms of the agreement. I imagine that is the idea. I imagine that is the argument which satisfied the Board of Education on the one hand and the local education authority on the other.

These are two very different things; in the one place you table a Parliamentary Paper, which, at the end of one month or two months, is given statutory effect; in the other case you have a Report merely dealing with a dispute between a local authority and the Board of Education on a small point. I do not agree that these are matters in regard to which special opportunity should be given for Debates in this House. I have heard many Debates raised here regarding disputes between the Board of Education and local education authorities, questions as to the treatment of certain Church of England schools, and also with regard to the treatment of Roman Catholic schools. I suggest there are plenty of opportunities for raising these questions; it can be done at Question time or on the Motion for the Adjournment; there are, in fact, ample opportunities. This is a proposal to apply to the Board of Education a method of procedure different from that which is applied to any other Government Department, and why should special opportunities be afforded by this House for the discussion of disputes of this nature? It is not done in the case of the Local Government Board when it has a dispute with some town council, and I do not understand why disputes, small in themselves and very unlikely to occur, should be treated in a manner differently from that in which disputes between other Government Department sand local authorities are treated—simply because the Board of Education says, "We will report to the House what we propose to do in this particular case, so that the House may have some greater chance of discussing the matter than would be afforded if the dispute arose in connection with some other Government Department." While I am anxious to retain the full rights of this House, I submit we should be able to use them without committing the whole work of the Board of Education to the control of anybody in the way suggested as a result of a dispute between some small education authority and the Board.

There is one point I would like to mention, as it may help to remove the difficulty which has arisen in the minds of some hon. Members. This discussion is as to the action to be taken in this House when a disagreement has occurred which it has not been possible to bridge over. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Glasgow University (Sir Henry Craik) has suggested, I think erroneously, that it is not in the power of the Board of Education to compose such a difference of opinion by submitting an alternative scheme. I am suggesting that when a conference takes place between the Department and the local education authority it will, of course, be open to the Department to submit to the local education authority an alternative scheme that would be acceptable to the Board. This is a very important point, as it would greatly reduce the number of cases likely to come to this House on Report. I desire to associate myself generally with the remarks which fell from the last speaker (Sir J. Yoxall).

I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow University (Sir H. Craik) has raised a very important point as regards the action of the Board of Education in cases where no agreement has been reached. He has suggested that the only course open to the Board of Education is to withhold the Grant payable to the authority. That would be a very serious matter, because it would mean that all the schools under the authority would be penalised because of the failure to reach an agreement. I take it that that is the only course really open to the Board. Suppose the Board were to adopt the suggestion of my right hon. Friend and to say, "Very well, we have proposed an Amendment to your scheme to which you are unable to agree, we have had a conference with your authority, and have instituted a public inquiry, and, notwithstanding all these efforts on our part, no agreement has been reached; therefore we have decided that the local authority shall adopt the particular scheme which we have drawn up." Suppose, if agreement is not reached, the local authority still refuses to adopt the scheme, what will happen? Surely under these circumstances the Board of Education can do nothing other than penalise the authority by fining it. I quite admit that these are cases which are very unlikely to arise, but I would suggest that, having regard to the fact that this power can only come into operation by disagreement having arisen between the local authority and the Board, after an inquiry has been held and after the representatives of the authority have had full opportunity of discussing the question, then some consideration should be given to the views put forward by the local authority. I earnestly appeal to the President of the Board of Education to undertake to reconsider this question before the Report stage is reached, because there is now no one who is in a position to suggest an alternative proposal to meet what many of us feel to be a real difficulty.

I find myself in entire agreement with the speech of the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Sir J. Yoxall). The object of this procedure is to secure publicity. That is the sole object. It is to enable Parliament to know when the President of the Board, in the exercise of his admitted responsibility, has taken the grave step of reducing or disallowing a Grant to the local education authority. We feel that Parliament should know when that is done in order that, if necessary, it may be discussed here either on the Motion for Adjournment or on the Estimates, or by way of question and answer, or, as I am also reminded, on the Appropriation Bill. There are, indeed, many opportunities on which action taken by the Board of Education in withholding or reducing a Grant can be discussed. I wish the Committee to realise that the action of the Board in providing opportunity for criticism constitutes a step which has not been taken by any other administrative Department in regard to the exercise of its ordinary powers of administration. It is not, therefore, entirely fair to speak as if this Board were attempting to deny to Parliament rights of criticism which are enjoyed in connection with the administrative powers of other Departments. My right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow University (Sir H. Craik) has asked a very important question. He has asked what would happen in the case of disagreement between the Board and the local education authority? He seemed to assume it would be a question between a scheme on the one hand and no scheme on the other.

Before you took action in the way of withholding the Grant.

:Yes. What would happen would be this, the local authority would submit a scheme which the Board would say was not adequate. There would be a conference and possibly a public inquiry. Assume that at the end of the inquiry the Board still considered the scheme to be inadequate, it would then take action to either reduce or withhold the Grant, and the intention to do so would be communicated to Parliament. But the authority would go on with its scheme, and even if the Board of Education had power under this Clause to substitute another scheme it would have no power to compel the local education authority to carry out the scheme which it had approved. The relationship between the two parties is defined in this Clause, which I hope the Committee will allow to stand.

I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that some of the confusion in the mind of the Committee is due to a remark he himself made to the effect that Parliament would have the charge of the Vote. I think the right hon. Gentleman somewhat misled us by that. Although it may be true that there are opportunities for discussion of these matters in various ways it is not always convenient to deal with one question in isolation. The right hon. Gentleman himself is receiving from most Members of this House very cordial support in regard to his education policy—support more cordial perhaps than his predecessors have received, and this for very obvious reasons. It would, therefore, ill become any of us to put down an Amendment to reduce his salary by £100 when we arc in full agreement with his general educational policy merely because we do not approve of his decision in an individual case. There is also a great deal of difference between a report of this kind and a report which might be made by another Government Department. Other Government Departments—the Local Government Board, for instance, has been mentioned—have not the wide powers which are entrusted to the Board of Education with respect to finance, and they have not the power to withhold from a body; large or small, any Parliamentary Grant. That, therefore, places the administrative functions exercised by the Board of Education in a very different category from the administrative functions exercised by the Local Government Board and other Departments. That is not the only question. There are other questions, such as the educational condition of a district, which may give rise to discussion, and I would, therefore, suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, not desiring at this moment to make further inroads on his administrative functions by way of the delegation of his authority to Parliament, that he should, between now and the Report stage, consider what is obviously desired in many quarters of the House, some slight modification of the wording of the Clause by which the opportunity to bring these matters before Parliament should be put in clearer form than is now apparent from the present drafting of the Bill.

I should be very glad to consider that.

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "Acts" ["power under the Education Acts"], to insert the words "the Education Committee of."

5.0 P.M.

We now come to a Clause of an entirely different nature. It provides that one authority may co-operate with another authority. This, of course, is a very desirable thing. We all know localities, certain districts, say, on the borderland of two counties, where it is very desirable that there should be co-operation. The general object of this Clause is one of which I am entirely in favour, but this provides not only for co-operation but also for combination. What it means by a council combining with another council I do not know. The phrase is, I think, a new one in this connection, but even if it is not a new one it ought to be considered in view of the history of these proposals. In the original Bill which we had last Session it was quite clear that the words were, if not a determination, at any rate an opportunity for abolishing certain of the smaller local authorities, eliminating them practically, and handing over their work to the higher and larger authorities. It is a very intelligible course for the Board of Education to advocate. They have probably too many authorities with which they deal, and a very natural tendency must arise in the office and certain quarters towards abolishing certain of the minor local authorities. But that determination or object to abolish smaller authorities evidently was not favoured by local authorities, and we find that a considerable modification is embodied in the Bill as we now have it. This ought to give us ground for suspicion. I want to see co-operation between the different authorities, but I do not want to see the local educational authorities co-operating with other local education authorities to the exclusion of the actual persons who are directing the work, namely, the education committees. After all, the education committee of a county or a borough is in a different position from that of a public health committee or a housing committee. It is established under a scheme, and has a statutory and official position different from that of an ordinary committee of a county or county borough. I want to see the co-operation established between these various education committees, and not necessarily the councils which are the local education authorities. I have several Amendments down, which form a series and follow one on the other, but the first I have to move would be to substitute for "council" the expression "an education committee of a council." Then later on I should propose to leave the opportunities for co-operation quite vague by eliminating a large part of this first Sub-section, leaving in the first Sub-section the provision for co-operation not a power of one council or local education authority to enter into co-operation with another—which may mean, and was originally, I believe, intended to mean, the elimination of certain authorities—but to provide for amicable and quite voluntary co-operation between the actual committees which are working out these problems and administering our law. I want to see the education committees, not the education councils, voluntarily co-operating with one another in the working of this Act.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain to me. I do not quite follow his speech in connection with his Amendment. The Amendment, as I understand it, is practically to substitute for the word "council" the education committee of the council, and to put it entirely on the education committee of the council.

That is the first Amendment. I think it is in order. It is quite clear that it means that the education committee of a council would have the powers under this Clause, and not the council itself.

That follows, surely?

It does not at all follow.

Then if the hon. Gentleman moves this Amendment, he really must distinguish, and show to me that, instead of council, he means the education committee to the exclusion of the council. Then I can understand him, but I have not yet been quite able to follow what he really means.

With due respect to you, Sir Donald Maclean, I would say that I think the people on the Treasury Bench do understand what I am aiming at; and though I always address my remarks to the Chair, and desire to illuminate the Chair as much as possible, may I respectfully say that I desire much more to have both the attention and the understanding of the Treasury Bench than even of the Chair? I say that with great respect.

I entirely sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. I have nothing whatever to do with the merits. The merits of the question are entirely outside my province, but I have to define as well as I can what is within the limits of order and relevancy, as far as I understand relevancy. It is because of that, and only because of that, that I ask the hon. Gentleman to make his remarks to my mind—he has to convince me on that point—really relevant to the Amendment.

I shall submit the point in as few words as possible. I want to see co-operation. I do not want to see the education committees eliminated, or possibly eliminated, by the councils. The education committees are set up under schemes under the Statute. They are, therefore, a distinct entity which may be regarded for the purposes of this Act as the subjects of legislation.

I think I clearly understand my hon. Friend's object. It is to enable not councils to combine, but the education committees of such councils. He desires that they should have an independent power of entering into arrangements with other education committees without the sanction of the council by whom they have been appointed. [MR. KING: "Hear, hear!"] My hon. Friend must allow me to characterise that as a most extraordinary proposal. It has absolutely no precedent of any kind in legislation, and I venture to say it is absolutely contrary to all the principles of local government. I would ask my hon. Friend just to imagine one result which would follow. It would enable, for example, two education committees to decide what powers a council should give to a joint board, and what contribution the council should make out of the rates to the expenses of a joint-board. It is perfectly obvious that local education authorities would never look at a proposal of that kind. I think that if we were to put it to the local education authorities of the country we would find that not a single one of them would be prepared to support a proposal of that character. I hope my hon. Friend will realise that it is one which we cannot, in the circumstances, accept.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the word "may" ["may provide either directly"], and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."

This Clause deals with the provision for co-operation and combination for the providing of schemes whereby there can be federations and joint committees, and it is stated in regard to this that they may provide, either directly or by co-option, for the inclusion of persons of experience in education and of representatives of universities or other bodies. The purpose of my Amendment is to make this provision more definite. If it is good that these persons should be represented on these federations and joint committees, then, I think, it is well that we should make it certain that they will be represented, and that is really the purpose of the Amendment that I move. I do not know quite who would be included, and perhaps we may have some guidance from the Minister of Education as to who would be included as persons of experience in education, and who would be included as representatives of universities or other bodies. "Other bodies" is a very wide term, and it might be well that we should know definitely from the President of the Board as to who would be included under that category. I take it, for example, that teachers and representatives of teachers would be eligible—and the President agrees with this—to go on under the term "other bodies" It is really of the teachers that I am thinking. I think there ought to be in regard to these federations and joint committees representatives of teachers, and I think that this ought not to be a matter of chance, but that it ought to be certain that the teachers are going to be accepted on these committees and are going to give the benefit of their advice. I think that we have been trying on various Clauses to get this principle affirmed. For my own part, I think there is great necessity for carrying teachers with us in regard to these various schemes, and that more important even than the question of increasing the salary of teachers, important though that is, is the matter of increasing the status of the teachers and giving them a proper place in regard to education. They have special knowledge and special experience, and they will bring a special standpoint of their own to bear in regard to these various educational schemes.

On a point of Order. The subject of debate now apparently is the inclusion of teachers in these bodies. Will there be a second debate on this on the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rawlinson) at the end of this Sub-section, where it is specially raised?

I think we will wait until we get to that, and then we will deal with the Amendment of the hon. Member.

I am quite in order, for this reason: that the President of the Board of Education admits that the expression "other bodies" includes teachers, and therefore I am arguing, in moving the word "shall" as against the word "may" that they shall be equitably included in these various schemes. I believe that the definite inclusion of these teachers, not as matter of privilege but as a matter of right, will help to interest teachers, and will help to make these various educational schemes a success. We know by means of Whitley Reports that this principle of joint working is receiving very wide endorsement, and I am quite sure that if the President could see his way to accept this Amendment, and give teachers and others who have a real interest in education a definite standing on these federations, he would be going a very long way to make his scheme a success.

I think that, perhaps, the hon. Member rather overlooked the very diverse purposes for which these joint bodies may be constituted. A joint body may be constituted, for instance, for the sole purpose of conducting one public elementary school, and in that case he would agree with me, I think, that it would be inappropriate to have a statutory requirement that such a joint body should contain representatives of universities. The number of purposes for which it may be desirable for authorities to combine are considerable. Authorities, for instance, might combine for scholarships. They might combine for continuation schools. They might combine in order to establish a school for defectives, in which case it is much more important to have doctors than teachers. Consequently I think it would be better to preserve the Clause in its present shape, which gives a sufficient degree of elasticity; but I greatly sympathise with the observations which fell from the hon. Member with reference to the desirability of securing the co-operation of teachers on such bodies, and I shall be prepared to accept the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Sir J. Yoxall), which comes a little later.

On behalf of my hon. Friend (Sir J. Yoxall), I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "of" ["for the inclusion of persons"], to insert the words "teachers or other."

I understand that the President of the Board of Education is prepared to accept this, and I therefore formally move it.

I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (1)

The effect of this Sub-section would be that children under fourteen could not give any—shall I call it temporary—assistance either to their parents or to employers, as they are able to do at the present moment. Whether or not this is advisable after the War I do not know. I am inclined to think myself it is not, but that is a matter of opinion on which there might be considerable difference. But, in view of the great shortage of labour at the present moment, to introduce a Sub-section to this effect is, I maintain, a very great mistake. There is a very useful work being done, especially in the country districts, by boys of thirteen or fourteen, who at odd times can give assistance—and very valuable assistance— to farmers, and, as I understand it, the result of this Sub-section will be to prevent anything of the kind.

It is not proposed to carry this into operation during the War.

Yes, but is there anything in the Bill which says that?

Clause 45 will give power.

But it is only within the option of the Board of Education.

I do not mind giving my right hon. Friend an undertaking.

I am not casting any doubt upon the undertaking of my right hon. Friend—I am sure he will acquit me of any such desire—but it must be remembered that we may not always have the good fortune of having him President of the Board of Education, and another President may take a different view. I am rather glad of the interruption on the part of my right hon. Friend, because only yesterday I received a letter from a firm of solicitors concerning a question which has been in the Courts of Law, and which turns entirely upon a statement of a Minister — a member of the present Government—in a debate last year on a question raised by myself. It was held in court that you must not allude to any undertaking given in Parliament. Under these circumstances, I think it is absolutely necessary that we should go a little bit further than an undertaking, and, at any rate, have words put either into this Clause or into Clause 45. That Clause says:

"This Act shall come into operation on the appointed day, and the appointed day shall be such day as the Board of Education may appoint, and different days may be appointed for different purposes and for different provisions of this Act."

I think that is much too vague, and, personally, I would much rather have this Sub-section left out altogether, but I do not know whether I shall get any support in Committee for it. I think I shall move the omission for the sake of getting an explanation from the Minister, as I think I should be prepared to accept an Amendment further on, or at the end of the Subsection, providing that this Clause shall not be brought into operation during the continuance of the War. If my right hon. Friend will give some undertaking that he will put in words of that sort—and I would prefer them now to on Report—possibly I shall be prepared to accept it.

I will consider the point which my right hon. Friend raised, to see whether I cannot put something into the actual face of the Bill which will make it clear what is the intention of the Government.

The point I am most anxious about is that the age should not be made compulsory up to fourteen until they have got the provision for giving the children proper and efficient education up to that age. We all know at the present time the education which the clever children get in the last year or two of their school time is lamentably inefficient. They practically waste their time during the last years of school at the present time, because no provision is made by most of the educational authorities for any advanced education for the cleverer children. For the last year they stay at school, instead of at home, reading or otherwise wasting their time. If that is simply to be extended now to all the children over the age of twelve, who at present can get back home and get to work, then you are not doing anything for education; you are merely harassing the parents of the children. I do not think Members of this House realise what this Bill is going to mean to most of the poor parents of the country. With the present high price of living, they have their time cut out to make both ends meet. Anyhow, they are more dependent than they were upon the earnings of the children. The wages of these children are much higher. If you are going to raise the age to fourteen everywhere, and at the same time not provide more efficient education, you are committing not only a piece of interference with the whole life of these children, which is uncalled for, but you are pretending to provide an education which you know perfectly well the local education authorities are incapable of giving. In the first place, they have not teachers enough to train these children, and, in the second place, if they had the teachers, the education authorities are not willing in most parts of the country, and, particularly in the rural areas—they are not capable of giving the children this better higher education that is contemplated under the Bill. We are pretending to ourselves, and pretending to the country, that we are really making a great educational reform, and, at the same time, we are merely providing machinery of coercion which in itself cannot produce better education. I therefore support my right hon. Friend opposite in his opposition to the compulsory raising of the school age.

Would my right hon. Friend the President now consider whether we could not add words achieving the object suggested? This could be very easily done if the words were put at the end of the Sub-section. I would much rather have it done now than later, because one does not know when the Report stage is coming, and these matters are apt to be forgotten. Very simple words would meet the case. They should provide that this Clause should not come into operation until the end of the War. If the words were put in now we should have the opportunity of considering them in the interval, and they could either be withdrawn or altered. I do not much like putting off these matters.

I would point out that the matter can come up on Clause 45.

I think the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman comes more properly at the end of Clause 45, Sub-section (3)—

I do not want to dispute your ruling, Sir Donald, but it seems to me that this is the proper place for a proviso dealing with a possible alteration of this Clause. This portion of the Sub-section says that certain education shall be compulsory, and I wish to say, "Provided that this provision shall not have effect until after the provisions required under Section 2 shall have been made."

I have some doubt about the matter, so perhaps I had better give the hon. and gallant Gentleman the benefit of it, and allow him to move his Amendment

I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words,

"Provided nevertheless that this provision shall not have effect until after the provisions required under Section two shall have been made, and the facilities for education are available."

Obviously no part of this Bill can be brought into operation until after the end of the War.

We have no guarantee about that.

We have no guarantee, that is true; but I think it is generally so understood. What I am anxious for is that even after the War we shall not have this raising of the school age, because we shall not have the teachers or the curriculum prepared. If it is—as it surely must be—the intention of the Education Minister, not that he should have his compulsory powers, and then get his teachers, but that he should have his teachers first, then I think he might accept this Amendment. However, T will not press it unless the President says that he will agree to it.

May I inquire whether this discussion will in any way prejudice an Amendment which I have a little later, to leave out the words "between the ages of fourteen and fifteen"?

I think not.

I think we ought to have some statement from the Education Minister on the point I put: What is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman?

I do not see my way to accept this Amendment as it stands. Of course it is quite obvious that the local authorities will have to consider the matter before the preparation of an adequate standard of instruction and higher education as projected. But it must be remembered that this Clause does not impose any new obligation. The existing obligation is that children should be educated up to the age of fourteen. What the Clause does is to abolish two classes of exemptions—half-time and partial exemption.

I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (2).

This Sub-section increases the age from fourteen to fifteen at which children shall be compelled to attend the elementary schools. The local education authority can force them to attend if they think well. There is perhaps no obligation on the part of the education authority to do so, but if they think it necessary they can do so. That is how I understand the Clause, and I gather that my right hon. Friend so far agrees. It is pretty certain to my mind that a majority of education authorities will consider it necessary.

The majority of the education authorities may not consider it necessary.

Then why put in this Sub-section? Why put it in, if it apparently is not to have any effect? By omitting it you shorten discussion. I think this Sub-section is a great mistake. I venture to disagree from the Minister for Education in thinking that the majority of education authorities will not enforce these powers. I think they will. They may not just at first, but as time goes on they are quite certain to say that all children must attend the elementary schools up to the age of fifteen. Is that wise? Is it wise in the interests of the children? At the present time boys and girls leave school at the age of fifteen. In the case, especially of the boys, they are enabled to learn a trade which is not only useful to them in after life, but is extremely useful to the country. After the War, when the male population will unfortunately have been very much diminished owing to the loss of life on the battlefield, it will be absolutely necessary that we should have all available labour, if we are to recover our position in the commercial world and in the agricultural world. To me this is one of the most inopportune times to say that for the future boys of fourteen are not to be able to go and learn a trade or assist in earning their own living as they have done in the past. No one knows what the actual condition of matters will be after the War. There may be very great distress. I trust not. There is certain to be a very great shortage of labour. I fail to see one advantage to be gained by compelling the majority of children to stay on at school after they are fourteen. There may be something to be said, where you have an exceptionally clever child, who shows an aptitude for learning, why such a child should continue, for he would perhaps gain by staying on. I do not, however, think that that applies to the average of the children, and I really do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to leave out this Sub-section. After all, this age has been in force for a great number of years, and before it is increased I should like to have some really cogent arguments in favour of the increase. Secondary schools are to be improved. Facilities are to be given to school children to attend secondary schools. It does, therefore, seem to me that, under the circumstances, the raising of the age from fourteen to fifteen is quite unnecessary. It is still more unnecessary if, as my right hon. Friend says, the majority of education authorities are not going to enforce it. I trust, therefore, on this particular Amendment I shall have some support from all sections of the House.

I should like to appeal to the Minister for Education to consider the argument of the right hon. Baronet opposite. It seems to me to be quite clear that not a few of the education. authorities will immediately avail themselves of the permission given to them in the Bill. I never knew a taxing authority that in a case of the kind did not avail themselves of their powers, and I do not think that any education authority is going to be more modest. All educationists—I daresay greatly to their credit! —are enthusiasts, and I really believe that this Sub-section will be carried out in the manner suggested by my right hon. Friend opposite. What will be the result? I myself, and I dare say other hon. Members of this House, have received a memorial from the news agencies who say they will not be able to carry on if they are deprived of the services of boys up to the age of fifteen. There is the age, too, represented in the Amendment which I have mentioned, and there are the children who work on the films to whom some consideration should be given. This provision seems to me to be a drastic one. I most heartily agree with the right hon. Baronet that, whether it be good or bad, this is not the time for dealing with this age question.

I do not agree with either of the last two speakers, but I do wish that this Sub-section should be left out. We have no mandate whatever to raise the school age to fifteen. Some of us will probably lose our seats if this thing is passed. Members of local authorities will, I think, inevitably lose their seats too. Anyone who knows anything of working-class feeling on this question knows that this suggestion of raising the compulsory school age to fifteen is going to meet with very strong opposition from the voters and parents of this country—and I think quite rightly so. They do not see such success attending the teaching in the elementary schools that they are very anxious to see that education extended for a further period. If the teaching of the school improves still more, if they get a subsistence allowance to enable them to keep their children at school without going short time, then you may find enthusiasm for education and get a really satisfactory education, but as long as they are dependent upon the earnings of their children you will not find elected representatives too anxious to raise the school age which will prevent the children of the electors from earning money. I doubt whether there is in the whole of England a single authority where the proposal to raise the age to fourteen or fifteen would get more than a handful of votes. The electors themselves know perfectly well that to raise the school age to fourteen or fifteen would be inflicting a hardship on the parents.

I join in the appeal that has been made to the President not to put this Sub-section into the Bill. In my Constituency we had a ballot of the people who were at home, apart from the younger members of the trade unions, and they decided against any increase in the age at all. This Bill makes provision for extending the age beyond anything hitherto attempted in this House. There may have been good reasons for giving this permissive power when the age was eleven, twelve, or even thirteen, in cases where the inhabitants really desired it or under special circumstances. In those circumstances you gave them permissive power to increase the age by another year, but under this Bill that hardly applies. I think the age should be definitely stated in the Bill, and you should give nobody any power to override either an Act of Parliament or the Board of Education when it sets the age limit down.

It may happen in the working of the Bill that the local education authorities or the local authorities may have agitations to put this Clause into operation. Under certain circumstances they may get a majority of the local authority to put it into operation, but I think if the whole of the people were consulted in the area they would not put it into operation. Arguments of that kind will be set up, and this makes the parents more uneasy, for they will have to face more difficulties than those provided for in the Bill at the age of fourteen. It was intended that generally fifteen years should apply. If that is so, I am of the opinion that a Clause ought to be inserted that after a certain time fifteen years should apply rather than give power to local authorities, who, by the genuineness of their position from an educational point of view, wish to put on another year. I think it would be infinitely better had it been stated that this could be done at some time or other, but I am quite sure that the best course would be for this House to say that if the age is to be increased to fourteen, let that be the limit, and I shall submit the same argument when we come to another part of the Bill. I believe in a clean cut. I think the President has got on exceedingly well with the Bill so far, but I do not think he ought to insist on this power being placed in the hands of these people. I am not going to say that the power will be ill-used, but it is not the proper place to put a question of this kind.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accede to the appeals which have been made to him—in fact, I should be prepared to ask him whether he could not see his way to go even further in the sense of the Amendment which is down on the Paper to leave out "fifteen" and insert "sixteen." It seems to me that in regard to the policy of putting in a maximum to which various local authorities can work up there can be no real difference of opinion in this House. There may be special difficulties in the district for which the hon. Member for Clitheroe speaks, but there are other districts in the country which I should imagine would be prepared to go further. I am afraid the hon. Member who contemplates that all the local education authorities will at once raise the age to fifteen does not realise the composition of these various local authorities. I do not think they are likely to take that very drastic action, but I do think it is desirable to give free play to the initiative of the different localities, and where you do get a progressive body of opinion ready to educate the children and give them something more than the very scanty modicum of education which you are able to get into a child's mind at the age of fourteen, you ought not to prevent that authority going further. I know there are economic difficulties and prejudices. A very strong opinion has been expressed by my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) that the chief effect of education seems to be to divert people from their natural occupation in agriculture, but you can get public opinion beyond that stage, and certainly other countries are prepared to go beyond it. How anyone can expect to face after-war problems unless we are prepared to cultivate our brains in a way which we have not done hitherto, I fail to see. I press my right hon. Friend to stand by this Sub-section and to improve it by increasing the age limit. I should like to see a higher maximum put before the local authorities of the country, to which, in course of time, they may be able to work up.

May I also express the hope that the President of the Board of Education will not yield in regard to this particular Clause? I know there are special difficulties with regard to Lancashire, but the hon. Member (Captain Smith) who represents one of the Lancashire Divisions knows very well that the party with which he himself is identified has often asked that the age should be put up to sixteen—in fact, that has been part of his party programme.