House of Commons
Thursday, December 11, 1930
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
Private Business
Public Works Facilities Scheme (Thorne and District Water) Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
Unemployment
Domestic Service
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that the hours and conditions of domestic service are quite different from those of industrial work, she will discontinue the policy of refusing unemployment benefit to women who have been insured in industrial occupations and are unwilling to engage in domestic service?
This is not within my discretion. The questions that arise in such cases must be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Acts, and no decision to withhold, benefit in any particular case is given except by the court of referees or by the Umpire.
Is it not a fact that, if girls who have been brought up in industrial centres, and have never been in domestic service, refuse to go into domestic service, they are cut off from the Employment Exchange?
No, Sir, that is not the fact. It depends upon each particular case, and the circumstances of each case.
Is it not a fact that in cases where girls who have never been in domestic service before, but have been working in the factories refuse to go to into domestic service their benefit is cut off?
No, Sir.
Does the Minister assure the House that she has no power whatever in regard to the question of the suitability of the alternative employment, and the condition of the individuals arising from previous training?
No, Sir, none whatever.
Would it not be easier for those girls if some people in the country did not go about saying that domestic service is—
On a point of Order. May I say that I think that her Ladyship should get rid of that question because there is an innuendo in it to which I should like to reply. Nobody goes about the country saying such things.
asked the Minister of Labour if, when positions as domestic servants are notified to women by Employment Exchanges, they are advised of the wages and working conditions attached to the post?
Yes, Sir.
Is the Ministry of Labour prepared to issue instructions to the Exchanges not to fill vacancies where the wages and working conditions are unreasonable?
No, Sir. That is not within my province. The adjudicating machinery has to take that into consideration in relation to the question whether the work is suitable.
The right hon. Lady told us previously this afternoon that the Employment Exchange did not fill the position of a boy who was wanted because the wages were too low. If they can do that with a boy, why cannot they do it with a girl?
There seems to be a very great deal of misunderstanding about this matter. The Employment Exchanges must offer the vacancies that are to be offered, but the question of refusing benefit, if an applicant refuses a situa- tion, depends upon the circumstances of each case.
Are these girls perfectly free—
Tell the rich women to go and clean their own houses, and then they will see how the lasses of the working-classes have to work.
asked the Minister of Labour what were the wages and working conditions of the positions as general servants in Blackpool boarding houses which were offered to Elizabeth Sharpies, Mary Caulfield, Alice Bamber, and Elizabeth Beckett, whose claims for benefit have been declined by the umpire?
The vacancies in question were for "generals" in boarding houses, company houses, etc. The duties were mainly general duties, including washing, and previous experience was not essential. In some cases the girls would be required to assist in plain cooking. Board and lodging was provided and wages varying from 10s. to 15s. per week, with tips in addition. Outings were to be arranged.
Can the right hon. Lady tell me the hours that these girls are expected to work in those positions?
I will make inquiries on that point.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of women whose claims to unemployment benefit have been rejected because of their refusal to accept positions as domestic servants and service at service canteens, respectively?
I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not available.
Can the right hon. Lady tell us the number of protests that she has received against this action?
I think they amount to three resolutions.
Cannot the specific figures be given?
I am going into this matter very carefully, and will see what statistics it is possible to extract without giving too much additional work to a very overworked staff.
If I put down a question to-day asking for a return for three months, will the right hon. Lady be able to give me an answer next week?
I am afraid I cannot say.
Messenger Vacancy
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that the manager of the Employment Exchange, 60, Great Marlborough Street, in a letter dated 28th November, 1930, regretted that he was not able to find anyone to fill the post of messenger, she will make inquiries as to whether on that date, there was no unemployed person available for the work; and will she give the reasons?
On the date mentioned, 28th November last, there were eight boys on the register of the Great Marlborough Street Exchange and 110 vacancies. In the case to which I understand the hon. Member refers the wages offered were below those normally obtainable by boys living in the area, and they would of course be even less attractive to boys who would have to incur travelling expenses.
Are we to assume that the position is not filled because the wages offered were not so good as the benefit offered by the Exchange?
Not at all. It was because the wage was not as good as the wage offered in that area to other boys.
Royal Commission
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Sir A. POWNALL:
5. To ask the Minister of Labour if she can now give the names of the members of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance?
These names have been given since I put this question on the Paper, but may I ask the right hon. Lady whether the Royal Commission will sit in public?
I could not say without notice.
Miners
asked the Minister of Labour the number of workers in the mining industry in Great Britain in receipt of unemployment benefits for part-time employment, giving the figures for each district separately?
Precise statistics of the numbers in receipt of benefit who are in part-time employment are not available. Such persons would in most cases be included in the numbers unemployed who are temporarily stopped from the service of employers, and I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving figures on this basis.
Following is the statement:
Insured persons classified as belonging to the coal mining industry in Great Britain recorded as temporarily stopped from the service of employers at 24th November, 1930.
District and Numbers temporarily stopped. Northumberland 1,520 Durham 5,880 Cumberland and Westmorland 1,589 Yorkshire 14,520 Lancashire and Cheshire 9,546 Derbyshire 3,435 Notts, and Leicestershire 2,758 Warwickshire 327 Staffs, Worcester and Salop 3,675 Gloucester and Somerset 123 Kent 3 Wales and Monmouth 10,426 Scotland 2,819 Other Districts 24 Great Britain 56,645
Statistics
12 and 13.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) the proportion of the numbers on the registers of the Employment Exchanges whose claims have been admitted for the three months to the latest convenient date and for the corresponding three months in 1927, 1928, and 1929;
(2) the proportion of the numbers on the registers of the Edinburgh Employment Exchange whose claims have been admitted for three months to the latest convenient date and for the corresponding three months in 1927, 1928, and 1929?
I am having the information asked for in these questions extracted and as soon as it has been tabulated, I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Tyne Work Scheme
asked the Minister of Labour if a decision has been arrived at by the Unemployment Grants Committee regarding the scheme for the utilisation of Jarrow slake to improve the shipping facilities on the Tyne?
The committee have been requested to consider this proposal in principle; no formal application for a grant has in fact been made. They are in consultation with the Ministry of Transport regarding the project and that Department is awaiting an expression of opinion from the Chamber of Shipping.
Work Schemes
asked the Minister of Labour what is the total number of persons now employed on public works which have been initiated for the purpose of dealing with unemployment by the central Government and local authorities; and how many of these men have been drawn from the unemployed in skilled industries?
It is estimated that on 31st October the number of men directly employed on schemes assisted by various grant-making Departments was approximately 89,000. The information asked for in the second part of the question is not available.
Can the right hon. Lady give a little more information than that which is given in the answer? Does the number of 89,000 include persons Other than those employed on the schemes originally set up to give employment to the unemployed?
These persons are directly employed on the schemes assisted by grants.
Do those figures include the number of men who have been put on road schemes?
No, not normally.
Public Libraries (Grants)
asked the Minister of Labour whether she has reconsidered her previous policy of refusing her sanction to grants to be made by the Unemployment Grants Committee for the construction or extension of public libraries; and how many applications concerning such buildings have been received and rejected?
Since 1st June, 1929, 12 formal applications for grant in respect of public libraries have been submitted to the Unemployment Grants Committee. In addition, certain comprehensive schemes for the extension of municipal buildings have included provision for public libraries. These form only a small proportion of the total number of schemes submitted, most of which comply with the conditions laid down for grant, and in view of the terms of the Act I do not feel justified in altering the conditions in this respect.
Do I understand from the answer given by the right hon. Lady that all future applications for grants for the extension of public libraries will be refused on the ground of policy?
Yes, at the present time.
Would it not be a very great mistake to consider any applications such as these unless it was a necessity?
Does the right hon. Lady not consider that public libraries are a necessity?
Benefit
asked the Minister of Labour if she can give an estimate of the number of insured workmen who are employed for three days or less per week and drawing the unemployment insurance for the remainder of the week?
I am unable to make such an estimate.
Since this is a growing practice which was not intended by the Unemployment Insurance Act, will the right hon. Lady look into the matter, seeing that the Royal Commission cannot report for many months?
I am certainly having it watched very carefully. At the present time the classification, as I stated in a previous reply, is of those temporarily stopped from the service of their employers. There are a lot of variations in that classification, but they are all lumped under one heading.
Seeing that it is an abuse can the right hon. Lady not go into the matter?
Singer Sewing Machine Works (Closing)
asked the Minister of Labour with regard to the fact that the Singer sewing machine works at Clydebank are to be closed from 18th December until 5th January, whether the same arrangements as to those promised in her reply to a question of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) on 10th July, 1930, will be adopted, in order to decide the question whether the workers laid off will receive unemployment benefit during the period the works are closed, as New Year's Day is the only official holiday at the period recognised by Statute?
The arrangements made last July for facilitating the making of claims by workers at this establishment will be available for the same purpose this month.
Does the same position apply to workers who are likely to receive at least 10 days' holiday at Christmas without a penny piece of wages?
That question does not arise.
Canteens (Inspection)
asked the Minister of Labour the names of the women who are to make the inspections of canteens; and if the report they make will be made public?
If my hon. Friend will repeat his question next week, I hope to be able to make a statement.
Insurance Fund
asked the Minister of Labour what is the extra cost to the Exchequer of the Unemploy- ment Fund based on the present numbers of unemployed made by the change in the contribution to the transitional benefit, making the Exchequer contribution one-third, payments of benefit to persons who would have been previously disallowed, benefit paid to married women, and increased rates of benefit, respectively, and the total cost of these changes?
I would refer the hon. Member to the figures which I gave during the debate in the Committee stage of the Money Resolution on 1st December.
Could the right hon. Lady give the House the total of these figures?
They will be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Health and Pensions Insurance Rights
asked the Minister of Health whether he intends to take any action to keep in insurance those persons whose insurance lapses at the end of the present year as a result of prolonged unemployment?
asked the Minister of Health whether he is yet in a position to make any statement with regard to the case of genuinely unemployed persons in health insurance who, through long continued unemployment, will be in danger of losing health insurance and pension rights on 31st December next; and whether he can state what steps can be taken to safeguard the funds of approved societies while, at the same time, preventing these persons from losing their rights?
Following yesterday's conferences with the Approved Societies' Consultative Councils the Government has decided to introduce early legislation with the object of safeguarding, during the coming year, the health and pensions insurance rights of the persons referred to. Payment of the appropriate health insurance contributions will be made by the Exchequer.
Can the right hon. Gentleman state what will be the ap- proximate cost of these proposals to the national Exchequer?
I cannot say offhand. There are two sides to the question, and I am not certain yet whether, as regards pension rights, it is going to be equalised now or left until the following year, but before the Bill is brought before the House a financial statement will be submitted.
Am I to take it that it will involve a very considerable sum?
What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by the pension rights of those whose rights are already exhausted?
I should like to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman which I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, namely: If he can state definitely—seeing that before legislation can be introduced and passed, it will be the month of February and there will be a month uncovered—or make some statement as to what is to happen in the particular month which is uncovered or which cannot be covered by legislation?
It is very difficult in reply to questions to deal with the terms of the Bill, but, as I understand my hon. Friend, his question yesterday was as regards those people who were actually drawing benefit at the end of the year. Those people will go on and will be covered for medical benefit for a further month after the end of the time that they cease to draw their benefit.
Are we to understand that the Government have decided to introduce this legislation without having formed any estimate of the cost at all?
This is a very important matter—
Sir George Penny!
I should like, with regard to the point which I have raised, to give notice that I wish to raise the matter, if possible, on the Adjournment.
Post Office (Christmas Work)
asked the Postmaster-General if he will take steps to ensure that as many as possible of the unemployed are engaged to assist in dealing with the pressure of work during the Christmas season?
Yes, Sir. That is the policy of my Department.
Benefit Disallowed, Glasgow
asked the Minister of Labour whether she can give any explanation as to the supply of men for the purpose of strike breaking from Springburn Training Centre, on 18th August, 1930, to Messrs. J. Mcllwraith and Company, Limited, Broomloan Road, Govan, Glasgow, and the refusal of unemployment benefit to these men by a court of referees because they refused employment of this nature?
The matter is now before the umpire, and it would not be proper for me to make any statement. After the umpire has given his decision I will, if necessary, review the circumstances of the case.
Apart from the question of benefit coming before the umpire, are any steps being taken to see that there is no strike-breaking activity in this centre?
Quite.
Silk Works, Peterborough
asked the Minister of Labour if she is aware that the Celta artificial silk works at Peterborough have closed down; and whether she has had any negotiations with representatives of the artificial silk industry with a view to keeping these workpeople in employment?
So far as I am aware, it is not intended to close these works permanently, but I have no information as to when they will be reopened. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
One-Man Businesses
asked the Minister of Labour if she will consider, at an early date, bringing within the scope of the Unemployment Insurance Acts proprietors of businesses and enterprises in which only the proprietor or members of his family are engaged?
I am afraid it would not be practicable to bring persons of this type within the scope of a National Unemployment Insurance Scheme, as they are not working under a contract of service.
Home Training Centre, Leamington
asked the Minister of Labour whether there has been established at Leamington a training school for domestic servants; and, if so, what are the general conditions and the length of the course?
A residential home training centre with accommodation for 40 women and girls of 16 years and upwards has been in operation since January last at Leamington. It is conducted on behalf of my Department by the Central Committee on Women's Training and Employment. The course lasts from eight to 10 weeks. Trainees receive instruction in cookery, laundry, housewifery, needlework^ general knowledge and health talks, etc. No fees are charged; free travelling expenses from home to the hostel are granted and while in residence trainees receive an allowance of 2s. 6d. per week in addition to board and lodging and are given the materials from which to make an outfit for themselves. I am sending my hon. Friend an illustrated leaflet giving further particulars of the centre and will place further copies in the Library.
May I ask if this is the only school of its kind in operation?
Yes, at present; but I hope to open another at Warrington quite shortly.
Wages (Russia)
asked the Minister of Labour if she can give the idex number, based on food, fuel, light, and soap, of comparative real wages in Soviet Russia, taking this country as 100?
I have no information which would enable me to give the index number asked for. I would refer the hon. Member, however, to the calculations made by the International Labour Office, which are contained in the International Labour Review, October-November, 1928.
Does that calculation include Russia or is Russia excluded?
These are the calculations about Russia.
Questions
Joint Industrial Councils
asked the Minister of Labour what steps she is taking with regard to the recommendations from joint industrial councils advocating the establishment of such councils in every industry where a council is not already in existence?
It is the policy of the Government to give assistance in the formation of joint industrial councils when employers' and workers' organisations so desire. It is necessary, however, to allow employers' and workers' organisations in each industry to adopt the form of joint machinery which seems to them to be best fitted to their own circumstances.
Will the Minister of Labour say how many joint industrial councils have been formed since the Government took office?
The hon. Member might give me notice of that question.
Are there none?
How many of these councils have ceased to function during the last two years?
I should like to have notice of that question also.
Cinemas (Labour Conditions)
asked the Minister of Labour whether she is in a position to report the result of the inquiry into wages, hours, and working conditions in cinemas in London and the provinces?
The inquiry is in progress, but it will be some time before the results are complete.
Licensing Commission
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the report of of the Royal Commission on Licensing?
asked the Home Secretary when he expects a report from the Royal Commission on Licensing; and whether he can give any estimate of the daily cost of the Commission?
I am afraid I cannot give any date by which the report of the Licensing Commission may be expected. I can only say that I understand that the Commission have completed the public evidence which they desire to take. As regards the cost of the Commission, I would refer the right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) to the answer given to the hon. Member for the Devonport Division of Plymouth (Mr. Hore-Belisha) on the 27th November, by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
Could the right hon. Gentleman give any idea of the total cost of the Commission to date?
The amount mentioned in the answer to which I have referred is £10,000.
Does the right hon. Gentleman expect to have this report by the time that the House meets in January?
I cannot say, but I will consult the Chairman at an early date.
Lotteries and Sweepstakes
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the present condition of the law on the subject of sweepstakes, lotteries and raffles, he will consider the appointment of a committee for the purpose of recommending legislation with a view to clarifying the position?
Under the existing law, public lotteries of whatever form, and whether promoted in this country or not, are illegal in this country, and, while that is the case, the authorities have no alternative but to carry out the law. Under the Customs Acts, advertisements or notices of lotteries are contraband, and upon importation, by whatever means, can be dealt with accordingly. The sending of lottery tickets or advertisements through the post is also prohibited, and letters suspected of containing correspondence relating to lotteries may be opened. The Statute provides heavy penalties for breaches of the law. If I were satisfied of the existence of any general demand that I should look into the question of setting up a Committee to consider, as a practical question, the conditions and safeguards which would be necessary and appropriate if lotteries were to be permitted as a method of raising money for approved public purposes, I should be prepared to consider what would be the best method of giving effect to such a demand.
Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that raffles held in bazaars for the raising of funds for religious or charitable purposes come under the Act?
I have tried to cover the general aspects of the question embodied in the Question on the Paper, and I hope my hon. Friend will consider that that is sufficient for the day.
In view of the fact that a Bill to remedy the absurd position of the law at the present time would be practically non-contentious in this 'House, why cannot the right hon. Gentleman introduce it?
Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the failure of the Betting Act?
The two last supplementary questions appear to indicate that there is a difference of opinion.
Is not my right hon. Friend aware that there is a considerable body of evidence in the country in favour of the action that he has already taken in this matter; and what grounds, therefore, will there be for any considerable change?
Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that he can enforce the present law?
We can only begin to enforce the law when the facts are revealed to us. I admit that there is some difficulty, but, once the facts are before us, we have no alternative but to do our best to enforce the law.
Mr. Gialdini
asked the Home Secretary whether he can state the present position of the proceedings relating to the prosecution of Mr. Gialdini?
The further evidence which I mentioned in my reply to the hon. Member's question on the 6th November last has been taken in this country and forwarded to the Italian Government.
Has there not been very considerable delay in this matter, and can nothing be done so far as this country is concerned?
Numerous questions have had to be investigated, and it must be remembered that this is a prosecution by the Italian Government of an Italian subject.
Places of Amusement (Sunday Performances)
29 and 33.
asked the Home Secretary (1) whether, in view of the inconsistency of the present law with reference to the Sunday opening of cinemas, he will consider the appointment of a Departmental Committee to advise him as to the introduction of legislation which will regularise Sunday cinema performances;
(2) whether he will consider introducing legislation to amend the Sunday Observance Act of 1781?
30 and 32.
asked the Home Secretary (1) whether, in view of the anomalies of the present law with regard to the Sunday opening of different places of amusement, both theatres and cinemas, he will consider the desirability of introducing legislation at an early date to regularise the position of all enterainments on the day in question;
(2) whether he has considered the position created by the decision in the case Rev the London County Council, ex-parte the Entertainments Protection Association, Limited; if so, whether he can make any statement thereon in view of the large numbers of people who are directly affected; and what action he proposes to take?
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the position in which local authorities are placed in deciding the hours of opening, and particularly of Sunday opening of cinemas, he will consider the advisability of promoting legislation whereby the hours of opening for cinemas may be uniform over the whole country?
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the state of the law in respect of Sunday performances, he proposes to introduce regulating legislation?
The whole subject is engaging my attention in view of the recent proceedings, but I am informed that the London County Council have decided to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, and, pending the hearing of the appeal, it would not be proper for me to make any public statement on this question.
Has the right hon. Gentleman been asked to receive a deputation from the London County Council members on this subject?
I have no information on that point.
In any inquiries that the right hon. Gentleman makes, will he bear in mind the invidious position of the local authorities—
The right hon. Gentleman has said that he cannot give any further answer pending the result of the inquiry.
Aliens (Russian Subjects)
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the number of citizens of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics now permitted to remain in Great Britain solely on account of their unwillingness to return to their native land, he will give permission to such persons to continue to reside in this country conditional upon their being able to prove that they have not at any time carried on, or assisted in carrying on, Communist propaganda in Great Britain or any other part of the British Empire?
Every case is carefully investigated, and the applicant's connection or otherwise with Communist propaganda is one of the factors which is taken into consideration on any application for extension of conditions.
asked the Home Secretary what steps are taken to ensure that citizens of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics who are permitted to remain in Great Britain on account of their unwillingness to return to their native land do not enter gainful employment in this country to the detriment of British workers?
Every application is carefully investigated, and the alien's proposed occupation is one of the matters which is taken into consideration. So far as I am aware, none of the persons concerned is in employment.
Are they entitled to live in this country if they are not employed?
I conclude that they must be, as many others do without earning their own living here.
Arsenic (Sale)
asked the Home Secretary whether in view of the opinion expressed by coroners, he will consider a revision of the regulations controlling the sale of arsenic to the public so that, if this poison is indispensable to agriculture, the licensed vendors, such as corn merchants, ironmongers, etc., will be made to comply with the same regulations as registered chemists?
I hope that a Bill for the purpose of simplifying and strengthening the law relating to poisons may shortly be introduced into Parliament. I would, however, remind the hon. Member that the existing provisions of the law relating to the sale of arsenic and of poisons generally apply equally to registered chemists and the licensed vendors to whom he refers. The licensed vendors are, in addition, subject to the regula- tions made by Order in Council under Section 2 of the Poisons and Pharmacy Act, 1908.
Cinematograph Films (Censorship)
asked the Home Secretary if he is now prepared to make an inquiry into the question of film censorship?
I have given careful consideration to this matter. It is not always recognised that a power of censoring films is vested in the local authorities. The local authorities rely for the most part on the systematic examination of all films by the Board of Film Censors; but their power of censorship remains in reserve. I am well aware that there are signs of growing uneasiness in the public mind as to the tone of many films now exhibited and I welcome this evidence of public concern because I believe that the pressure of public opinion can alone bring about an improvement. There is, however, I think, some confusion of thought in the idea that a change of the system of censorship would provide a remedy. I doubt if an inquiry by a commission representative of different interests and points of view would be of much assistance. I have no reason to believe that any alternative system so far proposed would produce better results or command general support, or that the standard of censorship in this country is not at least as high as that in any other. The public exhibition of certain films would give rise to difficulty under any form of censorship, and it is doubtful whether any better system could be devised than one which leaves the local authority free to allow or to prohibit the exhibition of such films in their own area according to the circumstances. While I am not prepared to appoint a Committee of Inquiry, I am considering whether any steps can be taken to secure a more continuous contact between the board and representative local opinion.
Has the right hon. Gentleman had any complaints from local authorities on the subject?
I am not aware that any local authorities have complained.
Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions
asked the Home Secretary why deductions are made from ex-Royal Irish Constabulary pensions on the grounds that the pensioner is receiving a pension in respect of disability arising out of his war service as a soldier or sailor?
No such deductions are made. The statutory provisions contemplated, as in the case of police in Great Britain, the supplementing of the military pension of a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary who was prevented by war service disability from returning to the force so as to bring it up to what he would have received if he had been injured on police duty. If the hon. Member will let me have particulars of any cases he has in mind I will look into them and communicate with him.
Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to give him some cases which conflict with what he has said?
Certainly.
Education
Cadet Corps
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he can make arrangements whereby cadet corps can be supplied with suitable tentage on loan?
I have nothing to add to the answer on this subject which I gave the hon. and gallant Member a week ago.
Vocational Training
asked the President of the Board of Education whether, during the period which will elapse before the school-leaving age is raised to 15, he will make arrangements for the absorption into the teaching profession of persons not less than 25 years of age with at least five years' experience of some gainful employment other than teaching, for the purpose of giving suitable vocational training to the older pupils?
I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave the hon. Member on 6th November in regard to the employment of teachers with industrial or commercial experience.
Has the right hon. Baronet considered the question and given some attention to it?
In my last answer I said that I was giving attention to it.
Conveyance of School Children, Staffordshire
asked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware of the financial burden placed upon the Staffordshire local education authorities in the conveyance of school children and its prospective increase in future; and whether he will reconsider his refusal to make an increased grant towards this cost?
I have not received any representations on this matter from the local education authorities in Staffordshire. I am not at present satisfied that the percentage rate of grant in respect of expenditure on the conveyance of children should be increased.
Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to listen to any representations that may be made to him by the Staffordshire County Council on the subject?
Has the right hon. Baronet received similar representations from every county council in England?
Commissions and Committees
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government has appointed or intends to appoint a committee of economists, in addition to the Economic Advisory Council, to advise them on industrial and fiscal questions?
In addition to investigations which have been publicly announced, committees have been appointed from time to time to study certain questions. No information can be given in regard to the latter class of inquiry.
Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a report in one of the daily papers stating that a secret committee of this kind has been set up and giving the names of the members, and does he not think a statement ought to be made?
The hon. and gallant Gentleman, like myself, has been sufficiently long in politics to have learnt to attach very little importance to the political gossip that appears in the newspapers.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the following day a letter appeared in the same paper from a professor who is supposed to be a member, who seemed to say that the forecast was correct?
I saw the first report, but I did not see the second letter. In any case, the matter is covered by what I said in the first part of my reply.
Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate what is his conception of an economist as suggested in this question?
Questions
Widows' Pensions
asked the Minister of Health the number of widows who have been refused their application for a pension since June, 1929?
The number of applications for widows' pensions which have been rejected in England, Scotland and Wales since June, 1929, is 46,783.
Has the right hon. Gentleman reflected on these figures and on his pledge to all widows in need?
I have reflected on the fact that 350,000 pensions have been given under the Act of 1929.
Are we to assume that an additional 200,000 would have been deprived of their pensions if the Conservative Government had remained in office?
I do not like assumptions.
asked the Minister of Health the number of widows who had their application for a pension refused under the Widows', Orphans and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, who have qualified under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1929?
I regret that the information desired by my hon. Friend is not available, and could only be obtained by a special scrutiny of every case in which a widow's pension has been awarded under the Contributory Pensions Act, 1929.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state the number of widows who have been granted a pension since June, 1929?
The number of widows' pensions in England, Scotland and Wales granted since June, 1929, is 357,313.
asked the Minister of Health if he can give an estimate of the number of widows in England who are now in a position of some disadvantage compared with those Scottish widows who have received pensions as a result of the decision of the Court of Session in the case of Kerr v. Scottish Department of Health; and what would be the estimated additional expenditure if the English widows were given the benefit of this decision?
I regret that I am unable to furnish the information desired by my hon. Friend. I should point out, however, that while some applicants for widows' pensions have benefited as a result of the Scottish decision, others have been placed in a worse position.
Rating (Sporting Rights)
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the financial losses suffered by county councils because certain types of sporting rights are not rated; and if he will call for a return from them showing how they are thus affected and otherwise inquire into this matter?
Such sporting rights as are not rateable are not separately valued, and reliable figures for the purposes of a Return would not, therefore, be available.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the County of Norfolk alone loses £36,000 £r year which is equivalent to 1s. rate, and does he not think some action on his part is called for?
I was not responsible for the legislation.
Do we under stand that the right hon. Gentleman is unable to call for such a return?
The point is that it is really not possible to get a complete return.
Poor Law (Old Age Pensions)
asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the proposal to allow the amount of old age pension which is withdrawn from a pensioner by his or her being an inmate of a Poor Law institution to be transferred and paid over to the public assistance committee governing that institution towards the cost of his or her maintenance therein; and whether he will sanction this proposal?
asked the Minister of Health what steps he proposes to take in view of the request he has received from local authorities that, when old age pensioners are inmates of Poor Law institutions, the amount of pension withdrawn should be handed over to the public assistance committee governing the institution towards the cost of his or her maintenance?
I would refer to the reply given on 13th November to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Shepherd) on the same subject.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will give instructions to pay out to old age pensioners before the Christmas holidays any balance found to be due to them out of their arrears of pension which have been retained by his Department to meet claims for payments made by the public assistance committees?
All possible steps have been and will continue to be taken to secure that, in the cases to which may hon. Friend refers, any arrears of pension due shall be paid to the pensioners as soon as possible after receipt of the Public Assistance Committee's claims against the arrears.
Housing
Clearance Areas
59, 60 and 61.
asked the Minister of Health (1) how many local authorities have undertaken the purchase of land for purposes of clearance, in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Housing Act, 1930;
(2) how many local authorities have actually embarked upon the demolition of clearance areas in accordance with the provisions of Section 1 (3) of the Housing Act, 1930; which these authorities are; and how many persons are affected by the operations in progress;
(3) how many local authorities have so far by resolution declared unhealthy areas within their control to be clearance areas, in accordance with the provisions of Section 1 of the Housing Act, 1930; which these authorities are; and the number of persons of the working classes stated in each case to be occupying buildings within the clearance area on the day specified in the statement?
I have received resolutions from 18 local authorities declaring 50 areas to be clearance areas. I am having a statement prepared showing their names and the other particulars desired as regards those areas, and will send a copy to the hon. Member.
Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of the total purchase price paid?
If the hon. Member will put down a question, I will try to obtain the information.
Houses for Aged Persons
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that a number of local authorities are in doubt as to their right to include in their programme to meet ordinary housing needs small houses for aged persons; and whether he will issue a circular making it clear that the provision of such houses need not be part of a scheme in connection with a clearance area or an improvement area?
The position as regards houses for aged persons has already been fully explained in a circular issued on the 19th August last, and I am not aware of the existence of any such misapprehension as is suggested. If there should be any uncertainty in the minds of any authority I have no doubt that my hon. Friend's question will serve to dispel it.
North Kensington
asked the Minister of Health whether in view of the housing conditions in North Kensington, he will hold an inquiry into the matter?
The London County Council is charged, under the Housing Act, 1930, with the duty of re viewing, in consultation with the Metropolitan Borough Councils, the housing conditions in the county and is understood now to be preparing the first quinquennial statement of the measures to be taken to deal with those conditions. In these circumstances, I do not think any useful purpose would be served by my undertaking such an inquiry as is suggested.
Public Health
Infant Death-Rate, Kensington
asked the Minister of Health what the infant death-rate in the Queen's Gate ward, in Kensington, was last year and what it was for the Golborne ward; and how many cases of scarlet fever and acute rheumatism were reported in Golborne ward last year and how many in South Kensington as a whole?
As the answer includes a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the answer :
The Registrar-General has no statistics for separate parts or wards of metropolitan boroughs, but according to the annual report of the Medical Officer of Health, the infant mortality rates in 1929 for the Queen's Gate ward and the Golborne ward of the borough of Kensington were 46 and 121 respectively; 166 cases of scarlet fever were notified in the Golborne ward and 145 in ward whole of the five wards in South Kensington; while 39 notifiable cases of acute rheumatism were reported in the Golborne ward and 10 in the Whole of the five wards in South Kensington during the year commencing on the 1st October, 1928.
DlPHTHERIA
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Plymouth public health authority is circulating a pictorial handbill on which it is stated that no immunised child has ever contracted diphtheria; and whether, seeing that children at Edinburgh, Sheffield, Cardiff, Fraserburgh, and elsewhere have developed diphtheria after three inoculations with toxin anti-toxin, as recorded in Dr. Forbes' report, he will circularise all public health authorities giving them full information on this question?
I have seen a copy of the handbill referred to. Reports giving the views of the medical advisers of my Department on the subject of immunisation against diphtheria are already available to all public health authorities, and I see no sufficient reason for issuing a special circular on this subject.
Does the right hon. Gentleman think the circular in addition to being inaccurate is offensive?
I cannot assent to that for a moment, as I have not the local authority's handbill by me.
Vaccination
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that local authorities are refraining from prosecuting parents who neither have their children vaccinated nor officially claim exemption under the Act, he will state what action, if any, he proposes to take pending his reconsideration of the whole matter of the administration of the Vaccination Acts?
Legal proceedings in, respect of failure to comply with the Vaccination Acts are governed by the relevant provisions of those Acts, and I have no authority to give directions in regard to such proceedings.
Questions
Blind Persons Act
asked the Minister of Health what local authorities have put into operation the Blind Persons Act; the total number of beneficiaries; and whether he will urge local authorities to put the Act into operation?
All the local authorities concerned have made schemes under Section 2 of the Blind Persons Act, but I have no information as to the total number of beneficiaries under those schemes. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a circular which I addressed to the local authorities last March, explaining the procedure that has been adopted under the Local Government Act, 1929, for ascertaining from time to-time the efficiency and progress of the arrangements made in each area for the welfare of the blind.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that organisations of blind persons and sympathisers have urged a large number of local authorities to adopt this Act and that they have refused to do?
That is not quite true. All the authorities have adopted the scheme though whether they are all carrying them out equally effectively is a different question.
Is it not a fact that if these authorities are only adopting this Act in a half-hearted way it cannot properly be applied for the benefit of the blind?
Fog (Disaster, Belgium)
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that 65 deaths have been caused in Belgium by sulphuric acid fumes and fog, he is taking steps to see that a similar result does not happen from a combination of fog and sulphuric acid fumes from the Battersea power station which is being erected in the heart of London?
asked the Minister of Health if he has sent any-specialist to Belgium to study the cause of the recent fog which entailed the death of a large number of persons; and, if not, whether he will do so?
The Belgian Ministry of the Interior have instituted an official inquiry into this matter, and I have asked to be favoured with a copy of the report. Until the facts are ascertained I know no grounds for assuming that sulphuric acid or any other fumes are associated with the cause of the outbreak, but, as regards the Battersea power station, I would draw attention to the report presented to Parliament last month by the Minister of Transport in which it is stated that the committee presided over by the Government chemist are satisfied that it is practicable to instal there a plant which will reduce the emission of sulphur fumes to a negligible quantity.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that you cannot altogether do away with these sulphur fumes, that not only cows and chickens but human beings also were killed by certain conditions of atmosphere, and that it would be very dangerous to have this great station in the heart of London?
I have been in touch with the Belgian authorities ever since we heard about the unfortunate occurrence last week, and I am not satisfied that the kind of conditions which might, hypothetically, be created at Battersea applied there.
In view of the public interest in this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman consider having a translation of the report from Belgium placed in the Library of the House?
Certainly, I will consider that. I think it would be in the public interest that the knowledge should be widely spread.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every possible precaution has been taken which science can suggest to prevent fumes being sent forth from Battersea?
War Debts
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the existing world depression, he will approach the Government of the United States of America and inquire if they would be prepared to collaborate in the setting up of an international committee of economists and business men to examine and report upon the effects of the War Debt settlement upon trade generally?
I cannot usefully add to the reply which I gave on the 27th November to the hon. Member for Spel-thorne (Sir P. Pilditch). I will send the hon. Member a copy.
Bank of International Settlements
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, at the eleventh assembly of the League of Nations, any steps were taken to establish contact between the League and the Bank for International Settlements?
No, Sir. I am informed that no action in regard to this question was taken at the eleventh assembly of the League of Nations. I would at the same time refer to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on the 27th May last in answer to a question on a similar subject.
Does not the Chancellor of the Exchequer think that it is very undesirable to leave the International Bank entirely outside the control of public opinion, and will he not take some steps in the matter?
If the hon. Member will refer to the previous reply which I gave, he will find an expression of my opinion about it.
Is not the right hon. Gentleman prepared to take any steps in the matter?
Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any opportunity will occur for discussing the Bank for International Settlements with regard to the interests of this country?
I cannot very well deal with an important delicate and difficult subject like this in reply to supplementary questions. I would also refer the hon. Member to my previous reply. There he will find a full statement of the position. The Bank of International Settlements is not a political organisation. Governments, as such, have no power.
Is it not a fact that in the last Finance Bill the Chancellor of the Exchequer has committed this Government to a particular course of action in connection with the Bank for International Settlements?
Imperial Conference, Ottawa
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the advisability of preparing for submission to the Imperial Conference at Ottawa in 1931 proposals for financial co-operation between the Governments of the British Empire with a view to establishing an imperial trade credits scheme, an Empire bank of settlement or a British imperial trade currency, or other proposals with a view to improving the financial arrangements between London and the Dominion capitals?
I see no sufficient reason for adopting the hon. Member's suggestion.
Can I assume that no preparation has been made at all for the Conference at Ottawa?
The hon. and gallant Gentleman should assume nothing of the sort.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the Government are taking any active steps in preparation for the resumed session of the economic section of the Imperial Conference to be held at Ottawa next year?
Yes, Sir. Further study of the problem of closer economic association within the Empire, with special reference to the problems left over by the Imperial Conference for examination before the meeting at Ottawa next year, has already been begun by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, and will be actively pursued.
Does the right hon. Gentleman still persist in describing the economic proposals put forward by the Dominion Prime Ministers as humbug?
Income Tax
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the hardship imposed by the present basis of assessment of Income Tax on directors and officials of companies who, owing to the present depression in industry, have agreed to reduce or entirely to waive their remuneration, whereby, owing to the subject matter of assessment being the office or employment and the measure of liability being the amount of remuneration of the preceding year, the director or officer is frequently assessable on the full remuneration in the current year when he is in fact receiving a greatly reduced sum and very often nothing at all; and whether he will introduce amending legislation to relieve such directors from this burden?
I am aware that the system of assessing offices and employments to Income Tax on the basis of the preceding year's emoluments bears hardly for the moment on those whose emoluments have been reduced, whether voluntarily or compulsorily. This system, however, which was part of the scheme of simplification of the Income Tax introduced by the Finance Acts of 1926 and 1927, operates in general to the benefit of taxpayers, and under it those who are suffering an immediate hardship will gain a compensating advantage when their emoluments are increased. I do not see my way to propose an alteration of the law.
Does not the Chancellor of the Exchequer consider that individuals of that kind, when they are up against it, should be sent to the Employment Exchanges, like my class?
Government Departments (Conscientious Objectors)
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many conscientious objectors have now been promoted in the Civil Service under the Treasury Order of 1st August, 1929?
I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave on the 24th June last to the hon. and gallant Member for Midlothian (Major Colville). I have no further information.
Agriculture
Smallholdings, Isle of Ely
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many smallholdings in the Isle of Ely have been let by the county council; how many are still on the hands of the county council; and how many tenants of county council smallholdings in the area are under notice to quit owing to failure to pay their rent?
The total number of holdings let by the Isle of Ely County Council is 2,240; the number in hand is 16. The number of tenants who have received formal notices to quit owing to failure to pay rent is 215.
Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the county council to see that these men have facilities extended to them for continuing their lease?
I am already inquiring into the matter.
Merchandise Marks Act
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is prepared to extend the Merchandise Marks Act of 1926 to include all food in whatever form it is produced for sale to the consumer?
I think it would be out of the question to attempt to provide in general terms for the very wide variety of articles of food that would be covered by the proposal made by the hon. and gallant Member.
Has not the consumer a right to know what he purchases, and will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the proposals contained in the question would do infinitely more for agriculture than the proposals contained in the Government's Agricultural Bill?
Cattle Disease, Grossmont, Yorkshire
asked the Minister of Agriculture if his attention has been called to the disease which has killed 10 cattle on the farm of Mr. Joseph Hodgson, of Grossmont, Yorkshire, the identity of which has not been found; and, if so, whether he will have the most thorough investigations made into the matter?
The disease was reported to the Ministry as pleuro-pneumonia which is a scheduled disease under the Diseases of Animals Acts. The Ministry directed inquiries to be made in accordance with statutory requirements, and it was found that the disease was not as reported. Further investigation as to the nature and cause of the disease is being made.
Stock Sales, Terrington
asked the Minister of Agriculture, as representing the Commissioners of Crown Lands, how much stock was sold owing to the farm at Terrington, in Norfolk, being closed down; and what was the price at which the animals were originally bought and the price at which they were disposed of on the occasion of the sale?
No farm at Terrington belonging to the Commissioners of Crown Lands has been closed down, and I presume that the Noble Lord refers to the marshland in hand recently embanked against the sea. Since August, 1929, this land has been stocked with bullocks. The total number bought since that date was 255 at a cost of £4,826. Two died and the remaining 253 have been sold at various times for £4,971.
Royal Air Force (Milk Supply)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the milk supplied to Air Force units is from cows tested for tuberculosis?
I assume that the question relates to supplies in this country. The tuberculin test is not applied, but milk for hospitals is supplied only by selected farms which have been specially inspected, and under sanitary regulations as to purity which are rigidly enforced. In other cases the supply is purchased locally by units from their cash allowances, but the milk is periodically examined for purity by the station medical officers.
Is there such an examination or guarantee of freedom from tuberculosis exacted in regard to tinned milk or dried milk?
I cannot answer that question without notice.
Is the hon. Member aware that the inspection of cow-houses is quite insufficient unless the cow herself has undergone a tuberculin test?
Transport
Level Crossing, Warrington
asked the Minister of Transport when it is proposed to proceed with the scheme for the removal of the level crossing on Wilderspool Road, Warrington; and what is the cause of the delay?
I understand that the Warrington County Borough Council agree 'as to the desirability of eliminating this level crossing by means of a bridge, and they are now negotiating with the interests concerned. There is a considerable amount of property involved, and it is probable that Parliamentary powers will have to be obtained. I am therefore unable to say when the work is likely to be commenced.
Is the hon. Member aware that the junction of the road immediately approaching this level crossing is very dangerous, in view of the congested traffic there, and can he do anything to expedite the work?
I am aware of the facts in regard to this highway, but, if legislation be required, the hon. Member will see that there will be considerable delay. I can, however, assure him that I will do all that is possible to expedite the matter.
Highway Code
asked the Minister of Transport whether he intends to submit the road code to Parliament under Section 45 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, before the Christmas Recess?
I hope to be in a position to circulate a draft of the highway code at the end of this week to the various authorities, associations, and other bodies concerned, for the purpose of obtaining their observations and suggestions. It will not, therefore, be possible for me to submit the code to Parliament for approval before the Christmas Recess.
Nairobi Prison (Death Rate)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the death rate per cent, of prisoners in Nairobi prison during the year 1929; and what steps have been taken, or are contemplated, to establish a central prison on a more healthy site?
In 1929 the number of deaths, excluding executions, was 36, that is a rate of 43 per 1,000 of the average prison population. As I explained in my reply to my hon. Friend on the 26th November, it is hoped to make substantial provision from loan funds for new prison accommodation in Kenya.
Can the Minister say whether this prison is used exclusively by native Africans, or whether Europeans have the privilege of using it?
Prison accommodation is available for the whole community.
Can the Under-Secretary say what is the meaning of such an appalling death-rate as 43 per 1,000 of prisoners in the hospital, presumably mostly of the healthy adult age, at which the normal death-rate is about 10 per 1,000?
It is not a hospital, but a prison. It is a high death-rate and I understand that it is mostly due to pneumonia and dysentery. It has been agreed that the present accommodation in Kenya has been unsatisfactory and provision is being made for a new set of buildings, in the hope that this state of affairs will be remedied.
British Army (Experimental Station, Porton)
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that many drugs and poisons, such as hemlock on goats, belladonna on rabbits, opium on pigeons, lemon juice on cats and strychnine on monkeys have an entirely different effect to that on human beings, he will state what methods are used for proving that other poisons used on animals have the same effect on human beings?
I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies which I gave him on 17th November and 25th November last. The statement that the effect of certain substances on particular animals differs from the effect on human beings affords no good ground for disregarding the connection between the effect of various gases on animals and their effect on human beings which experience in the War established.
In view of the fact that many of these poisons have an entirely different effect on animals to that on human beings does he not think that experiments on animals is no use as a base for experiments on human beings?
I am not a medical man and I do not know what effect lemon juice has on cats. I have taken the best professional advice I can, I have given careful and anxious thought to the matter, and I am satisfied from the evidence that these experiments are necessary in the interests of humanity.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the rabbit is the last to come out of the hat?
I think that one is dead.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that hemlock has the same effect on some human beings as it has on goats?
Name!
I have heard that hemlock had a very damaging effect on Socrates.
Is the Secretary of State for War aware that there is a very large section of public opinion in this country which does not regard this as a matter for mirth—[ Interruption ]— which takes the strongest possible objection to these experiments being carried out on dumb animals?
I am aware that there is very profound dissatisfaction with these experiments. As to the volume of that dissatisfaction, I cannot answer. I have told the House that I have not only given consideration, but anxious consideration, to the matter and I have told the House my conclusion.
Business of the House
May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can tell the House what the Business next week will be?
In order to enable the House to rise on Friday, the 19th December, it will be necessary I am afraid, to take Private Members' time on that day and also on Wednesday, the 17th. The business next week, therefore, will be:
Monday: The Motion taking Private Members' time on the 17th and 19th of December: Education (School Attendance) Bill, completion of Committee stage; Consolidated Fund Bill, Second Reading.
Tuesday will be available at the request of hon. Members opposite below the Gangway for a discussion of the unemployment problem. Consolidated Fund Bill (further stages) will also be taken.
Wednesday and Thursday: Education (School Attendance) Bill, Report and Third Reading.
Friday: Adjournment.
On any day, should time permit, other Orders may be taken.
I notice that the right hon. Gentleman makes no provision for the possibility of a Bill returning from the other place to this House with Amendments. If any such occasion arose on what day would he propose to take those Amendments?
I believe that is a matter which is under discussion through the ordinary channels. I cannot give a direct answer at the moment.
At the moment, I will only ask the right hon. Gentleman that, if an occasion does arise to consider any serious Amendments made in a Bill passed by this House and sent back to us from the other House, such consideration shall take place at a reasonable hour when the House can give them proper attention and not be postponed until late in the sitting, still less postponed until after Eleven o'clock.
Ordered,
"That other Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[Mr. P. Snowden. ]
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."
The House divided: Ayes, 255; Noes, 140.
Division No. 59.] AYES. [3.48 p.m. Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fite, West) Glassey, A. E. McEntee, V. L. Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Gossling, A. G. MacLaren, Andrew Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Gould, F. MacNeill-Weir, L. Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M. Graham, Rt. Hon.Wm. (Edin.,Cent.) Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Coine). Mander, Geoffrey Ie M. Alpass, J. H. Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Mansfield, W. Ammon, Charles George Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) March, S. Arnott, John Groves, Thomas E. Marcus, M. Aske, Sir Robert Grundy, Thomas W. Markham, S. F. Attlee, Clement Richard Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Marley, J. Ayles, Walter Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Marshall, Fred Baker, John (Woiverhampton, Bilston) Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Mathers, George Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) Matters, L. W. Barnes, Alfred John Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) Maxton, James Barr, James Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) Milner, Major J. Batey, Joseph Harbord, A. Montague, Frederick Bellamy, Albert Hardle, George D. Morley, Ralph Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood Harris, Percy A. Morris, Rhys Hopkins Bennett, William (Battersea, South) Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Morris-jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Benson, G. Hastings, Dr. Somerville Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) Bentham, Dr. Ethel Haycock, A. W. Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) Blindell, James Hayes, John Henry Mort, D. L. Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) Muff, G, Bowen, J. W. Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) Muggeridge, H. T. Bromfield, William Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) Noel Baker, P. J. Bromley, J. Herriotts, J. Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.) Brothers, M. Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) Oldfield, J. R. Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) Brown, Ernest (Leith) Hoffman, P. C. Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) Hopkin, Daniel Owen, H. F. (Hereford) Buchanan, G. Horrabin, J. F. Palin, John Henry Burgess, F. G. Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) Paling, Wilfrid Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland) Isaacs, George Perry, S. F. Cameron, A. G. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Peters, Dr. Sidney John Cape, Thomas Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.) Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Phillips, Dr. Marion Charleton, H. C. Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne) Picton-Turbervill, Edith Chater, Daniel Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Pole, Major D. G. Cluse, W. S. Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. Potts, John S. Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston) Price, M. P. Cocks, Frederick Seymour Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) Pybus, Percy John Compton, Joseph Kelly, W. T. Quibell, D. J. K. Cove, William G. Kennedy, Thomas Ramsay, T. B. Wilson Cowan, D. M. Kinley, J. Rathbone, Eleanor Daggar, George Kirkwood, D. Raynes, W. R. Dallas, George Knight, Holford Richards, R. Dalton, Hugh Lang, Gordon Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) Day, Harry Lathan, G. Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) Denman, Hon. R. D. Law, Albert (Bolton) Ritson, J. Dukes, C. Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) Romeril, H. G. Duncan, Charles Lawson, John James Rosbotham, D, S. T. Ede, James Chuter Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) Rothschild, J. de Edmunds, J. E. Leach, W. Rowson, Guy Edward, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.) Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) Edwards, E. (Morpeth) Lees, J. Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West) Egan, W. H. Lewis, T. (Southampton) Sanders, W. S. Eimley, Viscount Lloyd, C. Ellis Sandham, E. Foot, Isaac Logan, David Gilbert Sawyer, G. F. Forgan, Dr. Robert Longbottom, A. W. Scott, James Freeman, Peter Longden, F. Scrymgeour, E. Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Scurr, John Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) Lowth, Thomas Sexton, James George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) Lunn, William Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) Gill, T. H. MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) Shepherd, Arthur Lewis Gillett, George M. MacDonald, Maicolm (Bassetlaw) Sherwood, G. H. Shield, George William Stamford, Thomas W. Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor Shiels, Dr. Drummond Stephen, Campbell Watkins, F. C. Shillaker, J. F. Stewart, J. (St. Rollex) Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) Shinwell, E. Strauss, G. R. Welsh, James (Paisley) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) Sullivan, J. Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) Simmons, C. J. Sutton, J. E. West, F. R. Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness) Taylor, R. A. (Lincoin) Westwood, Joseph Sinkinson, George Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.) White, H. G. Sitch, Charles H. Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) Thurtle, Ernest Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) Tillett, Ben Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley) Tinker, John Joseph Wilson, J. (Oldham) Smith, Rennie (Penistone) Toole, Joseph Wilson. R. J. (Jarrow) Smith, Tom (Pontefract) Tout, W. J. Winterton.G. E. (Leicester. Loughb'gh) Smith, W. R. (Norwich) Townend, A. E. Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) Snell, Harry Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Young, R. S. (Islington, North) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip Vaughan, D. J. Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) Viant, S. P. TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sorensen, R. Wallhead, Richard C. Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. William Whiteley.
NOES. Albery, Irving James Falle, Sir Bertram G. Pilditch, Sir Philip Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) Ferguson, Sir John Pownall, Sir Assheton Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Fermoy, Lord Ramsbotham, H. Astor, Viscountess Fielden E. B. Reynolds, Col. Sir James Atholl, Duchess of Fison, F. G. Clavering Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y) Atkinson, C. Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) Balfour, George (Hampstead) Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell Balniel, Lord Glyn, Major R. G. C. Ross, Major Ronald D. Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Gower, Sir Robert Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Beaumont, M. W. Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury) Bellairs, Commander Carlyon Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Salmon, Major I. Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Bourne, Captain Robert Crott Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Gunston, Captain D. W. Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W. Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Savery, S. S. Boyce, H. L. Hammersley, S. S. Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome Briscoe, Richard George Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Simms, Major-General J. Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham) Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) Buchan, John Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Smith-Carington, Neville W. Bullock, Captain Malcolm Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Smithers, Waldron Burton, Colonel H. W. Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Somerset, Thomas Butler, R. A. Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) Campbell, E. T. Hurd, Percy A. Southby, Commander A. R. J. Carver, Major W. H. Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. Spender-Clay, Colonel H. Castle Stewart, Earl of Knox, Sir Alfred Stanley, Lord (Fylde) Cautley, Sir Henry S. Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Leighton, Major B. E. P. Steel- Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth,S.) Lewis, Oswald (Colchester) Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South) Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Locker-Lampton, Rt. Hon. Godfrey Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) Chamberlain, Rt.Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm.,W.) McConnell, Sir Joseph Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F. Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Tinne, J. A. Christle, J. A. Makins, Brigadier-General E. Titchfield, Major the Marquess of Clydesdale, Marquess of Margesson, Captain H. D. Turton, Robert Hugh Colfox, Major William Philip Marjoribanks, Edward Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert Colville, Major D. J. Mason, Colonel Glyn K. Wardlaw-Mline, J. S. Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Warrender, Sir Victor Cranborne, Viscount Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Waterhouse, Captain Charles Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B Wells, Sydney R. Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbrs) Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond) Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay} Croom-Johnson, R. P. Moore, Lleut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Muirhead, A. J. Withers, Sir John James Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Womersley, W. J. Dugdale, Capt. T. L. Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W. G. (Ptrsf'ld) Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley Eden, Captain Anthony O'Neill, Sir H. Elliot, Major Walter E. Peake, Capt. Osbert TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.M.) Penny, Sir George Major Sir George Hennessy and Captain Wallace. Everard, W. Lindsay Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Message from the Lords
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "an Act to make further provision for the protection of the grey seal." [Grey Seals Protection Bill [ Lords. ]
Orders of the Day
Education (School Attendance) Bill
Considered in Committee [ Progress, 2nd December .]
[Mr. DUNNICO in the Chair.]
CLAUSE 2.—(Short title, construction, extent, saving and commencement.)
4.0 p.m.
I beg to move, in page 3, line 30, at the end, to add the words: Board of Education should be empowered, according to circumstances, to accept that advice if they think fit. On the Government side it may be insisted, in the first place, that in virtue of the fact that the date has been postponed, there will be no necessity to consult the local authority, as by the beginning of the year 1933 every local education authority should be ready with its reorganisation scheme. That point has been properly discussed already. We on this side maintain that, as a matter of fact, the one date suggested is the worst possible date for the Act to come into operation, but no doubt I should not be in order in dwelling upon that subject.
But why dispute about a particular date? Why not consult those hest qualified to judge of their own individual cases, namely, the local authorities? Is there anything particularly vicious in the principle of giving those local authorities who are not prepared the opportunity to suggest postponing the date, especially as a time limit—I should like to lay stress upon that point—is set in our Amendment? The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has suggested that it is necessary to avoid compulson upon local education authorities, because if you did not, some local education authorities would not act at all. The provision in our Amendment would obviate that. The argument generally favoured by hon. Members opposite, and particularly, perhaps, by the Parliamentary Secretary on the subject of local education authorities having a voice in the matter, is that if you allow some authorities, even within a time limit, to postpone the operation of the Bill, others would be resentful of the inequality of opportunity. I think that those were the words he used. It is said that in an area where the Bill was postponed, parents would resent their children being at a disadvantage as compared with children living in an area where the Act was already in operation. My answer to that is that, even if you compelled all authorities to adopt the Act on the same date, you would still have inequality of opportunity, because the child in the area that was not ready would still be at a disadvantage compared with the child in the area where the facilities existed. Surely the parent would be far more re- sentful in those circumstances, when the child would be at school for another year marking time instead of bringing grist to the family mill?
I would remind hon. Members opposite of the consideration, of which they seem to have lost sight, that local authorities are representative institutions elected by the people, and, therefore, it is perfectly legitimate to assume that they reflect the opinions of those whom they represent. Consequently, if we act contrary to the wishes of those they put in office, they have the obvious remedy. It seems strange, in view of the fact that hon. Members opposite think they are more democratic than we are, that I should be putting in a plea for representative institutions as compared with the dictatorship which this Bill proposes. Further, I want to urge upon the President of the Board of Education the importance of meeting the situation in the areas which are not ready, in order to ease the situation in the matter of the provision of teachers. The right hon. Gentleman does not seem, to have given the Committee a very satisfactory account of the situation. It is very obscure. I believe that there are 1,800 students in the training colleges, and the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied, I think, that he has got in the offing a sufficient number of properly trained teachers to meet his requirements for the appointed day. But be the situation as it may with regard to the provision of teachers, if one thing has emerged more clearly than another from our discussion, it is that the provision of teachers is a complicated affair. It is not merely a question of providing a sufficient number of properly qualified teachers when the Act comes into operation. You have to take into consideration the tremendous fluctuations of school population in the course of the next two years, and I maintain that if my Amendment is adopted postponement will help very much to meet this extremely difficult problem.
I want to make this further observation, which, I think, well worthy of the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman. If those authorities who, confessedly, are not ready, are compelled to keep children over the age of 14 at school, they will undoubtedly be at pains to find makeshift accommodation, and that will not only be unsatis- factory in itself, but, of course, it will hinder the organisation, of schools under the new scheme. Inevitably you will get a false start from which it will be very difficult to recover. I think that the Committee as a whole is agreed that in the rural areas it will be most difficult to fulfil the conditions, and their case is further complicated by the fact that the majority of the schools are non-provided schools. That is an additional reason for accepting our Amendment. We know nothing of the arrangement which has either been made, or is about to be made, with regard to non-provided schools, and surely it is an extra reason for urging the acceptance of this Amendment.
Finally, hon. Members opposite always seem to argue on the assumption, or, perhaps, I should say, they always endeavour to convey the impression that in areas where the date was postponed, under this or some other arrangement, all the children after the age of 14 would at once be cast on the world, and deprived of all the advantages they might receive from higher education. How preposterously fallacious this view is has been demonstrated by the figures of the London area which have already been given, but which are of sufficient importance to repeat. Out of 51,000 children who form the age group of 14 to 15, 20,000 are receiving post-primary education in evening institutes, 6,000 are in the day continuation schools, and 4,500 in the central schools, to Bay nothing of the 10,000 children in the ordinary elementary schools. One can come to the conclusion that practically all the children in the London area who are capable of profiting by higher education do so profit. In view of all those circumstances, I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the provisions of this Amendment will make the whole difference to the ultimate smooth working of the Act.
I need not say anything about the second paragraph of the Amendment, which speaks for itself, and which obviates one of the difficulties suggested on the other side of the Committee by our principle of allowing the local education authorities some discretion in the matter.
It is not my intention to select the three following Amendments, but, if the Committee desire, I should be quite willing to extend the scope of the present discussion so as to include the substance of the following Amendments, which seem to be almost identical with the one now proposed. But I would like to point out that if the same arguments are repeated over and over again, when we reach Amendments and subsequent new Clauses which deal with these same subjects, the power of selection will have to be exercised rather more stringently than under normal conditions.
If we fail to get any statement from the Minister with regard to the probable scarcity of teachers, is it not our duty to continue to draw the attention of the Committee to the matter?
I must point out that the Chair is not responsible for the Minister's answers. It is the duty of the Chair to see that there is not unnecessary repetition of argument. I think the Committee will agree that in my rulings I have allowed ample scope for debate, but I would point out that if a long discussion takes place in Committee on a point of substance, I am at liberty to keep that in mind when selecting subsequent Amendments.
I submit to you, Mr. Dunnico, without questioning, or desiring to question in anyway, what you have said, that the whole, or the larger part of the question which you raise, depends upon whether there are unnecessary repetitions or not. I use your own words. If an argument is addressed from this other side of the Committee and it is met fairly in argument on the other side of the Committee, one may remain unconvinced, but you may hold that repetition of ours, after being fairly answered, is unnecessary. I submit that my Noble Friend was right in saying that it is not unnecessary repetition when the argument has met with no answer hitherto.
The right hon. Gentleman would admit that it is not for me to decide whether an argument has been adequately met or not. The only thing I can take into considera- tion is the decision of the Committee, and, if the Committee, after long debate, gives an emphatic decision on a question. I must be guided by that, and not by any arguments that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Education may or may not have met.
The purpose of this Amendment is to enable the postponement of the operation of the Bill by any local education authority on the ground of unreadiness of various kinds. Since the Bill was introduced, one great material Amendment has been made for the postponement of the date by 18 months. The Bill will not begin to operate until September, 1932, and the full effects will not come until the following year. That gives ample time for all authorities who really vigorously set to work to make the necessary preparation.
Even in the rural areas?
Even in the rural areas. I must repeat what I have said before to the Committee. There are two problems; complete reorganisation, and the establishment of a complete system of schools which will give an entirely satisfactory higher education to all children who are to stay at school. That is the major problem stretching over a number of years, and nobody pretends that the whole of England can be ready for two or three years. What we say is that the children who will have to stay until 15 can go into the schools—I maintain in April, 1931—certainly by September, 1932, and can find at least as good an education as children are now getting under 14. An enormous number of them will find a completely satisfactory education, which in a year or two later we shall get for all of them. That is the proposition, and I resist the Amendment because there is no proof that there will not be accommodation for the children, and no proof that there will not be teachers.
I am accused of not attempting to show that there will be enough teachers. That is because I do not care for constantly repeating myself. However, I will give the Committee what I believe to be perfectly honest figures in that matter. They are certainly the best figures that can be given, because they are given by those who have the most expert knowledge of the matter. It is expected that, at the highest point, 8,000 new teachers will be required as the result of raising the school age. There will be 4,000 additional teachers as the increased output of the training colleges becomes available from 1933 onwards. Then, as I pointed out to the Committee before, there are various reserves of teachers which can be tapped. There are still 4,000 teachers to be found on this calculation. There will be 4,000 married teachers who have or would have retired. There is no reason whatever why the local authorities should not retain the services of a large number of those married teachers with whom they are now dispensing with. A large number of them need not leave at once, even if it is the right general policy that women should retire from the teaching profession when they marry. It is undoubtedly the case that a large number of them can quite easily and properly stay on for a year or two. There is no reason why the local authorities should not, at least during the period when there is emergency, ask a large number of those women teachers to remain on.
There is also a large number of married teachers who could come back in the emergency, and teachers who are retiring after reaching the pensionable age, many of whom could remain. Hundreds of teachers could for an emergency be obtained in this way. Then there is always a surplus of young teachers who are not immediately employed after leaving college; there are generally about 500 of these during the first year.
What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by the emergency?
What hon. Gentlemen opposite refuse to recognise is that we are trying to do a big thing—
But do it at the proper time!
We are trying to do a big thing which hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like. It is to give the children another year's chance in school, and we say that it is quite right that the nation, in order to do that big thing, should be ready to take emergency measures. We do not say that we should go along the old road, and not take measures, which we can perfectly easily take, to get a sufficient number of teachers in the schools.
I was trying to show hon. Gentlemen opposite who do not like this particular thing that it can be done. I have shown the Committee some of the sources from, which we expect to get teachers, and from which my advisers tell me there is no doubt whatever that we can get the teachers. I am very sorry if I do not satisfy hon. Gentlemen opposite. The fact remains that the specialists who have to deal with this thing believe that we can; I am sorry that I cannot prove it. It is known also that there is in the country a sort of reservoir of extra teachers who can be called upon, and who are being constantly called upon, for special emergencies. There are many thousands of these, and there is no reason why the local authorities should not make special efforts to get them back into the service of the community. The fact is that the teachers are there. The only question is whether we are determined to get them.
I am certain that almost all the local authorities of the country are extremely anxious, when this Bill is passed, to make it work. The hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment made great play with the argument that we on this side of the House were not attending to the views of the local authorities, and he asks why we do not let one authority start in 1932, another in 1933, and another in 1934. One of the reasons is that the local authorities do not want this Amendment. The Association of Education Committees, which is the most responsible organ speaking in the name of the largest number of local authorities, has repeatedly passed resolutions saying that, whenever the school age is raised, it ought to be raised at the same time all over the country. Therefore, we are in a larger sense than hon. Gentlemen opposite would have it, attending to the views of the local education authorities. It would be extremely inconvenient to-have one authority raising the school age to 15, and the next authority not doing so. Hon. Members opposite see one of the difficulties of it. The children from the area of an authority which does not raise the school age would flock into the next area, and hon. Gentlemen propose to deal with that by saying that the children should not work there. How are they going to operate that? Are they to have factory inspectors asking every child its age? They cannot do it. The only way in which you can prevent a child working in an area is to see that it is in school. Therefore, that is not a system that can be operated any more than it could be operated when London tried its continuation classes. A scheme for having various times for raising the school age cannot work, and I hope that the Committee will resist these Amendments.
Various points of detail were raised in the right hon. Gentleman's reply, but I do not propose to deal with them, because this is a vital and fundamental Amendment, and we want to get down to the vital and fundamental part of it. I was not surprised at the right hon. Gentleman refusing the Amendment, but I was disappointed because the whole ground of his refusal is the basis of the tremendous difference between that side of the Committee and this. Hon. Members on that side contend that the raising of the school age is doing a big thing. We contend that it is a silly and contemptible Measure, which will have a very ill effect upon what is the big thing, namely, reorganisation. The right hon. Gentleman said that he regretted repeating himself. So do I, and I apologise for having to repeat what I have said before. I do not know how this is going to work out in the towns, but it is going to work out in the country in a way that will stop the children of the country getting a fair chance of higher education.
No.
A mere denial of that fact is the only reply to this argument that we have had from the other side. Never in these debates have we had from the President or the Parliamentary Secretary any facts and figures to prove that the rural areas will ever catch up in their race for reorganisation, and in their attempts to get the benefits of reorganisation for the country children because of the extra expenditure which this so-called reform will put upon them. Here are facts to which we have never had an answer. The rural areas find very great difficulty in raising money for reorganisation. It is all very well for right hon. Gentleman to say that reorganisation ought to be ready in a very few years. I do not know how many years they have in mind. Proper reorganisation is going to take the rural areas anything up to 10 years, with the best will in the world, for financial reasons. Rates and taxes for the payment of educational reorganisation are provided by democratically elected bodies, the county councils. This Measure is going to send up the education rate by an enormous amount, and that money is going to be saved on educational reorganisation and development. The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary know that, just as well as I do.
We believe that reorganisation in the rural areas is the bigger thing. The rural areas have lagged behind educationally for years, for various reasons, which it is not necessary to go into now. It is quite obvious that, in a crowded industrial or urban area, you can get better facilities than in a rural area. Under reorganisation, we hoped and believed that we were going to bring the rural areas in train and equalise them with the industrial areas, so far as educational progress is concerned. It was going to take us time, as it must, because the rural areas have wider spaces and a more difficult task then the towns. We should have done it if we had been given time. That is why we claim that we ought to have more time, and why we ask from the Minister an opportunity to get proper educational facilities for the children. We believe that if we spend money on this Measure it will put off that reorganisation and improvement of education to the Greek Kalends. We ask to be allowed to carry out what we believe is the more important and bigger thing first. The right hon. Gentleman, in declining to recognise the facts that I am endeavouring to state, is pushing back rural education into the slough out of which he had hoped to bring it. I hope he will reconsider his decision, and will give the rural areas a chance to get their biggest work done first.
I oppose this Amendment, because I believe it will make confusion still more confounded. I believe that the postponement to which the Committee has already agreed will not merely result in the adjustment of the supply of teachers to the demand, but it will have an effect entirely opposite from what hon. Members on the other side think. They believe that there will be a shortage of teachers; I am afraid that, even with the postponement until 1932, there is going to be an over supply of teachers. I am afraid that the President of the Board will have on his hands a large number of teachers throughout the country who will be unable to find posts.
Would the hon. Member excuse me for one moment? When he says that there will be an over supply of teachers, does he mean certificated and trained teachers and an over supply of men teachers?
Yes. It will mean an over supply of all teachers. I believe that the President of the Board of Education will have to stop the supply of supplementary teachers in order to meet the situation. If any good is to come out of it, it will be in the permanent stopping of supplementary teachers. We all regret that the President of the Board of Education accepted so easily the Liberal Amendment. The present Amendment will make the position of teachers even more dangerous and difficult. How can you regulate supply and demand if you say in your Bill that some authorities shall raise the school age in 1932, some in 1934 and others in 1936? You will get nothing but confusion. You cannot regulate the supply of teachers on that basis, neither can you have the same idea of the organisation and accommodation in the schools.
Take the London position. I am speaking from memory, but I believe that Mr. G. H. Gater, the director of education for London, analysed his position so far as teachers and attendance in the schools are concerned. He said that if the school age is raised in 1931, there will be about 17,000 additional children in the schools. In 1932, 1933 and 1934, there will be very little addition to those figures, but when you come to 1935 there will be a diminution in the number of children in the London schools of about 17,000. When you come to 1936 there will be a big drop in school attendance of 37,000 children.
Not in the senior schools.
In the whole of the schools. In the autumn of 1932 the President of the Board of Education will have on his hands 4,000 additional teachers, even postulating that the Bill is to come into force all over the country at the same time. I fear that by 1935 and 1936, as the London figures seem to show, we shall have not what hon. Members fear, an under supply of teachers, but a very large and substantial number who will not be able to find jobs. How much more will the problem be aggravated if this Amendment is put into force. The President of the Board of Education has, I suppose, given way to the enlightened educational pressure from the Liberal party, in not putting this Bill into operation until the autumn of 1932. I hope he will not give way to the darkened policy of the Tory party, as shown by this Amendment.
Look at it again. You are going to have one authority putting the law into force and another authority not putting it into force. The Amendment says that children in the area where the school age is not raised shall not come after jobs into the area where the school age is raised. What does that mean? I imagine it means a large number of inspectors, perhaps policemen, to see that children are not breaking the law by taking jobs in areas where the school age is raised. Animosity and difficulties will be created, between the President of the Board of Education and local education authorities. The more you analyse this Amendment the more preposterous it appears. I want, particularly, to emphasise with all the force at my command that it is not an under-supply of teachers that you are going to have, but an over-Supply.
The speech we have just heard is probably one of the best speeches for postponing the Bill until 1936. I hope the hon. Member, who knows a tremendous amount about the subject and is one of the greatest friends of the Minister, will realise that he has made a great case against the Minister's own proposition and has put a tremendous amount of weight into the Amendment which we have down.
I was trying to make a case against this Amendment, and I was also regretting that the Minister was forced to give way to pressure, I understand, from the Liberal party, for the postponement of the date until 1932.
I quite realise that. Qui s'excuse s'accuse . We are much obliged for the pleasure we had in hearing from the Minister's side a speech against the Minister himself. What we have just heard about teachers, education, reorganisation and the curriculum is absolutely correct. The Minister did not agree with some interjections I made just now about the question of emergency. To my mind, it is not a question of emergency at all. The Minister seems to imagine that all of us on this side are against the principle of raising the school age. That is not so. We are all in favour of it, hut we say there are times for doing these things. We are out, not to spend money, but to get an effective scheme of education for the children. We maintain that this will not be effective until there is an ample supply of teachers and of accommodation, and an ample curriculum, with reorganisation, 60 that the children may really benefit. This cannot be done if the Measure is to be rushed, and is to be looked upon purely as an emergency measure. The sooner we get the benefit of extended education for children the better, but at the same time, from a purely business point of view, it is useless to bring in a Measure from which children are not going to get the benefit which the Minister intends them to get.
I should like to know how many local authorities have made definite statements that they will be ready in their districts by September, 1932. Surely the first idea which the local authorities had was that the date was 1933, which is a year later than the date now adopted, 1932. I would like to know whether any one authority has stated to the Minister that it will be prepared by then for the raising of the school age. By using the word "prepared" I mean to indicate that I hope the children will not be shovelled into schools which are not ready for them, that classes already too large will be increased in size, and that the conditions will be such that they will in no way benefit by that extra year. I understand that in some of the larger towns it could be done; that it would be a physical possibility, but will they be ready in the rural districts, which, naturally, will be the last to be considered? I very much doubt whether they will be. The Minister has been in correspondence with the local authorities since the date was postponed till September, 1932, at the command of the Liberal party, and we might be told whether the Board have received satisfactory information from the local authorities that some of them, at any rate, will have their arrangements ready. We are anxious that when this scheme comes into operation it shall be workable in all districts, because if it is not it will be useless to bring it in.
It seemed to me that the right hon. Gentleman's principal argument against the acceptance of this Amendment was that since 1924 the local authorities themselves had expressed a wish that when an extension of the school-leaving age was introduced it should be made general. This Amendment in no way interferes with that. The extension is made general, and it only gives the Minister—not the local education authorities, but the Minister— the right, on request of a local education authority, to grant an exemption. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will explain how the Minister's statement works in with the facts. This does not put on local education authorities the onus of saying, "This year or next year we will extend the school-leaving age." All they have to do is to inform the Minister that either in the whole of their area or in a portion of it they are not able for the moment to provide for that extra number of children. It may very well happen that in a large area there may be some urban places which are well able to provide for the extra children and other large areas, especially rural areas, which are not.
The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) said that there were not too few teachers but too many. Then why are there 30,000 teachers employed to-day who are not fully qualified? The right hon. Gentleman has constantly said that he is averse to the employment of unqualified teachers. Why are there still 30,000 unqualified teachers? Further, we find that two-fifths of the classes in all the elementary schools contain more than 40 children and 10,000 have more than 50 children. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that is satisfactory? Can he pretend that reorganisation has really got very far when we have these large classes? I would remind the Committee that it is not a question of increasing the number of children all the way through a school. It is a question of piling three classes on top of the present organisation. Where are those classes to be put? In some areas where there are central schools accommodation can be found for them, but in the vast majority of the rural areas accommodation can only be found by building two, three or four additional classrooms. Does the right hon. Gentleman honestly believe that in 18 months' time two, three or four classrooms will have been built on to any considerable proportion of the schools in the rural districts?
This Amendment is absolutely rational, we claim. We all know that the right hon. Gentleman is an enthusiast for education—his greatest enemies would not deny that—and it is in the interests of education and in the interests of the children of the working man, on whose behalf appeals are constantly being made to us, that we say that the children ought not to be crowded into schools where there is not sufficient accommodation for them but that we should wait until there is room, when this change would have support on every side of the House.
I am glad to have the opportunity of saying once more how much importance we on this side of the House attach to the postponement of the date for raising the school-leaving age to a later period than the date which the Minister has accepted on a Liberal Amendment. The Minister has spoken this afternoon about the great reorganisation that is taking place, but he does not pretend that the local authorities will all be ready, or anything like ready, by the time fixed for the raising of the age. I do not think we have had any statement from him as to the number of authorities who will be ready by September, 1932; and I have noticed, also, that in the speeches from the other side there has been an almost complete lack of reference to another great change which has been in progress in the schools for several years and which makes great drains on school accommodation and teaching staffs, namely, the reduction in the size of classes. A remarkable reduction in the size of classes was going on during the years when my right hon. Friend was in office. When we came into office the number of classes containing more than 50 children was about 25,000. On the 31st March, 1929, the number had dropped to 10,883. That would not have been possible without a very great increase in building, and it used up also a great many teachers.
I have asked the right hon. Gentleman what was the number of large classes on 31st March, 1930, and from his answer it appears that there has been very little reduction in the number between 1929 and 1930, which is the reason, perhaps, why the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to have borne in mind how very much the reduction of the large classes does complicate the problem and provide another argument for a postponement of the date for raising the school age. The fact is, there are still 10,000 classes containing more than 50 children; there has been a reduction of only 800 in the number of such classes during the year in which the right hon. Gentleman has been responsible. We on this side cannot forget that side by side with the necessity for a reorganisation of the schools, which was emphasised by the Hadow report, a reorganisation which involves a re-planning of the curriculum, a re-grouping of the older children, the provision of opportunities for more technical instruction and, therefore, specialist teachers, there has been the necessity to improve the position of affairs as regards these overcrowded classes. Therefore, this raising of the school age does not come, as it were, on to a clean slate, on which it is possible to write something new, but on to a slate which is already overcrowded with other things which have to be done.
The crux of the whole problem is the provision of teachers, and for that reason I am glad to be able fully to discuss the question of teachers on this Amendment. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any reason to believe that by September, 1932, or, say, by January, 1933, he will be able to produce the suitable teachers who are needed? I cannot forget that at the end of last Session I spoke at some length on this matter and felt obliged to criticise rather severely the figures which the right hon. Gentleman had given on the Second Reading of his Bill in the summer as to the sources from which he hoped to provide teachers. I think the Parliamentary Secretary will admit that when he came to reply he was not able to answer me very fully. I think he was rather taken by surprise by the figures I had produced or that I had challenged— I think he said as much.
I also observed in the course of that speech that I was not quite sure whether the Noble Lady had asked for the same things each time.
5.0 p.m.
I see what the hon. Member means, that he was not sure that questions had been put in exactly the same form. I have examined the questions since, and I certainly had not the slightest idea when I spoke, nor am I convinced now that I did not put the questions in comparable form. However, I want to refer to what the Minister himself has said. At last the Minister has vouchsafed to reply to this question, but, broadly speaking, all he has done has been to repeat what he said on the Second Reading of his Bill in the Summer, without any explanation of the points which I specially challenged. In particular I criticised the figures he gave of the number of teachers who will be trained by 1932 to 1933. He claimed that 4,000 new teachers would be trained by then, saying there would be 1,250 in the first year, 950 in the second year and 1,800 in the third year. I criticised those figures because, at the time I spoke, the right hon. Gentleman had been quite unable, in reply to a question, to give any figures for the third year. I had asked him how many teachers would enter the training colleges in the autumn of 1931, and he had not been able to give me a reply. Today he has committed him self to a total of 4,000 which, he says, will be trained by July, 1933, but he has not told us in detail how he thinks he is to find those 4,000 teachers. I submit that I stand where I did in July in failing to understand how those 4,000 are to be arrived at.
Since Parliament reassembled the right hon. Gentleman has given me very detailed figures of the teachers who went into the university training departments and the training colleges last autumn and this autumn. From those figures, I find that there must be 60 additional university students who came out of the university training departments this summer, and that between the university training departments and training colleges, 1,150 more will be ready by July, 1931, and not 1,250 as the right hon. Gentleman has said in the course of the debates. According to the rest of the figures, there will not be more than 586 of those already in the training colleges who will be coming out in July, 1932. That makes a total of 1,800 additional students, men and women, in the university training departments and training colleges, about one-half of whom were admitted last autumn and the other half this autumn, who will, as a whole, have completed their training by or before July, 1932.
I put æ question to the right hon. Gentleman, a day of two ago, asking him what further number of students he thinks can be admitted to the training colleges next autumn, because they will be coming out in July, 1933, when, he said, he was going to have the 4,000. The reply which I have to-day is that it is too early yet to give any close estimate of the number of students who may be admitted to training next autumn, but that he hoped that when the Bill was passed it would be possible to arrange for a further extension of the facilities available. Well, there is the Minister, in reply to a question, saying that it is impossible for him to say how many additional students will be taken into training next autumn, yet in the course of his speech he has told us that he is going to have 4,000 teachers ready by July, 1933, when so far he can only show 1,800 actually in training and has failed to tell us how many would be admitted next autumn. I am not surprised that he finds that rather difficult to say. Obviously, it must be a very difficult question to answer, but, if so, why did he tell us so confidently in May, and repeat it again to-day, that he was going to have 4,000 new teachers trained by July, 1933?
I was rather taken back by these figures of 4,000, which stood on such a slender foundation in the summer, when he gave us no explanation how he arrived at them. Yet the additional teachers in training can be the only solid foundation for his belief that he is going to have enough teachers by September, 1932, or January, 1933. How very little of the way the 1,800 teachers are going to take us towards that end. I put down a question to the right hon. Gentleman, on which I got a reply to-day, asking what number of teachers will be required at the various dates, assuming that the school-leaving age was raised at September, 1932. I got from him a reply, as one would have expected, that the figures estimated to be required for the normal expansion, apart from the raising of the school age, remained as before. That is to say, that an additional 3,500 teachers would be needed for normal expansion alone in the year 1931–32. By the year 1932–33, no less than 5,000 teachers will be needed for normal expansion alone, that is, if the large classes are reduced and continue to be reduced; and for reorganisation. Towards the 3,500 teachers required by next year only 1,800 teachers will be ready by July, 1932. There, already, it seems to me there is a shortage on normal expansion alone. A few months later the shortage may well be more serious still, even on normal expansion.
I am not forgetting that in the summer the right hon. Gentleman told us he was also hoping to pick up some 5,000 additional teachers who, apparently, would be unemployed, from all over the country. He said that between the years 1927–1930 some 5,000 additional teachers had been absorbed into the profession, and he did not see why an additional number should not be absorbed in the next three years. I should have thought the fact that 5,000 teachers had been found at large, so to speak, in the last three years, would be the very reason why it would be very difficult to find another 5,000 who could be absorbed in the next three years. Trained teachers are not people of whom there is an unlimited supply in the country. They are free to go anywhere, and give whole-time service. In the summer we heard the right hon. Gentleman base his belief in the number of the unemployed teachers who would be available on what seemed a very slender foundation. To-day, those 5,000 seem to have gone right out of his cal- culations. I listened very carefully to what he said, and took notes, but I do not remember any reference to those 5,000 teachers knocking about the country at present, doing nothing in particular, and who could be got back to meet the normal expansion in the next three years. If I am wrong, I shall be very interested to know if he still believes in their existence.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of 500 young unemployed teachers whom, he said, were often unemployed after leaving the training colleges. That is a very different number from 5,000; and he will probably remember that the number of 500 unemployed young teachers is generally the number unemployed during the first few months after leaving the training colleges, but not the number which you expect to find unemployed for the whole of the school year. Of course, I speak subject to correction. To-day, we only heard of 500 young unemployed teachers, whereas, in his Second Heading speech in the summer, he spoke not only of 500 young people but of 5,000 teachers who were doing nothing, and on whom he was relying to meet the need of normal expansion. Until the right hon. Gentleman can introduce some substantial grounds for believing that there are these 5,000 unemployed teachers who may be absorbed, we have the very best reason for feeling extremely anxious whether this necessary number of teachers can be found.
As the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to talk about married women and about the teachers about to retire, I thought I noticed a less confident note. In the summer he told us definitely that 4,000 married women might be retained in the profession. To-day, he says that 4,000 would be retiring on marriage, and that a "large number" could be retained. I should be interested to know what proportion of the 4,000 he has in his mind. When he spoke of 1,000 teachers who would be retiring on age, and said that some proportion, a large number of those might be retained, he again seemed a little less clear as to the number on whom he could count. I submit that when one bears in mind that he has told us to-day, in reply to a question, that 5,000 teachers will be needed by 1932–33 for normal expansion alone, that early in 1933, 3,500 teachers besides that will be needed for raising the school age, and that by 1933–34 the number needed for the school-leaving age will be raised to 8,000; and when we realise that he is asking for 13,000 additional teachers in 2£ years, or less than three years from now, and that he can only show us 1,800 teachers actually in training towards that tremendous number, and that all the rest are problematical—
indicated dissent .
The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he must realise he is not giving us any solid ground for believing that there are those 5,000 teachers unemployed. He has rather dropped them out of his calculations to-day, and they always seemed of very doubtful reality. Does he honestly believe that there are between 2,000 and 3,000 unemployed men teachers in the country at the moment?
I never said so.
I know, but we have always borne in mind that it is desirable to have men teachers for the older boys. Even supposing 5,000 unemployed trained teachers could be absorbed into the profession, if they are nearly all women they do not give us teachers altogether suitable for the object which the Government have in view. That is a very material point.
May not those teachers be used to release men teachers now employed in some areas in teaching very small boys or small children in mixed schools, so that those men teachers may be available to deal with the older boys?
I should be only too glad to see all the teaching of young children and boys in the first years in the hands of women; it is not suitable for men. The right hon. Gentleman, however, knows that there is a very great shortage of men teachers in the profession as a whole, and that it is one of the problems of the profession to-day, and one of the problems of the Board of Education how to attract to the profession a sufficient number of men teachers. I am very glad to see that at the moment more men are going into the training colleges than women. That is very satisfactory, but that process will have to go on for a considerable number of years before anything like the leeway can be made up. Therefore, it seems to me to be idle to talk about training additional married women and about picking up thousands of, as we think, imaginary women teachers, when we think of the older boys, and how very difficult it often is to engage the interest and cooperation of the older boy of 14 who is not of a very academic frame of mind.
These are the children for whom the right hon. Gentleman says that the Bill proposes specially to provide. So we say to him, he has to show us that he can get over 2,000 additional students into the training colleges and into the university departments in the autumn of 1931 before we can feel that his 4,000 additional trained teachers have any reality, we feel even more doubtful than before as to the existence of the large number of unemployed teachers who might be brought in to help. Again the reply he has given me to-day gives no indication whether any considerable proportion, or any proportion, of the additional students in training will be teachers in practical subjects. They are all receiving training in such subjects, but that does not mean that they will necessarily be qualified when they leave college to give practical instruction in subjects such as woodwork or metal-work for boys. I am very glad to know that an additional number of women students are in training in the domestic science colleges.
Those are my grounds for believing that it is practically impossible to raise the school age by September, 1932, if you are going to do anything like justice to the children. It will be no benefit to the children to keep them in the classes in which they are already, and you should be able to send them where they will be with children of their own age and where they can be grouped according to their different types of ability. Unless you can show solid grounds that the teachers will be ready, and that the accommodation will be forthcoming, it is really a mockery to talk about this measure being a "charter for the child." To raise the school age in September, 1932, will plunge the local authorities into difficulties at a very unpropitious time. If the school age is raised before the children born in 1920 are out of school, a great deal more accommodation will have to be provided, and an en- deavour will have to be made to find more teachers. The President of the Board of Education does not seem to remember that the local authorities do not provide nearly all the teachers. The majority of the teachers of this country are trained in colleges provided by voluntary bodies and, therefore, no local authority is in a position to say there will be enough teachers. The right hon. Gentleman is the only person able to calculate the capacity of the country as a whole to provide the necessary teachers, and therefore the responsibility rests upon him for seeing that the school age is not raised before the requisite number of teachers is available.
I spoke fully on the financial question during the debate on the Financial Resolution, and I will content myself with saying that I do not think that those of us who keep in mind the debates of the last two or three days in this House when Measures have been put forward to increase the borrowing powers of the Government can regard the financial proposals of this Bill as being any less serious. Matters seem to be getting steadily worse, and this Measure is asking Parliament to add a considerable addition to educational expenditure. The only reason which has been put forward by the Government for incurring this heavy expenditure is that it will tend to relieve unemployment—
I am afraid that the Noble Lady is raising questions which are not within the terms of the Amendment.
I will not go into that matter any further. I will only give reasons why the date of 1926 is the earliest one to get over the serious difficulty of the bulge. By 1936 the children born in 1920 will be out of the schools; therefore, the local authorities will not have to provide more accommodation than will be required, and the President of the Board of Education will have a better chance of getting together the additional number of teachers required. The training colleges are unable to train more than 900 teachers every year, that alone is why it is necessary that the date should be postponed. For all these reasons we feel that this is the most unpropitious moment to carry out such changes that has occurred since national education was inaugurated. We say that the Board of Education ought to have power to postpone the day until it is satisfied that suitable arrangements have been made, and it would be acting only in accordance with common sense, and with what has been the immemorial custom in English education, to give a large measure of power in this matter to the local authorities.
Question put, "That those words be there added."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 141; Noes, 266.
Division No. 60.] AYES. [5.25 p.m. Albery, Irving James Christie, J. A. Hanbury, C. Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l.,W.) Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Clydesdale, Marquess of Hartington, Marquess of Atholl, Duchess of Cobb, Sir Cyril Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Balfour, George (Hampstead) Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Balniel, Lord Colfox, Major William Philip Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Colvllie, Major D. J. Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Beaumont, M. W. Courtauld, Major J. S. Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Bellairs, Commander Carlyon Cranborne, Viscount Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. Hurst, Sir Gerald B. Bird, Ernest Roy Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. Boothby, R. J. G. Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert Knox, Sir Alfred Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Dugdale, Capt. T. L. Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Eden, Captain Anthony Leighton, Major B. E. P. Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W. Edmondson, Major A. J. Lewis, Oswald (Colchester) Boyce, H. L. Elliot, Major Walter E. Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey Brass, Captain Sir William Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) McConnell, Sir Joseph Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham) Everard, W. Lindsay Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Buchan, John Falle, Sir Bertram G. Makins, Brigadier-General E. Bullock, Captain Malcolm Ferguson, Sir John Margesson, Captain H. D. Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Fison, F. G. Clavering Marjoribanks, Edward Campbell, E. T. Fremantle, Lieut. -Colonel Francis E. Mason, Colonel Glyn K. Carver, Major W. H. Gault, Lleut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Meller, R. J. Castle Stewart, Earl of Grace, John Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth,S.) Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J. A. (Birm.,W.) Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond) Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton) Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart Tinne, J. A. Muirhead, A. J. Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. Titchfield, Major the Marquess of Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Savery, S. S. Turton, Robert Hugh Nicholson, Col.Rt. Hn. W.G.(Ptrsf'ld) Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert O'Neill, Sir H. Simms, Major-General J. Wardlaw-Mline, J. S. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Warrender, Sir Victor Peake, Captain Osbert Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hnllam) Waterhouse, Captain Charles Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dine, C.) Wells, Sydney R. Pilditch, Sir Philip Smith-Carington, Neville W. Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay Pownall, Sir Assheton Smithers, Waldron Withers, Sir John James Ramsbotham, H. Somervllle, A. A. (Windsor) Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount Remer, John R. Southby, Commander A. R. J. Womersley, W. J. Reynolds, Col. Sir James Spender-Clay, Colonel H. Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y) Stanley, Lord (Fylde) Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k) Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) Stanley, Maj. Hon. 0. (W'morland) Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur Ross, Major Ronald D. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —— Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Sueter Rear-Admiral M. F. Sir George Penny and Captain Wallace. Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury) Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.
NOES. Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Edmunds, J. E. Lathan, G. Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Edwards, E. (Morpeth) Law, Albert (Bolton) Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Egan, W. H. Law, A. (Rossendale) Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M. Elmley, Viscount Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') Foot, Isaac Lawson, John James Alpass, J. H. Freeman, Peter Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) Ammon, Charles George Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) Leach, W. Angell, Norman Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.) Arnott, John George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) Lees, J. Aske, Sir Robert Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) Lewis, T. (Southampton) Attlee, Clement Richard Gill, T. H. Lloyd, C. Ellis Ayles, Walter Gillett, George M. Logan, David Gilbert Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Glassey, A. E. Longbottom, A. W. Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) Gossling, A. G. Longden, F. Barnes, Alfred John Gould, F. Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Barr, James Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Lowth, Thomas Batey, Joseph Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Lunn, William Bellamy, Albert Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Coine) Macdonald, Gordon (ince) Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central) Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) Bennett, William (Battersea, South) Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) McElwee, A. Benson, G. Groves, Thomas E. McEntee, V. L. Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Grundy, Thomas W. McKinlay, A. Birkett, W. Norman Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) MacLaren, Andrew Blindell, James Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton Bowen, J. W. Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) Mander, Geoffrey le M. Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) Mansfield, W. Brockway, A. Fenner Harbord, A. March, S. Bromfield, William Hardie, George D. Marcus, M. Bromley, J. Harris, Percy A. Marley, J. Brooke, W. Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Marshall, Fred Brothers, M. Hastings, Dr. Somerville Mathers, George Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) Haycock, A. W. Maxton, James Brown, Ernest (Leith) Hayday, Arthur Middleton, G. Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) Milner, Major J. Buchanan, G. Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) Montague, Frederick Burgess, F. G. Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) Morgan, Dr. H. B. Burgin, Dr. E. L. Herriotts, J. Morley, Ralph Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland) Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) Morris, Rhys Hopkins Cameron, A. G. Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) Cape, Thomas Hoffman, P. C. Mort, D. L. Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.) Hollins, A. Moses, J. J. H. Charleton, H. C. Hopkin, Daniel Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) Chater, Daniel Horrabin, J. F. Muff, G. Church, Major A. G. Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) Muggeridge, H. T. Clarke, J. S. Isaacs, George Newman. Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter Cluse, W. S. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N. Cocks, Frederick Seymour Johnston, Thomas Oldfleld, J. R. Compton, Joseph Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Oliver, George Harold (Iikeston) Cove, William G. Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne) Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) Cowan, D. M. Jones. Morgan (Caerphilly) Palin, John Henry Daggar, George Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. Paling, Wilfrid Dallas, George Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Dalton, Hugh Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) Perry, S. F. Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Kelly, W. T. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Day, Harry Kennedy, Thomas Phillips, Dr. Marion Denman, Hon. R. D. Kirkwood, D. Picton-Tubervill, Edith Dukes, C. Knight, Holford Pole, Major D, G. Duncan, Charles Lang, Gordon Potts, John S. Ede, James Chuter Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Price, M. P. Quibell, D. J. K. Shinwell, E. Tout, W. J. Ramsay, T. B. Wilson Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) Townend, A. E. Rathbone, Eleanor Simmons, C. J. Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Raynes, W. R. Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withlngton) Vaugnan, D. J. Richards, R. Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness) Viant, S. P. Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Sinkinson, George Wallace, H. W. Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) Sitch, Charles H. Wellhead, Richard C. Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor Ritson, J. Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) Watkins, F. C. Romeril, H. G. Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley) Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline). Rosbotham, D. S. T. Smith, Rennie (Penistone) Wellock, Wilfred Rothschild, J. de Smith, Tom (Pontefract) Welsh, James (Paisley) Rowson, Guy Smith, W. R. (Norwich) Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) Snell, Harry West, F. R. Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip Westwood, Joseph Sanders, W. S. Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) White, H. G. Sandham. E. Sorensen, R. Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) Sawyer, G. F. Stamford, Thomas W. Whiteley, William (Blaydon) Scott, James Stephen, Campbell Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) Scrymgeour, E. Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) Wilson, J. (Oldham) Scurr, John Strachey, E. J. St. Loe Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) Sexton, James Sullivan, J. Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh> Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. Sutton, J. E Wise, E. F. Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) Shepherd, Arthur Lewis Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.) Young, R. S. (Islington, North) Sherwood, G. H. Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) Shield, George William Thurtle, Ernest TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Shiels, Dr. Drummond Tillett, Ben Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes. Shillaker, J, F, Tinker, John Joseph
Amendment proposed: In page 3, line 30, at the end, to add the words:
"(6) Notwithstanding the provisions of the last preceding Sub-section, this Act shall not come into operation in the area of any local education authority unless and until the Board of Education, after consulting the local education authority, is satisfied that the additional number of
suitable teachers necessary for the instruction, including practical instruction, of children over the age of fourteen is available."— [ Lord E. Percy .]
Question put, "That those words be there added."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 144; Noes, 269.
Division No. 61.] AYES. [5.36 p.m. Albery, Irving James Cunilffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (1. of W.) Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.) Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Making, Brigadier-General E. Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert Margesson, Captain H. D. Atholl, Duchess of Dugdale, Capt. T. L. Marjoribanks, Edward Balfour, George (Hampstead) Eden, Captain Anthony Mason, Colonel Glyn K. Balniel, Lord Edmondson, Major A. J. Meller, R. J. Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Elliot, Major Walter E. Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Beaumont, M. W. Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s-M.) Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Bellairs, Commander Carlyon Everard, W. Lindsay Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Falle, Sir Bertram G. Mond, Hon. Henry Bird, Ernest Roy Ferguson, Sir John Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Fielden, E. B. Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond) Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Fison, F. G. Clavering Moore, Lieut. -Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W. Fremantle, Lieut. -Colonel Francis E. Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) Boyce, H. L. Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Muirhead, A. J. Brass, Captain Sir William Grace, John Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham) Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld) Buchan, John Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. O'Neill, Sir H. Bullock, Captain Malcolm Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William Butler, R. A. Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Peake, Captain Osbert Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Hanbury, C. Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Campbell, E. T. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Pilditch, Sir Philip Carver, Major W. H. Hartington, Marquess of Pownall, Sir Assheton Castle Stewart, Earl of Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Ramsbotham, H. Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Heneage, Lieut. -Colonel Arthur P. Remer, John R. Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth,S.) Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Reynolds, Col. Sir James Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy) Chamberlain, Rt.Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm.,W.) Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston) Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell Christle, J. A. Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. Ross, Major Ronald D. Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Hurst, Sir Gerald B. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Clydesdale, Marquess of Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury) Cobb, Sir Cyril Kindersley, Major G. M. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George Knox, Sir Alfred Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart Colfox, Major William Philip Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. Colman, N. C. D. Leignton, Major B. E. P. Savery, S. S. Colville, Major D. J. Lewis, Oswald (Colchester) Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome Cranborne, Viscount Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey Simms, Major-General J. Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. McDonnell. Sir Joseph Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n a Kinc'dine, C.) Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) Smith-Carington, Neville W. Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton) Withers, Sir John James Smithers, Waldron Tinne, J. A. Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Titchfield, Major the Marquess of Womersley, W. J. Southby, Commander A. R. J. Turton, Robert Hugh Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley Spender-Clay, Colonel H. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k) Stanley, Lord (Fylde) Wardlaw-Milne, J. S. Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) Warrender, Sir Victor Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur Waterhouse, Captain Charles TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) Wells, Sydney R. Sir George Penny and Captain Wallace.
NOES. Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Gill, T. H. MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) Adamson, W. M. (Staff, Cannock) Gillett, George M. McElwee, A. Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Glassey, A. E. McEntee, V. L. Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M. Gossling, A. G. McKinlay, A. Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro) Gould, F. MacLaren, Andrew Alpass, J. H. Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Ammon, Charles George Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Malone, C. L' Estrange (N'thampton) Angell, Norman Granville, E. Mander, Geoffrey le M. Arnott, John Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) Mansfield W. Aske, Sir Robert Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) March, S. Attlee, Clement Richard Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Marcus, M. Ayles, Walter Groves, Thomas E. Marley, J. Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Grundy, Thomas W. Marshall, Fred Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Mathers, George Barnes, Alfred John Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Maxton, James Barr, James Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Messer, Fred Batey, Joseph Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) Middleton, G. Bellamy, Albert Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) Milner, Major J. Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood Harbord, A. Montague, Frederick Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central) Hardle, George D. Morgan, Dr. H. B. Bennett, William (Battersea, South) Harris, Percy A. Morley, Ralph Benson, G. Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Morris, Rhys Hopkins Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Hastings, Dr. Somerville Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) Birkett, W. Norman Haycock, A. W. Mort, D. L. Blindell, James Hayday, Arthur Moses, J. J. H. Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) Bowen, J. W. Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) Muff, G. Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) Muggeridge, H. T, Brockway, A. Fenner Herriotts, J. Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Bromfield, William Hirst, G. H. (York W.R. Wentworth) Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.) Bromley, J. Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Oldfield, J. R. Brooke, W. Hoffman, P. C. Oliver, George Harold (likeston) Brothers, M. Hollins, A. Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) Hopkin, Daniel Owen, H. F. (Hereford) Brown, Ernest (Leith) Hore-Bellsha, Leslie Palin, John Henry Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) Horrabin, J. F. Paling, Wilfrid Buchanan, G. Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Burgess, F. G. Isaacs, George Perry, S. F. Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland) Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Cameron, A. G. Johnston, Thomas Phillips, Dr. Marion Cape, Thomas Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Picton-Turbervill, Edith Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.) Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Cemborne) Pole, Major D. G. Charleton, H. C. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Potts, John S. Chater, Daniel Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. Price, M. P. Church, Major A. G. Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston) Quibell, D. J. K. Clarke, J. S. Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) Ramsay, T. B. Wilson Cluse, W. S. Kelly, W. T. Rathbone, Eleanor Cocks, Frederick Seymour Kennedy, Thomas Raynes, W. R. Collins, Sir Godlrey (Greenock) Kirkwood, D. Richards, R. Compton, Joseph Knight, Hollord Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Cove, William G. Lang, Gordon Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) Cowan, D. M. Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Ritson, J. Daggar, George Lathan, G. Romerll, H. G. Dallas, George Law, Albert (Bolton) Rosbotham, D. S. T. Dalton, Hugh Law, A. (Rossendale) Rothschild, J. de Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) Rowson, Guy Day, Harry Lawson, John James Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) Denman, Hon. R. D. Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West) Dudgeon, Major C. R. Leach, W. Sanders, W. S. Dukes, C. Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.) Sandham, E. Ede, James Chuter Lees, J. Sawyer, G. F. Edmunds, J. E. Lewis, T. (Southampton) Scott, James Edwards, E. (Morpeth) Lioyd, C. Ellis Scrymgeour, E. Egan, W. H. Logan, David Gilbert Scurr, John Eimley, Viscount Longbottom, A. W. Sexton, James Foot, Isaac Longden, F. Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. Freeman, Peter Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) Lowth, Thomas Shepherd, Arthur Lewis Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith. N.) Lunn, William Sherwood, G. H. George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Shield, George William Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) Shiels, Dr. Drummond Shillaker, J. F. Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne) Shinwell, E. Strachey, E. J. St. Loe Wellock, Wilfred Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) Strauss, G. R. Welsh, James (Paisley) Simmons, C. J. Sullivan, J. Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington) Sutton, J. E. West, F. R. Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness) Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) Westwood, Joseph Sinkinson, George Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.) White, H. G. Sitch, Charles H. Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) Thurtle, Ernest Whiteley, William (Blaydon) Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) Tillett, Ben Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley) Tinker, John Joseph Wilson, J. (Oldham) Smith, Rennie (Penistone) Tout, W. J. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) Smith, Tom (Pontefract) Townend, A. E. Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh) Smith, W. R. (Norwich) Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Wise, E. F. Snell, Harry Vaughan, D. J. Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip Viant, S. P. Young, R. S. (Islington, North) Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) Wallace, H. W. Sorensen, R. Wallhead, Richard C. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Stamford, Thomas W. Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes. Stephen, Campbell Watkins, F. C.
I beg to move, in page 3, line 30, at the end, to add the words: Interruption. ] I am glad to see that the Minister agrees, so it does not matter what hon. Members behind him think. These gentlemen also tell me that, unless some action is taken on this question of boundaries, they will not know how to administer the Act. The insistence on raising the school age before taking into consideration these other facts of the case, is really putting the cart before the horse. It is impossible to make proper arrangements until the question of boundaries is settled. It is impossible to make plans for the new age group until some decision has been taken about boundaries.
I will ask the Committee to picture a county area as if it were on a map. You have a large area in which the education is administered by the county education authority. Dotted over the area are other education authorities— borough, urban and Part III authorities, which have the power, I believe, to take on what are called added areas. Until the boundaries of these added areas are defined, it is impossible for the county authorities to put' up a proper scheme which they will be able to work, because until they know what area they have to administer, it is impossible to put up a scheme which will be workable. How is it possible, for instance, for them to know whether to build a school, or even to buy a site for a school, unless they know which area the school will serve? I understand that there is one place in Kent where two of these non-county authorities wish to enlarge their boundaries. They both come out to such a distance that there is a kind of alleyway left between the two, and even now they do not know exactly where the boundary will be. If it is where they think it will be, there will be a slice of the county area left which it will be almost impossible to administer. I understand that, for a central school to be efficient and to be of any use, it must be built for at least 200 children. In certain cases of which I know, sites have been bought, and I understand that it is part of the law of the land that a local authority must put up a scheme to the Minister of Education.
From all that I can gather, the present position of several education authorities is that whatever scheme they take up cannot be a sound scheme, because they do not know what area they will have to administer, and they do not know how many children will be taken off or left by the added areas of the non-county authority. There is a real need for some action to be taken on this question of boundaries. Either the right hon. Baronet must put off the date of the Bill to come into operation until such time as the boundary question is settled, or by regulation or by legislation he must do something so that non-county authorities do not take any more added areas. The want of foresight in trying to force the Bill through, and in not seeing the point of these boundaries, is typical of the way the Bill was introduced, quite irrespective of the facts of the situation, and it is another instance of the policy of the Socialist Government in trying to force their theories through at any cost, in spite of the facts.
I hasten to assure the hon. Member that this question to which he has referred is not something that he himself has discovered, but something that has been present for some time to the minds of those who are acquainted with the problems of local government. Indeed it has been present to the minds of a number of people since they discovered the situation arising, not from any legislation of ours but from legislation passed by the previous Government. The point to which the hon. Member referred to is worthy of a little attention. He invites the Committee to postpone the operation of the Act in certain areas and in certain contingencies. The difficulty that arises in Kent certainly, and possibly in other parts of the country as well, is this. Under Section 46 of the Local Government Act, 1929, there has to be a review of the districts within a county area and that review, when it has been completed, must eventuate in a scheme to be presented to the Ministry of Health. That scheme of reorganisation of areas must be presented before 1st April, 1932. That is merely the date of the presentation of the schemes. It does not necessarily imply that they must be finally approved by the Ministry by that date.
There are two sorts of education authorities possibly involved in this matter. There is, first of all, the council which is entitled to become a Part III authority, having regard to the conditions laid down in the 1921 Act as to the qualifications for becoming such an education authority, its claim being based upon the census of 1901. That is a problem by itself. It is one to which the Noble Lord has directed his attention as we have done since we have been in office. In regard to those areas which are not yet Part III authorities, but are entitled to become Part III authorities, a Bill has, in fact, been passed through the other House, and is now on the Order Paper of this House awaiting the pleasure of this House concerning it. I believe we shall have a unanimous opinion on both sides in regard to it.
The other point is this. There are existing Part III areas which under the new reorganisation may be enlarged, and there may possibly be disputes concerning the delimitation of an area as between one authority and another and they will not know, until the schemes have been put up, to whom this no-man's-land is to belong. I admit that that is a problem that ought to be faced. Let us take Kent. The hon. Member says that the Kent authority is one of very advanced opinons and consists of very enlightened people, and I cordially agree. Because they are enlightened and advanced people, they should not find it beyond the wit of their local administrators to arrive at some sort of provisional arrangement between the county authority and any other authority that may be in discussion with them, and under this provisional arrangement they could still go ahead with their work of preparing for our Bill without waiting until the final decision of the Ministry is given—until the delimitation of areas is finally established.
That is exactly what my friend on the Kent Education Committee told me they cannot do.
6.0 p.m.
Apparently, then, they are not really as wise as the hon. Member seems to suggest. This is not a new problem, and it ought not to be beyond the capacity of intelligent people to agree upon a provisional arrangement whereby they say, "If a school is put in your area A, very good, we will arrive at this arrangement or that arrangement. If it is to be in our area B, very well, we will agree, when the final allocation of areas has been made by the Minister, that the necessary financial arrangements shall be so and so." I do not think that that is too much to expect. I would add in this connection that under Section 6 of the Act of 1921 there is ample provision for co-ordination and co-operation in contiguous local education authorities. There is another observation which I should like to make in regard to the Amendment which is before the Committee. Under the Amendment, boroughs —even boroughs in Kent—would still be able to go ahead. It is the county area only which would be held up under the operation of this Amendment. I think that from our point of view that is rather the vice attached to the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman has moved.
Why is it a vice?
I do not want to have to repeat arguments which have already been put before the Committee, but, in a sentence, the point is that we really do not accept the proposition that one area should be able to go ahead educationally while the other area should have to mark time. Therefore, while I admit that there is point in what the hon. Gentleman has said, we ought not to look upon the position too tragically. It ought not to be difficult for wise people accustomed to administration to get over it without very much injury to the cause of education in the localities.
I am a little sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary treated the question of Kent as if the Department had never heard of the difficulties of Kent until they were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers). I will come to the point in a moment. This is not an Amendment for a long or an indefinite postponement of the operation of this Bill in any area, because the schemes under the Local Government Act have to be in, as the hon. Member said, by 1st April, 1932. They have to be published when they are presented to the Minister, and only six weeks are allowed for objection. Therefore, the Minister has time before the coming into force of the Act, before 1st September, 1932. to fix the boundaries. It is true that this Amendment says one year afterwards, and it comes to this, that this Amendment would mean postponement of operation in certain county areas for one year. The Parliamentary Secretary suggests how terrible it will be, for instance, for Bromley to fix 15 years of age while in Kent the age is 14. It is for one year only.
Does this apply to the Part III areas as well? The Amendment says
"in any part of an area in which a county council is the authority for higher education."
Therefore, it does include a county education area and the Part III authorities.
It does, and I was wrong in mentioning Bromley. If the hon. Gentleman meant a Part III authority, he was wrong. I ought not to have mentioned Bromley, but Chatham. It is true that Chatham will raise the school-leaving age one year earlier than Kent. If the hon. Member asks for us not to take too tragically the Act of 1929, he must not take too tragically this slight disarrangement. The Parliamentary Secretary, in asking us not to take this tragically and in saying that any local administrator can always find a, way out of the position, is really putting off the Committee. He knows far better than I do that it is a problem with which the Kent Education Authority, which includes one or two of the most experienced administrators, have been wrestling for two years. It is true that it is not the fault of the present Government. If it is anybody's fault, it is that of the last Government, and we are now trying to put the matter right. He knows, and he must know, that the county authority have considered all sorts of agreements in this matter, and have not been able to reach a satisfactory agreement or find a satisfactory avenue towards one. The Parliamentary Secretary also knows that if he looks at the Act of 1921 he will find in it a number of most terrible snags when it comes to a question of the alteration of boundaries. He may remember, for instance, that a non-provided school cannot be declared to be necessary in respect of the attendance of children who reside in another area. That is one instance where any change of boundary may vitally affect the provision of central schools.
Here is an admitted grievance. No way has been found to put it right. Everyone will agree that if you were to try to deal with it by saying that the county authorities should provide a cen- tral school in any area Which was a part of its area before the passing of the Act of 1929, you would get into all sorts of difficulties in regard to differential rating. The Government have failed to find a remedy. I do not know whether we should have been able to do so. I do not think that we could have found any way out of the difficulty. If that is so, the only course for us to take is not to involve ourselves in the further difficulty of forcing local education authorities to make arrangements which they
cannot make efficiently, but only in the most makeshift way before there is a final settlement. We do not want to delay the Committee upon this rather technical point, but we feel, in view of the importance of this matter to certain areas, that we should like to divide upon it.
Question put, "That those words be there added."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 150; Noes, 273.
Division No. 62.] AYES. [6.10 p.m. Albery, Irving James Elliot, Major Walter E. O'Neill, Sir H. Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.) Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.M.) Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Everard, W. Lindsay Peake, Captain Osbert Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Falie, Sir Bertram G. Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Atholl, Duchess of Ferguson, Sir John Pilditch, Sir Philip Balfour, George (Hampstead) Fermoy, Lord Ramsbotham, H. Balniel, Lord Fielden, E. B. Reid, David D. (County Down) Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Remer, John R. Beaumont, M. W. Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Reynolds, Col. Sir James Bellairs, Commander Carlyon Grace, John Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y) Bevan, S. J. (Holborn) Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rannell Bird, Ernest Roy Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter Ross, Major Ronald D. Boothby, R. J. G. Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Bourne, Captain Robert Croft. Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W. Hanbury, C. Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. Boyce, H. L. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Savery, S. S. Bracken, B. Hartington, Marquess of Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome Brass, Captain Sir William Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Simms, Major-General J. Briscoe, Richard George Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham) Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) Bullock, Captain Malcolm Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) Smith-Carington, Neville W. Butler, R. A. Hills. Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Smithers, Waldron Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Somerset, Thomas Campbell, E. T. Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Carver, Major W. H. Hurst, Sir Gerald B. Southby, Commander A. R. J. Castle Stewart, Earl of Kindersley, Major G. M. Spender-Clay, Colonel H. Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Knox, Sir Alfred Stanley, Lord (Fylde) Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth,S.) Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Leighton, Major B. E. P. Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton Lewis, Oswald (Colchester) Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.) Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. Christie, J. A. McConnell, Sir Joseph Tinne, J. A. Clydesdale, Marquess of Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Titchfield, Major the Marquess of Cobb, Sir Cyril Makins, Brigadier-General E. Turton, Robert Hugh Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George Margesson, Captain H. D. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert Colfox, Major William Philip Marjoribanks, Edward Wardlaw-Milne, J. S. Colman, N. C. D. Mason, Colonel Glyn K. Warrender, Sir Victor Colville, Major D. J. Meller, R. J. Waterhouse, Captain Charles Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Wells, Sydney R. Cranborne, Viscount Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. Mond, Hon. Henry Withers, Sir John James Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond) Womersley, W. J. Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley Dawson, Sir Philip Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k) Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert Muirhead, A. J. Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton Dudgeon, Major C. R. Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Eden, Captain Anthony Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Edmondson, Major A. J. Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert Sir George Penny and Captain Wallace.
NOES. Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Angell, Norman Barnes, Alfred John Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Arnott, John Barr, James Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Aske, Sir Robert Batey, Joseph Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M. Attlee, Clement Richard Bellamy, Albert Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') Ayles, Walter Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood Alpass, J. H. Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central) Ammon, Charles George Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) Bennett, William (Battersea, South) Benson, G. Hopkin, Daniel Quibell, D. J. K. Bentham, Dr. Ethel Hore-Belisha, Leslie Ramsay, T. B. Wilson Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Horrabin, J. F. Rathbone, Eleanor Birkett, W. Norman Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) Raynes, W. R. Blindell, James Isaacs, George Richards, R. Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Bowen, J. W. Johnston, Thomas Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Ritson, J. Brockway, A. Fenner Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne) Romeril, H. G. Bromfield, William Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Rosbotham, D. S. T. Bromley, J. Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. Rothschild, J. de Brooke, W. Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston) Rowson, Guy Brothers, M. Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) Kelly, W. T. Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West) Brown, Ernest (Leith) Kennedy, Thomas Sanders, W. S. Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) Kirkwood, D. Sandham, E. Buchanan, G. Knight, Holford Sawyer, G. F. Burgess, F. G. Lang, Gordon Scott, James Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland) Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Scrymgeour, E. Cameron, A. G. Lathan, G. Scurr, John Cape, Thomas Law, Albert (Bolton) Sexton, James Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.) Law, A. (Rossendale) Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. Charleton, H. C. Lawrence, Susan Shepherd, Arthur Lewis Chater, Daniel Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybrldge) Sherwood, G. H. Clarke, J. S. Lawson, John James Shield, George William Cluse, W. S. Lawther W. (Barnard Castle) Shiels, Dr. Drummond Cocks, Frederick Seymour Leach, W. Shillaker, J. F. Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.) Shinwell, E. Cove, William G. Lees, J. Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) Cowan, D. M. Lewis, T. (Southampton) Simmons, C. J. Daggar, George Lloyd, C. Ellis Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington) Dalton, Hugh Logan, David Gilbert Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Davies, E. C. (Montgomery) Longbottom, A. W. Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness) Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Longden, F. Sinkinson, George Day, Harry Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Sitch, Charles H. Denman, Hon. R. D. Lowth, Thomas Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) Dudgeon, Major C. R. Lunn, William Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) Dukes, C. Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley) Ede, James Chuter MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) Smith, Rennie (Penistone) Edmunds, J. E. MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) Smith, Tom (Pontefract) Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) McElwee, A. Smith, W. R. (Norwich) Edwards, E. (Morpeth) McEntee, V. L. Snell, Harry Egan, W. H. McKinlay, A. Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip Elmley, Viscount MacLaren, Andrew Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) Foot, Isaac Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Sorensen, R. Forgan, Dr. Robert Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Stamford, Thomas W. Freeman, Peter Mander, Geoffrey le M. Stephen, Campbell Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) Mansfield, W. Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) March, S. Strachey, E. J. St. Loe George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) Marcus, M. Strauss, G. R. Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) Marley, J. Sullivan, J. Gill, T. H. Marshall, Fred Sutton, J. E. Gillett, George M. Mathers, George Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) Glassey, A. E. Maxton, James Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.) Gossling, A. G. Messer, Fred Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) Gould, F. Middleton, G. Tillett, Ben Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Milner, Major J. Tinker, John Joseph Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Montague, Frederick Tout, W. J. Granville, E. Morgan, Dr. H. B. Townend, A. E. Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Coine) Morley, Ralph Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Morris, Rhys Hopkins Vaughan, D. J. Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Viant, S. P. Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) Wallace, H. W. Groves, Thomas E. Mort, D. L. Wallhead, Richard C. Grundy, Thomas W. Moses, J. J. H. Watkins, F. C. Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne) Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Muff, G. Wellock, Wilfred Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Muggeridge, H. T. Welsh, James (Palsley) Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) Noel Baker, P. J. Westwood, Joseph Harbord, A. Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.) White, H. G. Hardie, George D. Oldfield, J. R. Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) Harris, Percy A. Oliver, George Harold (likeston) Whiteley, William (Blaydon) Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Palin, John Henry Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) Hastings, Dr. Somerville Paling, Wilfrid Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) Haycock, A. W. Palmer, E. T. Wilson, J. (Oldham) Hayday, Arthur Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) Perry, S. F. Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh) Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Wise, E. F. Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) Phillips, Dr. Marion Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) Herriotts, J. Picton-Turbervill, Edith Young, R. S. (Islington, North) Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) Pole, Major D. G. Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Potts, John S. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Hoffman, P. C. Price, M. P. Mr. Hayes and Mr. Thurtle. Hollins, A. Pybus, Percy John
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
In opposing the Motion, I should like to draw attention to the untimely nature of the proposal in the Clause. I do so not from any desire to prolong the proceedings, but from a genuine concern that the standard of our national system of education shall be maintained without drawback or interruption. Every stage in the development of that system owes a great deal to the goodwill towards education which has been patiently and prudently accumulated by successive Ministers of Education. Up to the present time, the right hon. Gentleman who now holds that position may very justly claim a full share in fostering that goodwill, but in hurrying up the process of this Bill he seems to me to have abandoned both the patience and the prudence which have hitherto characterised the builders of our educational system. In so doing he is gravely endangering the goodwill that surrounds and supports the system.
No question of principle divides educational reformers in all parties with regard to the raising of the school-leaving age. There is, undoubtedly, wide agreement concerning the merits of the proposal as an ultimate development. Into that solid concurrence of opinion, the President of the Board of Education, by his haste, seems likely to drive a steel wedge of dissention. Many of us consider that the fixing of a date so early for the additional year's attendance at school has been done without conscientious regard for all the present conditions or the capacity of the system. To raise the school-leaving age to 15 is a huge innovation: an innovation which involves issues of vast importance and range, social, economic and educational. We maintain that the conditions requisite for so great a transformation cannot be made ready in the time proposed. If the right hon. Gentleman imagines that he can secure adequate preparation for the scheme by the date indicated in this Clause, I think he is leaning too much on his own understanding. He seems to be adopting rather the self-sufficient and hauty attitude of Glendower, when he declared that he could We on this side would reply, in the words of Hotspur:
One after another, Ministers of Education have endeavoured earnestly, and with a large measure of success, to reduce the size of classes, to raise the status and the credentials of teachers and to ensure roomy accommodation and healthy surroundings for the children in their hours of school life. The effect of this Clause will be to vitiate that progress at once and to retard it for perhaps some years to come. There will be difficulties with regard to buildings, equipment and methods of administration, but all these matters are subordinate in education to one great factor—a regulated supply of faithful and capable teachers. Nothing has been more hopeful with regard to education recently than the advancement in the quality and in the public appreciation of the teachers of our land. If the action of this Bill is precipitated, I believe that advancement will be checked and the value of the teaching will decline; for this reason, that the average capability of the teachers will be diluted by the introduction of the crude novice on the one hand and the exhausted veteran on the other. Neither of these two sections is fully fitted to teach and train the youth of this generation, nor will either of them be found capable to act towards the pupil in the way that this country desires and expects that teachers shall act, as the leaders of youth and the captains and guides of democracy.
We believe that many a mischief will follow hard upon this needless haste. Children will have to be taught in crowded classrooms, they will take their recreation in congested playgrounds, and we believe that they will suffer from an insufficient supply of teachers, some of whom will be distinctly lacking in full efficiency. All these disadvantages might be avoided if the right hon. Gentleman were content to wait until this opportunity was really ripe. He is a bad husbandman who puts in the sickle before the harvest is ready. We believe that the right hon. Gentleman earnestly desires to benefit the chidren of this country and to afford for them higher training, but we also believe that his scheme is so unskilful and so immature that he will find that he only has the counterfeit to offer, and not the real thing. To call by the name of education another year of attendance at school under the conditions which are almost certain to prevail for a long time to come, is a delusion and a misnomer. To condemn the children to that infliction will not be a boon; it will be a penalty. To compel the parents to participate in that imposture, is not the act of an educational reformer but rather of a political dragoon. To require the taxpayer to meet the cost of anything so spurious, is to exact public money for a purpose which is grossly fallacious and misleading.
The atmosphere of simplicity, I think, has been added to these debates. In the first part of our debates the spectre of unemployment walked behind every educational proposal brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman. That atmosphere has now been removed, and we are able to consider the question of the elementary education of this country quite apart from any other major national problem. It is the case of Ichabod—the glory has departed. There is this difference about this result so far is hon. Members on this side of the House are concerned, that there is absolutely now no argument against the conclusions which they have drawn from the statements of the right hon. Gentleman. Unemployment was at least an excuse for this Measure.
Anyone who listened to the scholarly research of the Noble Lady as to the number of teachers in the future would be absolutely convinced that the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman were made extremely carelessly and without regard to the probabilities of the case. The right hon. Gentleman advanced in the spirit of extreme optimism and said there would be no difficulty in getting 8,000 teachers, of whom 4,000 would be trained. The Noble Lady has shown that there will not be enough teachers trained even if the school-leaving age is not raised, much less sufficient teachers to supply the added needs after the school-leaving age has been raised. I have never listened to such a statement as the right hon. Gentleman's justification of the proposition that you can easily raise the rest of the 4,000 teachers from those who hold aside and fall in and out of the teaching profession. The right hon. Gentleman does not appear to realise that the position of the teacher is one of the highest and most responsible of the professions. Suppose I used the same kind of argument about the health of the children and said that we could easily raise 8,000 competent medical men in the next two years, that 4,000 of them are already trained, and that we can collect the rest from those who fall in and out of the profession.
We have heard something about the horror of unqualified medical men. I do not cast any aspersions upon unqualified teachers, but you must consider not only the bodily health of the children, but their souls and minds as well, which is the subject matter of education. It is vitally important that you should have additional teachers for the children, and you cannot get 4,000 additional teachers out of the ground by sowing dragons' teeth as told by the old Greek fairy tale. We know the old Latin question " Quis custodiet cus-todes? " That is what we want to know. " Quis docebit doctores?" Who will teach the teachers? We know how very important that is. We have not had a word about those who are going to train the teachers. Is their training to be cut short as the education of the children is to be prolonged? Are they to go out into their professions short of their ordinary training? If so they will have a permanent grudge against this Socialist Government, and the children whom they will be asked to teach will have a permanent grudge against this Socialist Government.
An answer is due from the President of the Board of Education in regard to the figures produced by the Noble Lady. He gets out of his difficulty by saying, "We are trying to do a big thing in a big way, and hon. Members opposite do not like it." That is what the right hon. Gentleman says whenever a scholarly objection is put forward against this proposal. I hope he is not going to repeat that argument to-day. We are tired of it. We know what he is trying to do. It is too big for him. He uses one argument one way at one time, and another way at another time. He says that we can easily raise these few thousand teachers in a few years, and when we say that the authorities should be allowed to come into the scheme as they are ready, he says, "But you will have to have inspectors to see whether the children are of proper ago." Surely in a great national emergency we should be able to get over technical difficulties like that. At any rate, it will be far easier to provide inspectors to inspect the birth certificates of children than it is to provide trained teachers in a short time.
The tragedy of all this is that it is so unnecessary. One learns very little from statistics. You can quote them one way or the other, but statistics are in this particular inquiry very useful. You are able to calculate the number of children who have been born and the probable number who will be in school 10 or 12 years afterwards. We are able to prophesy the number of children who will be in school from 1932 to 1936, and what we say is that if the right hon. Gentleman will wait until 1936, without dislocating our present system of education and without interfering with any development of higher education, we shall be able to raise the school-leaving age for every child up to the age of 15. In 1936, we should be able to this—
The Committee have already decided that point, and we are now dealing with the date of the commencement of the operation of the Bill.
I suggest that if I am not to discuss for a moment the proposals which the right hon. Gentleman has already refused, it will appear how very unreasonable this Clause will be if it is passed unamended. The President of the Board of Education has refused to allow himself a discretion which I should have thought would have helped him in his national endeavour. He has refused a discretion which would enable him to bring this scheme into practice only if he is satisfied that there is a sufficient number of teachers and sufficient accommodation. These children are going to have the inestimable benefit of another year of school life, and they are going to be taught without teachers, if this Clause stands without amendment. In that case, they must be taught in the open air, because there will be no classrooms
And a very good place to teach them, too.
The hon. Member who sits in his comfortable seat in this Chamber in the month of December is a typical person to bring forward that argument. He is probably more comfortable than the pupils who sat under his guidance in classrooms. I condemn this Clause because it, is, utterly, unnecessary. If the right hon. Gentleman will only wait he will have everything he requires, and all parties will be agreed at the proper time to bring this necessary advance into the lives of the children of this country.
I desire to endorse all that has been said by the hon. Member for Holderness (Mr. Savery) and to oppose this Clause on what I conceive to be wider and higher grounds of policy. I have heard no argument proving that there is an overwhelming desire on the part of the parents of this country that their children shall be compulsorily sent to school from the age of 14 to the age of 15.
That question does not arise now. We are dealing with the date of commencement.
I am speaking of the date of commencement, and on that question of date I think it should be deferred until such time as the parents show that they are prepared to allow their children to be compulsorily dragooned into school up to the age of 15. I enter a word of protest, because in nearly all the Bills brought forward in this House very little is said about the pressure of public opinion; they are most of them an endeavour to impose the will of this House on the people of the country.
I do not think that the Committee wants to discuss this Clause very much longer. Most of the arguments have been repeated, although I was much interested in hearing again the hon. Member for Holderness (Mr. Savery), who is always interesting and attractive, and, as far as anyone can be, eloquent on this subject. But he did not say very much that was new. He applied various epithets to me, and said that I was guilty of an imposture. The difference between us is not nearly so great. It is only a difference of date. We have taken the date of 1932, and we have a sufficient amount of respectable authority for it. We have the Association of Education Committees who after all, are the public authorities who are supposed to know most about it. Representative authorities, like the County Councils' Association take the date 1933, and, as far as I understand, the party to which the hon. Member belongs takes the date 1936. All parties are bound to a certain extent to effect this change. The Opposition are prophesying with anxiety urging them; we are prophesying with hope urging us. That is the main difference. I am afraid that I must maintain my position. The educational and scholarly objections of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks) do not amount to very much. He asked whether I was going to draw from a great pool the 4,000 untrained teachers, and whether I would bind myself on a matter of health to bring in 4,000 more untrained doctors— to bring in medical quacks. No, and I would not bring in educational quacks either. But I am informed by those who know, by people who can give me information, that there is an available pool of 4,000 teachers—and by that I mean a pool of 4,000 teachers who are being constantly drawn upon—which could be drawn upon in what I persist in calling an emergency. That is what I mean when I refer to 4,000 available teachers.
May I ask if these 4,000 teachers are the 5,000 teachers the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in the summer?
I did not discuss the question of the normal increase. I discussed only the increase resulting from this Bill. I did not care to interrupt the Noble Lady when she was speaking, but that is the reply to her point. I left out the normal increase.
Then are we to take it that the 4,000 teachers whom the right hon. Gentleman thinks he can find in the country unemployed, represent the source from which he hopes to fill the 5,000 additional teachers' places which it will be necessary to fill with the normal expansion?
No, the normal expansion will be met from the training colleges as it was met in the three years when the Noble Lord was in office. The normal expansion then was met by the normal addition to the number of teachers from the training colleges and that, I assume, is going to continue.
But does not the right hon. Gentleman know that while the numbers trained in the training colleges during the years previous to that period were more or less steady, some additional 5,000 were absorbed into the profession between 1925 and 1929 owing to the large reduction, in the number of classes of over 50? The right hon. Gentleman has expressed the view that 5,000 more would be found unemployed in the country to meet the further increase.
The two things are quite separate. There are the teachers coming from the training colleges to meet the normal increase and then there is the abnormal increase? resulting from the raising of the school age which is met in the various ways that I have described to the Committee. That is as far as I am able to see, if the figures given to me by my inspectors are correct and I have no reason to suppose that they are not correct. I am confident that the teachers can be found and I ask the Committee to pass the Clause.
I am sorry to press this matter but I wish to be quite clear about it. I understood from the right hon. Gentleman's speech on the Second Reading in May that the 5,000 additional teachers needed for the normal expansion for three years hence would be met from unemployed teachers whom he believed to be at large in the country. He now tells us that the normal expansion is to be met by the additional teachers trained in the training colleges. Are we to understand that for the additional teachers required for the raising of the school age he is relying entirely or mainly on married women and others?
I am relying on the increased number of teachers in the training colleges—those who have come in since the Noble Lord was President of the Board of Education. The normal increase is being met in the normal way as it was met during the Noble Lord's period of office.
The right hon. Gentleman says that his followers have the prophecies of hope and that we have the prophecies of anxiety. I should prefer to say that the right hon. Gentleman has the prophecies of faith and that we are attempting to make the prophecies of argument. It is not an answer to say "My advisers assure me that such and such is the case," especially when the right hon. Gentleman tells us that his advisers assure him of two diametrically opposite things. I have frequently been reminded during these debates of "The Hunting of the Snark" and, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say so, he especially reminds me of those touching lines about the Beaver:
"Two added to one, if that can be done
With one's fingers and thumbs
Recollecting with tears, how in earlier years
He had taken no pains with his sums."
I think the right hon. Gentleman has arrived at considerable confusion with his sums, and he has not answered my Noble Friend. It is no good saying that there is some mysterious virtue which year by year enables the training colleges to supply the normal increase in the number of teachers re- quired, although there is no increase in the output of the aforesaid training colleges. That is nonsense. Either there is an increase in the output of the training colleges and therefore they can produce an additional supply of teachers, or else there is no additional output from the training colleges and they cannot supply the teachers. But the right hon. Gentleman, having, apparently, assumed that there is a power in the training colleges to produce more teachers simply by existing, then says in one breath, "I am going to use the additional output of the training colleges to meet the normal increase," and in another breath he says—
I am very sorry to interrupt, but what I said was that the normal output of the training colleges, before the increase which I. encouraged in the last year and a half, was sufficient to meet the normal increase in the profession. That is to say, the normal increase of 5,000 in the three years. That occurred during the Noble Lord' period of office. There was a normal increase in the profession of 5,000 and the training colleges were providing for that normal increase. That normal increase will continue. I have provided for another increase of 4,000 in the next three years by the increase of the number in the training colleges.
The right hon. Gentleman keeps on saying that the training colleges provided for the normal increase. They did not provide for the normal increase by just existing. If they did provide for it, they provided for it by turning out additional teachers every year. If they did not do that, then they could not have provided for the increase in the teaching profession.
They were turning out more than the wastage.
If the right hon. Gentleman is correct that, in any given year, a larger number of pupils were turned out by the training colleges than the number of teachers who retired at the age of 65, that is not part of the order of nature. At any moment you may get a considerable increase in the number of teachers required, and it was part of the actuarial calculations in connection with teachers' pensions that there was going to be a considerable increase in the number of teachers required in the next few years. The right hon. Gentleman is really mixing two things. The normal increase of the teaching profession in the past few years has been due, partly to the slightly greater output from the training colleges as compared with the wastage of the profession through retirement and marriages and so on, but the normal increase has been mainly provided by that floating mass of teachers to whom the right hon. Gentleman refers. Then, he says, that having accounted for the normal increase, he is going to account also for the abnormal increase by further drawing on this supposed reservoir or pool of teachers.
The right hon. Gentleman is trying to make the best out of a very bad situation. He knows as we all know that there is only one source on which you can rely for the increased number of teachers required to teach the older children kept in school between the ages of 14 and 15, and that source is the increasing output from the training colleges. Going out into the highways and hedges and compelling married women and teachers over 60 or 65 to come in, or compelling teachers to teach boys of 14 when for most of their lives they have been teaching boys or girls of eight, nine or 10 years—this is not really any good. It has been proved, and the right hon. Gentleman has made no reply to it, that as against the number, which he himself has put at something like 4,000 by 1933, he is only going to have an additional output from the training colleges of 1,800. He has less than half the teachers required in sight, and the other half he is hoping and believing, by the eye of faith, that he will get somehow. That is the kind of thing which we consider to be unworthy of any Government which is imposing compulsion upon parents and children.
When it comes to a question of pro-precies, let me warn hon. Members opposite who think that all our prophecies are simply due to ill-will. Let them be very careful as to the fulfilment of some of our prophecies. From the very beginning of the discussions on this question I have said that I was gravely alarmed lest local education authorities, owing to the right hon. Gentleman's in- sistence upon raising the school-leaving age, would have to stop a good many of the activities in which they have been engaged for the last few years and especially the reduction in the size of the classes. What do we find? During the last year 1929–1930 the number of classes of over 50 has only been reduced by 865 as compared with a reduction of 5,800 in the previous year. There had been a quite steady reduction from 1924 onwards, a reduction for which the right hon. Gentleman was as much responsible as I was, but only in one year was that steady reduction checked and that was in the year 1926–1927.
7.0 p.m.
How far that check was due to tem-parary increases in the town population or to the issue of certain circulars or to the coal stoppage or to other causes is a question upon which we might differ, but that was the only fear in which that progress was arrested. Otherwise it was steady and in the five years 1924 to 1929, as my Noble Friend has said, the number of these classes was reduced from nearly 25,000 to 10,800. This year there is only a drop of 865. I submit that that indicates that what we have prophesied is true, and that the local authorities are being turned away from the drudgery of getting good education for the children in the schools and are being forced on to these vague and ambitious schemes. As has been prophesied, this has re suited in arresting the progress of education instead of hastening that progress, and it is for that reason that we oppose this date for the coming into force of the Bill. We oppose this date for the entry into force of the Bill. We do not wish to keep the Committee any longer, but will be glad to record our opinion in the Lobby.
There is one matter I would like cleared up. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee how he arrives at the figure of 4,000 additional teachers whom he hopes to have trained by 1933? He mentioned it in the Second Reading speech, and gave figures of the teachers who had come out of the training colleges, he repeated it this afternoon, but so far he has not explained how he arrived at it.
The Minister has not faced the real fact of this situation. The Hadow Report recommended that the whole education system should be divided into primary and post-primary, which means secondary. The problem which the right hon. Gentleman has to solve is to provide teachers—and the teacher is the pivot of the whole position—for post-primary education, in other words, for secondary education. It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), who has been President of the National Union of Teachers, trying to gloss over the difficulty, and the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who did the same by saying that you could promote men teachers, who are now engaged in teaching the young children, to teach these boys of 11 plus. Why, they have been accustomed to give elementary instruction and they would not be fit—
My hon. Friend really knows better than that. In these days, it is very rarely indeed that a teacher's experience is confined to only one year of school life. They teach various classes in the school, either at various periods of the day or at various times in their professional career.
Even so, if the hon. Gentleman's recommendation were carried out, and the men teachers so promoted were capable of taking the secondary classes, there would not be nearly enough of them. The Secretary of the Education Committee of the Sheffield Chamber of Commerce writes: he says will be available. Anyone, who understands education and the teaching of boys will acknowledge that boys of 11 plus ought to be taught by men. An intelligent girl said to me the other day, "It is no use men trying to teach girls. They are too soft with them. They do not understand them. It is all right for women to teach them, as women treat them as they are." Change that about, and it is perfectly true of boys.
There is another thing to be considered. One of the best things that masters who teach the boys of 11 plus can do, is to enter into their life outside, train them in their games and help to mould their character. These are the points the right hon. Gentleman has missed, and that is why I say the Bill in its present form, until he can provide the necessary teachers, is a sham. It was very interesting to see the hon. Member for Aberavon and the hon. Member for South Shields sitting there listening to the right hon. Gentleman talking about the reserve upon which he was going to draw. What is that reserve? Uncertificated and supplementary teachers. When the hon. Member for Aberavon was President of the National Union of Teachers would he have advocated bringing thousands of this reserve into the schools?
Certainly not.
The hon. Member says he would certainly not have done so.
Neither does the right hon. Gentleman.
That attitude is quite inconsistent, because what he is now advocating is sterilising and making the educational system impotent for a number of years.
As a matter of fact, I have asked the right hon. Gentleman to cut off the uncertificated and supplementary teachers in view of the danger, not of an under supply, but of an over supply.
I would remind the hon. Gentleman that we are not now dis cussing Clause 1.
I am trying hard to give a reason why this date is insufficient. It is because I know that it is no good bringing this Bill into operation on the 1st September, 1932, unless you have the proper teachers, and I hold you cannot get them by that time. What about the rural schools? How much attention has the right hon. Gentleman given to the report of the Departmental Committee pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb)? How many of the recommendations in that report are to be put into operation? The object of that report was to provide the right type of teachers for rural schools, but they will not have them in those schools. In my county, they are building a senior school at Didcot, and the vice-chairman of the education committee said to me: "Do not hurry us. Let us move slowly but surely. We have been discussing the matter with the chief employers of labour in the Didcot district, the Great Western Railway and the Royal Air Force, and we want to get the teachers who will be of value in teaching, the boys for employment by those two great employers of labour." That should be done all through the country. When we have the teachers that can do that kind of thing, the raising of the school age will be possible. Anyone who has any experience of teaching will support me that it is no good keeping children in school unless you give them the right curricula and right training.
Order, order!
I apologise, and I will only add that I am altogether opposed to fixing a date at the period which is advocated by the right hon. Gentleman, because I believe that, in doing so, he is not doing a benefit to education but an injury.
It seems to me that the discussion, as conducted by the Noble Lord and the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville), is really a dissertation on the old controversy as to which came first, the chicken or the egg. In this particular matter, I believe you will not get the teachers until the date is fixed and until the law is passed. I speak as one who has been a teacher and who was recruited from a teaching family into the teaching profession by the movements that took place just about the time when I reached the age that I could be apprenticed. The families of this country, who have pro- vided teachers, have been had too many times in the past by prophecies that extensions were going to take place to allow their children to enter the profession until the Measure is on the Statute Book and they are assured that employment will be found for them. That is why I support the earliest possible date, and that is why I was disappointed when we changed it from the 1st April, 1931, to 1st September, 1932. There is everything in history to assure us that, once the demand has been created, the supply will be forthcoming. The Noble Lord said that we were acting, not by hope, but by faith. I would remind him that Lowell said:
"Faith is but hope grown wise."
History and the past in this particular matter convince us that our hope will be justified if we can get the date fixed and the Measure brought into operation.
I want to thank the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) for supporting me so forcibly. It is precisely the argument I was putting to, the right hon. Gentleman, that, if we want to get additional teachers, we must increase the output of the training colleges and that there is no reason to expect that you will get 4,000 or 5,000 teachers out of the air or out of some reservoir. The right hon. Gentleman is not getting as much as half the teachers he will need two years hence.
This is a way to get them from air to earth.
Not two years hence.
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee how he arrived at that figure?
It is perfectly simple; there is no difficulty about it. The increased output from the colleges in 1931 will be about 1,250 and the increased output in 1932 will be 950. The fall is due to a certain amount of hesitation in going into the colleges owing to the fact that there was a delay in passing the Bill. We reckon that as soon as the Bill is passed this autumn the colleges will be ready to take more, that those who are looking to go into the profession will be more anxious to go into it, and that there will be a larger entry. It is quite true I did not give the Noble Lady figures, because she asked for a statement as to how they were going in, but the estimate that we make is that there is likely to be an increase of something like 1,800. If we are correct, that will give us the 4,000 teachers.
Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 274; Noes, 144.
Division No. 63.] AYES. [7.14 p.m. Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Glassey, A. E. MacNeill-Weir, L. Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Gossling, A. G. Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Gould, F. Mander, Geoffrey le M. Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgle M. Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Mansfield, W. Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) March, S. Alpass, J. H. Granville, E. Marcus, M. Ammon, Charles George Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) Markham, S. F. Angell, Norman Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Marley, J. Arnott, John Griffith, F. Klngsley (Mlddlesbro' W.) Marshall, Fred Aske, Sir Robert Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Mathers, George Attlee, Clement Richard Groves, Thomas E. Matters, L. W. Ayles, Walter Grundy, Thomas W. Maxton, James Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Messer, Fred Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Middleton, G. Barnes, Alfred John Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Milner, Major J. Barr, James. Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) Montague, Frederick Batey, Joseph Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) Morgan, Dr. H. B. Bellamy, Albert Harbord, A. Morley, Ralph Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central) Hardie, George D. Morris, Rhys Hopkins Bennett, William (Battersea, South) Harris, Percy A. Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Benson, G. Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) Bentham, Dr. Ethel Hastings, Dr. Somervllle Mort, D. L. Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Haycock, A. W. Moses, J. J. H. Birkett, W. Norman Hayday, Arthur Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret Hayes, John Henry Muff, G. Bowen, J. W. Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) Muggeridge, H. T. Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) Naylor, T. E. Brockway, A. Fenner Herriotts, j. Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Bromfield, William Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) Noel Baker, P. J. Bromley, J. Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.) Brothers, M. Hoffman, P. C. Oldfield, J. R. Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield) Hollins, A. Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) Brown, Ernest (Leith) Hopkin, Daniel Owen, H. F. (Hereford) Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) Horrabin, J. F. Palin, John Henry Buchanan, G. Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) Paling, Wilfrid Burgess, F. G. Isaacs, George Palmer, E. T. Burgin, Dr. E. L. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Perry, S. F. Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland) Johnston, Thomas Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Cameron, A. G. Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Phillips, Dr. Marion Cape, Thomas Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne) Picton-Turbervill, Edith Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.) Jones, Morgan (Caerphllly) Pole, Major D. G. Charleton, H. C. Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. Potts, John S. Chater, Daniel Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston) Price, M. P. Church, Major A. G. Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) Pybus, Percy John Clarke, J. S. Kelly, W. T. Quibell, D. J. K. Cluse, W. S. Kennedy, Thomas Ramsay, T. B. Wilson Cocks, Frederick Seymour Kirkwood, D. Rathbone, Eleanor Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) Knight, Holford Raynes, W. R. Cove, William G. Lang, Gordon Richards, R. Cowan, D. M. Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring Daggar, George Lathan, G. Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) Dallas, George Law, Albert (Bolton) Ritson, J. Dalton, Hugh Law, A. (Rossendale) Romeril, H. G. Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lawrence, Susan Rosbotham, D. S. T. Day, Harry Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybrldge) Rothschild, J. de Denman, Hon. R. D. Lawson, John James Rowson, Guy Dudgeon, Major C. R. Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen Dukes, C. Leach, W. Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West) Duncan, Charles Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.) Sanders, W. S. Ede, James Chuter Lees, J. Sandham, E. Edmunds, J. E. Lewis, T. (Southampton) Sawyer, G. F. Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Lloyd, C. Ellis Scott, James Edwards, E. (Morpeth) Logan, David Gilbert Scrymgeour, E. Egan, W. H. Longbottom, A. W. Scurr, John Elmley, Viscount Longden, F. Sexton, James Foot, Isaac Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. Forgan, Dr. Robert Lowth, Thomas Shepherd, Arthur Lewis Freeman, Peter Lunn, William Sherwood, G. H. Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Shield, George William Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) Shiels, Dr. Drummond George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) McElwee, A. Shillaker, J. F. George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) McEntee, V. L. Shinwell, E. Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) McKinlay, A. Simmons, C. J. Gill, T. H. MacLaren, Andrew Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness) Gillett, George M. Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Sinklnson, George Sitch, Charles H. Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.) Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhlthe) Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) Westwood, Joseph Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) Thurtle, Ernest White, H. G. Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley) Tillett, Ben Whlteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) Smith, Rennie (Penistone) Tinker, John Joseph Williams, David (Swansea, East) Smith, Tom (Pontefract) Tout, W. J. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) Snell, Harry Townend, A. E. Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Wilson, J. (Oldham) Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) Vaughan, D. J. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) Sorensen, R. Viant, S. p. Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh) Stamford, Thomas W. Walker, J. Wise, E. F. Stephen, Campbell Wallace, H. W. Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) Wellhead, Richard C. Young, R. S. (Islington, North) Strachey, E. J. St. Loe Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor Strauss, G. R. Watkins, F. C. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Sullivan, J. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. William Whiteley. Sutton, J. E. Wellock, Wilfred Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) welsh, James (Paisley) NOES. Albery, Irving James Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert Oman, Sir Charles William C. Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) Dugdale, Capt. T. L. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Eden, Captain Anthony Peake, Captain Osbert Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Edmondson, Major A. J. Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Atholl, Duchess of Elliot, Major Walter E. Peters, Dr. Sidney John Atkinson, C. Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) Pilditch, Sir Philip Balfour, George (Hampstead) Everard, W. Lindsay Ramsbotham, H. Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) Falle, Sir Bertram G. Reid, David D. (County Down) Balniel, Lord Fermoy, Lord Remer, John R. Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Fielden, E. B. Reynolds, Col. Sir James Beaumont M. W. Galbralth, J. F. W. Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y Bevan, S. J. (Holborn) Grace, John Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell Bird, Ernest Roy Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Ross, Major Ronald D. Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Salmon, Major I. Boyce, H. L. Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Bracken, B. Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Brass, Captain Sir William Hanbury, C. Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart Briscoe, Richard George Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Hartington, Marquess of Savery, S. S. Brown, Brig. -Gen.H.C. (Berks, Newb'y) Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome Bullock, Captain Malcolm Heneage, Lieut. -Colonel Arthur P. Simms, Major-General J. Butler, R. A. Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Smith, Louis W (Sheffield, Hallam) Butt, Sir Alfred Herbert. Sir Dennis (Hertford) Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Smith-Carington, Neville W. Campbell, E. T. Hurst, Sir Gerald B. Smithers, Waldron Carver, Major W. H. Kindersley, Major G. M. Somerset, Thomas Castle Stewart, Earl of Kinley, J. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Knox, Sir Alfred Southby, Commander A. R. J. Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.) Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) Spender-Clay, Colonel H. Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Leighton, Major B. E. P. Stanley, Lord (Fylde) Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton Lewis, Oswald (Colchester) Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.) Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey Tinne, J. A. Christie, J. A. McConnell, Sir Joseph Titchfield, Major the Marquess of Clydesdale, Marquess of Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Tryon, Rt- Hon. George Clement Cobb, Sir Cyril Makins, Brigadler-General E. Turton, Robert Hugh Cockerill, Brig. -General Sir George Margesson, Captain H. D. Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey) Colfox, Major William Philip Marjoribanks, Edward Ward, Lieut. -Col. Sir A. Lambert Colville, Major D. J. Mason, Colonel Glyn K. Waterhouse, Captain Charles Courtauld, Major J. S. Meller, R. J. Wayland, Sir William A. Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. Mitchell-Thomson. Rt. Hon. Sir W. Wells, Sydney R. Cranborne, Viscount Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) Crichton-stuart, Lord C. Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond) Withers, Sir John James Croom-Johnson, R. P. Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Mulrhead, A. J. Womersley, W. J. Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G.(Ptrsf'ld) Sir George Penny and Sir Victor Warrender. Dawson, Sir Philip Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
There are two proposed new Clauses standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Beaumont) and other hon. Members—[ Exemption for children when employed ] and [ Provisions of part-time courses for children between ages of 14 and 15]. The second one seems to be a variation of part of the first. We had better discuss them together.
NEW CLAUSE—(Exemption for children when employed.)
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in the principal Act, it shall be lawful for the local education authority to grant exemption from the obligation to attend school to an individual child over the age of fourteen years whose parent applies for such exemption, and shows to the satisfaction of the authority that he has received an actual offer of good employment at reasonable wages.
(2) An exemption so granted shall be valid only during the continuance of the employment specified in the application and for this purpose a certificate of exemption shall be issued by the local education authority to the child's employer who shall return it to the authority on the termination of the child's employment.
(3) An exemption under this section may be granted subject to the condition that the child shall attend a course of part-time education prescribed in the certificate and that in that case the provisions of Subsection (2) of Section seventy-six and Section seventy-eight of the principal Act shall apply to the course of education so prescribed.[ Lord E. Percy. ]
Brought up, and read the First time.
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time.
I agree that it will be for the convenience of the Committee that these two new Clauses should be discussed together, although they are slightly different. This new Clause deals with a question that has practically not been raised in our debates hitherto, the question of exemption for employment. We shall come later to new Clauses raising the general question of giving the local authorities a discretion to exempt children from the obligation to attend school, but here we are dealing with a proposal that children should be exempted from attendance at school within the discretion of the local education authority if they show to the satisfaction of that authority that they have received an actual offer of good employment at reasonable wages. The proposal is that in such cases local education authorities should be empowered to provide part-time courses for the children so exempted in lieu of the full-time course from which they have been exempted. I want the Committee to consider this new Clause, not so much from the point of view of exemptions in general, as from the point of view of something that goes very near to the root of the whole question of educational policy.
I want the Committee to consider the desirability of providing alternative courses of education for children from the age of 14, recognising that there are certain children, whether because of their attainments or because of the work which they will do in future life and the careers for which they are destined, whose needs will be better met by a course of part-time education than by a course of whole-time education. This for the first time brings up in a concrete form the proposal that a local education authority should not, as at present, have merely the power to raise the school leaving age, or the power to bring the continuation school Clauses of the Act of 1919 into operation—two distinct powers to be exercised separately—but that local authorities should be given the power to bring these two alternatives into account as two related parts of a coherent scheme of education. I am certain that you can never get a coherent scheme of education on the basis either of exclusive whole-time education between 14 or 15, or of exclusive part-time education. We need both of them, especially at the present time when we all agree that the full-time schools will not be wholly ready—certainly not ready with the curriculum—to receive the older children, whereas the continuation schools give the children a definite education, not by any means wholly technical, but largely academic. Continuation classes of that kind would provide an alternative which for many children would be very much better than the whole-time school. The second new Clause proposes that local education authorities, if they think fit, may provide part-time courses of education instead of whole-time courses and that, if they do so, the obligation of parents shall be only to send their children to the part-time classes. This is a point on which I feel strongly.
The trouble about the raising of the school-leaving age is that it does not give an added prospect of advancement to any single child. Broadly speaking, there are two educational high roads, one leading through the secondary school up to the university, and the other leading from the elementary schools through part-time technical education. By lengthening the elementary schooling for one year, you are not bettering the prospects of a child or increasing its prospects of being able to get education in a secondary school. You may be able to transfer the child from the central school to the secondary school at 13, but you will never be able to transfer that child at 15. You are merely stranding the child at 15 with no better prospects than it has at present. If you take the alternative possibility of putting him compulsorily into a continuation class for eight or more hours a week, you will be able to give him a distinctly better prospect than he has at the present moment. If you compare a child in the Rugby continuation school with a child in the continuation classes, say, of London, or indeed, with a child in the upper standards of many elementary schools, you will admit that that child is getting more education, not merely more education useful to him for the purpose of industry, but more training of the mind and more culture. He is attending a regular course of education which he knows he will have to attend for at least two years. If you are to impose additional compulsion on parents and children, it is essential that you should take the opportunity of giving flexibility to your compulsory system. The opportunity should be given to the local education authority to impose compulsion, either for part-time or for whole-time education.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will approach these new Clauses as I approach them, as a contribution to the coherence, the flexibility, and the capacity of our educational system to meet the varying needs of different children. I am sure that he agrees that, except on purely administrative grounds, there is nothing to be said for a simple, uniform system of compulsion. Variety and flexibility are very much to be desired. In addition, you have in these new Clauses an opportunity of resurrecting the Sections of the 1918 Act which have so long been in abeyance.
The latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was not really directed to the most vital part of the new Clause. This I will discuss presently. The proposal in the Clause with which I must deal first, is the one to grant exemptions for employment. Let me deal with exemptions first of all in their relation to the children who get the exemption. Exemptions are quite incompatible with the principle objects of the Bill. We want to get an equal chance for children up to 15 years of age, whatever their economic position. Exemptions in the main are for poorer children Where there is the impulse to drive them into the labour market. We have met that economic stress to some extent by maintenance grants. Hon. Gentlemen opposite oppose maintenance grants; they would rather have exemptions. One of the main reasons why we want maintenance grants is that we believe that our children ought to have equal opportunity with those who are better-to-do. If we decide upon maintenance grants, there is no sense in having exemptions as well. Therefore, we propose simply to raise the school age, and not to have exemptions, any more than we do now.
It is worth while mentioning the educational objection to exemptions. They mean children passing out of the schools at different times in the term whenever they get exemption. You cannot effectively organise education in a class or teach, when the children are constantly going off, and you do not know how many children are going to be in a class from one week to another. If exemptions are granted freely, the school is liable to be a sort of employment agency for the children.
I never contemplated, and I did not think anyone would ever contemplate, that, after exemption had been granted, a child on leaving employment would go back into the elementary school.
There have been proposals of that kind from the right hon. Gentleman's friends, for an in-and-out business. His proposal only happens to be an out and not an in business. I say it is very bad educationally for the school to have the children going out whenever they happen to get employment. It is very distracting to the teacher and to the school arrangements.
The right hon. Gentleman's point about continuation classes would apply to so few children that perhaps it is hardly worth discussing. It is all very well talking about the success of Rugby. Nobody denies it, but one Rugby does not make an England. The remarkable thing is that continuation classes have not been more widely adopted and how little the Rugby example has been followed. It may be a good one. I am not now arguing on its merits, but I am taking our country as we find it. We have not done what is being done very largely in Germany and America, on the encouragement of industrialists.
Did the local authorities raise the school-leaving age there?
The system we have is a whole-time system. We have the schools and the machinery, and the system is working. The Noble Lord himself has been making my task enormously easier by the amount of preparation which he was making for an increase in the whole-time system. If we were to start what the Noble Lord would like to see, a widespread system of compulsory continuation schools, we should have to create brand new machinery, which would be very costly, and get fresh teachers, educationally an exceedingly difficult thing to do, whereas we have the other system in existence.
It is no use asking the local authorities to do a thing which they have shown themselves unwilling to do. We have to follow the lines of our national progress, which is full-time instruction. Even if the Noble Lord could easily get the machinery for continuation schools, I entirely differ from his opinion that part-time instruction is better than whole-time. He said that it would better the prospects of the child. Why should you be bettering the prospects of the child by giving it part-time in industry and the other part in the schools? That is always less efficient, because the child's mind is concentrated on the industry instead of on the learning.
I will turn to the thing which must be at the bottom of our minds. Why should not all children have full-time education up to the age of 15? Is that so high? Why should you try to cut it in half? Why find these excuses? Why not do the straightforward thing, and give our children the chance which all your children have had?
What exactly has the right hon. Gentleman in mind as the benefit that he anticipates children will get by this extra year in school? Does the right hon. Gentleman expect that that benefit will be limited to the acquisition of a knowledge of facts, as, for example, dates in history, facts about mathematics, place names in geography, and so forth; or does he think there will be increased training of the mind to enable these children to make a better use of such knowledge as they may after- wards acquire and to increase their desire for knowledge? That is an important distinction. May I give one illustration? If we take an historical fact, such as the Battle of Waterloo, it is possible to acquire—
This is a new Clause dealing with the exemption of children when employed, and the hon. Member cannot go into historical facts.
I was trying to make a distinction between the knowledge they would gain at school in the last year and the knowledge they would gain if they were employed. However, I will not press the illustration if you feel I am trespassing beyond the bounds of order. I think I have made clear the distinction between the two kinds of knowledge indicated. If the desire is to give an opportunity of acquiring facts, I agree that the Amendment should be opposed, because obviously the extra year at school will give increased opportunities for acquiring facts; but if the extra year is to be used to give increased training to the mind, then I am not so sure that the right hon. Gentleman's case is so strong, because we must all realise that there are children who might get a more valuable training by going out into the world at 14 than they would get by remaining at school. Some hon. Members opposite may be inclined to controvert that statement. Who is likely to be the best judge between us? I suggest the parents of the child and schoolmaster who has been teaching the child. This Clause says: similar provision to that suggested in this Clause exists. In America and in every country in Europe which has raised the school age it will be found that provision is made for exemption where suitable employment can be found for the child and it is thought better for the child to accept that employment rather than to remain at school.
In conclusion, I would point out that this Amendment provides a certain elasticity which is surely desirable, and which, as the Noble Lord pointed out, can only meet with objection from a purely administrative point of view. I think the President of the Board of Education laid unnecessarily heavy stress on the difficulty of children going out of a class at different times. It is not suggested that they should go out and come in again; only that if a suitable opportunity occurs they should be given the chance to leave school. The whole matter would be under the administration of the local education authority, who could surely be trusted to see that the classes were not disorganised by the operation of this Clause. To sum up, it would seem that those who resist this Amendment are of opinion that we, sitting in this Committee to-day, are better judges as to how a particular child's time should be employed between the ages of 14 and 15 than are the parents of the child and the man who has been teaching it in school.
I rise to support this proposed new Clause, because I consider that it includes something which is at once scientific and constructive. The idealism and the constructive proposals are coming from these benches, and the obstruction from the benches opposite. In listening to these debates, I have been astounded at the lack of scientific thought applied to the subject of education. We all ought to have our ideals about education, but it is surely right that those ideals should be given the best possible frame and the best possible scientific attention. On the question of the date, we think the contentions advanced from this side of the Committee are very much sounder than those advanced by the right ton. Gentleman; and this question of exemptions gives us an opportunity of introducing something based on scientific grounds. Coining as I do from an agri- cuultural district I have seen frequent instances of where a Clause like this would be extremely valuable. I know of a family living very near my house in which there are 10 children. It is an agricultural worker's family. Not one of the children, as it happens, has attained the age at which they could make money and bring something into the homes. Under the present law, it is impossible to obtain exemptions, and when, under this new legislation which we are, unhappily, about to enact, the age has been raised to 15, the conditions of such a family will be even more impossible, with agricultural wages at their present level.
If it were possible to accede to the request of parents that the eldest child should be allowed some exemption, very often it would make a great deal of difference to the family budget, and, in fact, I believe save families from what is very near the starvation level. When that is coupled with the fact that we introduce the principle of extension classes or part time education we believe that we provide one of the finest methods of education for the child of the agricultural worker, and we radically disagree with the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman when he sees something derogatory in the idea of mixing-in the life in this world. By taking a job at say 10s. a week and having part time education as well, a boy would get the advantage of the education of the world and the education of the book, which is a very fine combination. We say that this principle of continuation schools and of part-time education should be the backbone of our future educational development. The boy gains a certain worldly wisdom on the job he is doing, and gets certain benefits from the education he receives from the school, and if the two are combined it produces a very harmonious result, which is peculiarly adapted to the agricultural districts at the present time. In view of the state of affairs in the agricultural districts, hon. Members ought to consider whether the present is the time to put through a Bill such as this, which lays down the same law for the town as for the countryside.
We believe that to accept this Amendment would make the Bill a better Bill and more scientific, because it would enable those who are going through difficult times in the arable districts of England to adapt the Bill to the circumstances of the moment in a scientific way. That is why I claim that in this proposal we attempt to be constructive and that it is the Government who are attempting to obstruct. Let me take the concluding remark of the right hon. Gentleman that "One Rugby does not make an England." He has taken every opportunity of jeering at the form of education which many of us on this side of the Committee have had and which we have found to be of inestimable advantage. We do not accept those jeers, which, incidentally, I would like to point out, are out of order, in that the right hon. Gentleman addressed himself to us personally; but I would like to point out that we rather resent his jeering attitude towards that education which in the past has had a certain value. There is a saying that the victories of England have been won on the playing fields of Eton [ Interruption .] If that has been partly true, to take the attitude of hon. Members opposite, could we not have as an ideal that the future victories of England in the economic sphere should be won upon the principles of the Rugby system, which the right hon. Gentleman has so roundly condemned? I believe that is a fine idea. By combining exemptions with part-time education we could create among the masses of this country a system of education which would enable them to win those economic victories which we wish to see.
8.0 p.m.
I felt considerable surprise at the unreasonable and unreasoning speech of the President of the Board of Education, though I am not surprised that after his sensational attempt at rhetoric he had to leave the House for dinner. It is a great regret to me that he is not here, in order that I might put to him one or two of the most amazing points in his speech. He has condemned the system of exemptions as something new. He, who in this Bill has submitted to the demands of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), is now attempting to deny that the county for which the right hon. Gentleman sits actually exists. He must know that a system of exemptions has been carried out in Carnarvonshire with some degree of success. Only a few weeks ago he supplied figures which showed that in Carnarvonshire 134 children left under the exemption clauses at 14½ years, 254 left at under the age of 15, and the remaining 536 left at the age of 15. That is an example of where the exemption system has worked well. That system of exemption has been in force not only in Carnarvonshire, but in Cornwall, in East Suffolk, at Plymouth and at Bath. I do not know the results of the system in Bath, but in those other instances, with varying degrees of numbers of exemptions granted, the local authority has used its discretion wisely and well. In Cornwall, there were only 250 exemptions out of over 3,000 children, but in Carnarvonshire the exemption system was so necessary that you had 60 per cent, of children exempted under the age of 14. Although you have that demonstration of the "beneficial effect of exemption, the right hon. Gentleman made the astounding remark that local authorities were unwilling to adopt the principle of exemption. It is because local authorities over wide areas are using the system to exempt certain children that we as a party are asking for this system, and I hope the Committee will give us some more reasonable refusal than that to which we have had the misfortune to listen this evening.
The right hon. Gentleman said the only argument under which we could ask for an exemption was that of economic pressure, and he said that there was no sense, where maintenance grants are given, in having exemption as well. On the face of it, that argument is the worst that anyone could possibly conceive. If it is a fact that we have maintenance grants, which hon. Members on this side do not like, surely, with those grants, there will be no danger of having exemption, because the drive of economic pressure is absent. If you have maintenance grants and exemptions as well, the child which secures exemption will not be one who asks it for economic reasons, but one who, from his nature and from his practical desires, is un-suited for further retention at school.
In agricultural districts we have numerous examples at the present time of children who remain at school to the age of 14 and longer but who never attain a standard of proficiency beyond standard IV. Those children in agricul- tural districts are no fools. They make very good farmers and are keen on agriculture, but they have no interest in books and have no wish to continue at school. If that child who, if dull at books but good at practical employment, wishes to start the life of learning agriculture—in itself the best instruction and education that anyone can have— wishes to leave school at 14; if its parent wishes it to leave school at 14; if the local authority of the district in its discretion thinks it is right for that child to be exempted, why does the right hon. Gentleman refuse such exemption? He must find an argument for it. Sensational attempts at rhetoric may impress his supporters, but they do not read well, and they do not give a reason for what he is doing.
In agricultural districts we as a community are not enamoured of this Bill. We know that the education which will be given will not be as efficient as the education the children will receive in the fields. The child who is not exempted will have in the country districts to be taught by a schoolmistress dealing with a class of between five and 15, without any system of advanced education. On the other hand, if the child gets exemption, it can receive in some cases part-time instruction, in other cases instruction on the land, learning what will be of great value to it for the remainder of its life. It is quite impossible to do away with exemption without destroying the desire and impulse towards agriculture in this country. The child of 14 is more keen on agriculture than the child of 15. If you destroy agriculture, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite has been trying to do, you will have a number of children coming into the labour market at the age of 15, going to the towns and aggravating the unemployment problem. If you give them exemption so that they can follow agricultural pursuits, you will be effecting what I understand the Prime Minister desires—getting rid of an inefficient agricultural industry, as he described it. Agriculture needs a long period of instruction and apprenticeship. If you give those exemptions, I think you will save these children for the industry of agriculture, which is more healthy than any industry which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. When you have no argument of economic pressure, I must submit that the right hon. Gentleman's argument falls decidedly flat.
The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken said he wanted better reasons against this Clause than he had heard from the Minister of Education. I think both he and the previous speaker has given us those reasons. Where you have a working-class family with limited means, you find that the desire is to get the children to work to earn money to add to the family income. The eldest one goes out at the age of 14 to work, the next one does the same, and everyone has to go to work and no one has a chance of further education. That is what it means to them. On the other hand, if it is a well-placed family there is no need why they should leave school. They can stay longer at school and get the benefit of education. Surely that is not an adequate reason why exemption should be granted. The party opposite put this proposal forward for the sole purpose of keeping the rural districts in a conservative mind. The rural districts are of conservative mind. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] They do not get a chance of thorough education. The arguments put forward from the other side bear that out.
Hon. Members opposite say: "Keep them in the fields, and they will get what is called a natural education, but not booklore." We do not agree. We say that the child in the agricultural area is as much entitled as other children to have the benefit of education, and that is the main purpose of this Bill. I have not had a college education. Many a time I listened with admiration to hon. Members opposite because they can put their case so well, and I am desirous that we shall have the same chance, that our children shall get the benefit of an extra year at school to give them some better opportunity in life. That is the reason for our resistance to this new Clause. This reason is not coming from the Minister of Education, whom you may sometimes look upon as a member of your own class who has turned away from you. It is coming from a person who wants some better chance for the children of the class to which he belongs. I have seen what happens in regard to exemption. The family in need, with a keen desire to get some more income, appeals to the local education authority to get their boy away from school, and it is difficult to resist that appeal when it is made on the score of need. If the answer which I have given does not supplement the answer of the Minister of Education, I am regretful that the other side cannot see the essence of our case.
Before I deal with the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down, may I say that there was running through the speech of the President of the Board of Education a certain sound, staunch conservatism which raises echoes on this side. He said, "Do not worry as to which system is the best. The system of whole-time education is the one we have, and let us build that up." I commend that example to hon. Members on the other side when they deal with the capitalist system and other things. There would be a great deal in it if the right hon. Gentleman had not entirely omitted the large number of continuation classes that exist already. There are few towns, I believe I am right in saying, of any size which have not very good continuation schools. If you wish to develop the existing system, if you admit that the continuation school system has its merits, why not build up from that stock, since the right hon. Gentleman wants some existing foundation on which to build?
The real point of the argument, however, is the point that was made by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) and the concluding part of the speech of the President of the Board of Education, namely: Why do you not give all the children of this country the same chance as your own children get? Our contention is that in this Bill you are not only not doing that, but you are not going in the right direction.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Leigh when he says that we want to give the children in the agricultural areas, and in urban areas as well, an increased educational chance. I have been trying to do my best in this direction in a small way. We do not think that another year in an elementary school is necessary in order to give a child an increased educational advantage. A great deal has been said by hon. Members opposite about the sort of schools to which we who sit on these benches went. I do not care about giving personal reminiscences, but I will give one. I was at school during the ages we are discussing of 14 and 15 at the closing stages of the War, and then we gave up a lot of our ordinary school time to work in the fields. I cannot speak about the benefit of it agriculturally, but educationally I learned a great deal more working there than I ever learned inside the school.
I know hon. Members opposite will say, "Oh, yes, and you look it," but in all seriousness I do put this to the Committee, that it is not only in classes that education is obtained, and it is not necessary for a child to be in the schoolroom to secure the best educational advantage. It is because we believe that there are children who by doing work get a better educational chance than they do in the classroom of their schools that we have put forward this new Clause. If hon. Members opposite resist it and go on pushing forward this rigid system of education for every child of the working classes to stop for a certain given time in a certain rigid type of school they are doing just as much harm as would be done by sending the children out into the agricultural world to acquire some of the natural education which has been spoken of in this debate; they are doing just as much damage in the one case as in the other. I appeal for a little more imagination, and a little less rigidity in these matters.
I have some knowledge of the working of an education authority, because it was my duty, when the committee was not sitting, to allocate exemptions, and a number of them came before me. I remember one particular case of a youngster, a Bermondsey boy—I think he was a little over 13J years of age. A request was made that he should be exempted because he wanted to become a jockey. He was very small in stature. He was top of his school in work, he was a great boxer, and a great athlete. I went down to the school myself, saw the boy and his parents and the headmaster, and I carried that request through the education committee to the county council, and the boy was exempted. I mentioned the case to the late President of the Board of Educa- tion, the present Viceroy of India, who said that what I had done was eminently common sense, because the boy was fitted for the job and possibly for no other. Incidentally, it was arranged that the boy should attend educational classes in the evening. After that, he went to a very well-known stable at Epsom. That is one case, and there are many other instances of children who have been discovered to be fitted for special work.
Other cases of parents who were anxious to have their own children working in their own businesses came before us. Often it occurs for some reason or other a vacancy arises, and naturally in the ordinary course of events, people like to carry on in their businesses with another boy from the same family, although the boy may not at that particular moment be of the right age. There is a large number of cases of that sort, and for these reasons I think it is wrong to make this Bill too rigid. A certain amount of latitude should be given to the local authorities—I do not mean to make a practice of it—to exempt a child when there is reasonable cause for doing so, more particularly because there is attached to this Clause a Sub-section under which those children are to be compelled to do some evening continuation work, or something of that sort. We all know that in many districts evening continuation schools are available, and they are, in some cases, even more useful than the elementary schools, because the children are taught the very subjects which they need in their work during the day.
I happen to be one of the class alluded to in a very sympathetic speech by an hon. Member opposite. I left school when I was 15, because I was a dunce. I went into business. I had to work for my living, and I started to do it. I do not say that I have reached any great elevation yet, but I hope to do so. I am sorry to raise these matters, Mr. Dunnico, but, to a certain extent, we were challenged, and I want it to be known that all those on this side of the House have not had the benefit of a public school education or a university education. Although it is probably a great advantage to have had such an education, there are many men who have got on in the world who have not had that education. It is not by stuffing children with knowledge which is going to be of no use to them that they will get on in the world. Much depends on the child, and the parents of the child, as to what advantage they are going to take of their education. I am saying this because we have been challenged upon it. I hope the President of the Board of Education will reconsider this Clause. We are all in favour of education for the children, and the more they can be educated the better for them if they are going to take advantage of it. On the other hand, it is no use having a Bill which is going to fill children up with education if they are not going to make use of it, and many a child is better off, as I was myself, by doing practical work.
I have often heard hon. Members opposite regretting the fact that they had to leave school at an early stage. At the same time, I often envied them their power of thought and expression; which proves that it is not necessary to remain a long time at school in order to be educated. The President of the Board of Education knows what education is, but to listen to his speeches on this Bill one would think that he did not know. Education is not merely instruction; education is training in character as well; and we on this side hold that, if you give a boy or girl a sound education up to the age of 14, and then let them go out into the world and get the training of life and the training of character, with the feeling that they are learning how to work, that they are being useful to their family and useful to industry, they are getting a much better education than those who are merely detained in school, being taught by the wrong kind of teacher, as I am afraid is going to happen under this Bill.
The Minister said that he was anxious to give an equal chance of education to all children. Under this Bill he is going to give them an equal chance of detention; and to detain pupils in school without giving them the right kind of teaching is risky for the child, and sometimes for the teacher. The Committee will, perhaps, forgive me if I mention an incident that happened to me. I had detained a pupil for imperfect work; we were alone in the room, and I was rash enough to say to him, "You see, the survival of the un-fittest." "Yes," he said, "you and I." I said to him, "You are too many for me; you can go." And so I say to the Minister, let these boys go. Unless you can give them the right training, the right education, it is better for them to be out in the world getting the training of life than to be kept in school. This is particularly true of the rural districts. I sometimes have the pleasure of giving away prizes at agricultural shows in my constituency, and what I find in the constituency, which is mostly agricultural, is that there is a shortage of young agricultural workers. That is true all over the country. If you are going to keep these boys in the schools, and just give them a book education, instead of directing their minds to rural matters, they are not going on the land, and I hold that the life on the land is one of the most skilled and the most useful in the country. We want the young people on the land.
I ask the President of the Board of Education, is he not inconsistent with the object of the other great Measure that is before the House at the present time, the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill? Is not one of the chief objects of that Bill to encourage the establishment and cultivation of smallholdings? I know of some smallholdings that are successful; and why are they successful? Because there is no wage bill. The man, his wife and the children work the farm, they are near their market, and they succeed in making a living. How are these people going to live if there are to be no exemptions under this Bill? The Minister at one moment brings forward the example of foreign countries which are our competitors, where the school age has been advanced, and then, at the next moment, he refuses to listen to my Noble Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl), who pointed out so well in "The Times" the exemptions that are granted by our competitors. The right hon. Gentleman is more royalist than The King, and by this Bill he will give an advantage to our competitors.
I was speaking of the giving of prizes at agricultural shows. There is nothing that gives me more pleasure than to see the young fellows getting prizes for ploughing and other farm work. You are giving the prizes from a cart, the people of the countryside are around you, the young fellow comes up, very proudly, for his prize, his people are proud of him, and the people all round him are encouraging him. That boy has gone on the land at 14; he has got the love of the land, and he has got the skill; and that is a 10 times better education than if he stayed in school merely using books.
There is another technical point that has been raised. It is said that these exemptions render the position of the teachers in the schools very difficult, that you have pupils going out of the class and making the class unworkable. That is not the case. I have practical experience of that matter. What happens is that the few that are left in the class get more intensive teaching, and in the rural areas the teachers will have more time to attend to the other pupils. It is by no means a disadvantage. I wish to impress upon the Committee the fact that the rejection of this proposed new Clause will not advance the cause of education, but will deprive the young people of this country of a chance of getting what I consider, and what those who know what education is consider, to be real education.
Perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words in reply to the discussion which has taken place. I have to confess that I made a mistake. I introduced this Clause as I have frequently discussed the same proposal with teachers, with trade unionists who are members of local education authorities, and with other people, members of the working classes and members of the professional classes, interested in education. [ Interruption .] I am a working man myself. [ Interruption .] I introduced this Clause in that spirit, as a proposal contrasting the relative merits of part-time and full-time education, which, as I have said, I have discussed with many members of the Labour party outside this House, and on which there is a great variety of views. My idea was that we should discuss it as a problem of education, but I was met by one of the usual rhetorical rhodomontades of the President of the Board of Education, containing no glimmering or conception of the educational meaning of the Clause.
We are getting a little tired, on this side of the Committee, of hearing the right hon. Gentleman say, "Why should not the children stay at school a year longer, as your children do?" The answer to that question is that, while the education which is going to be given to the children between 14 and 15 under this Bill may be better or worse than the education which the right hon. Gentleman and myself had at public schools, it is not going to be anything of the same kind at all. It bears no relation to the education that we give our children, and to lead the working man to believe that, owing to this Bill, he is going to get for his children an education of the same kind, and, therefore, to give them an equal opportunity with the son of the right hon. Gentleman opposite—to lead him to believe that, as the right hon. Gentleman has succeeded in leading the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) to believe—is a particularly mean kind of fraud, and every hon. Member opposite knows it.
The main trouble about the right hon. Gentleman's speech was that it was, if he will allow me to say so, a very ignorant one. He thinks that we have a system of whole-time education in this country and that, unlike other countries, we have not a system of part-time education, and that we have not built up our continuation schools. It is true there are only one or two instances where compulsion has been applied to continuation schools, and there are only one or two cases where compulsion has been applied to raising the school-leaving age. Is that an argument against raising the school-leaving age? Is the fact that compulsion has not been applied to continuation schools an argument against continuation schools? The trouble is that the right hon. Baronet does not know the continuation schools of the country. He has not been interested in them and has never been into them. He has been into a great many elementary and secondary schools because that is the side of education that appeals to him. They are more or less like the full-time schools that he knew in his youth and he is not interested in continuation schools.
He has never had the experience that every hon. Member opposite who takes an interest in education has had over and over again of going into continuation schools, and evening classes at that, and these are not evening classes but day classes. He has not had the experience of going into evening classes, and much more into such part-time day classes as you get in the London School of Printing, and comparing the children of 14 in those classes with the children of 14 in the top forms, and sometimes not in the top forms, of elementary schools and seeing that the boy in the continuation school has woken up intellectually and is doing as much work in eight, 10 or 12 hours a week as the boy in the elementary school is doing in a fortnight. The right hon. Baronet has never had that experience, but everyone who has tried to find out about education in the country knows it. It is that boy that I am thinking of here.
It is subtle humour to say that the right hon. Baronet is not interested in education.
I did not say that. I said he was not interested in part-time education. If the hon. Member has followed the right hon. Baronet's public remarks, as I have done, he will know that he has stated in public that he does not very much care about continuation schools. It is not subtle humour on my part, but strict historical accuracy. The agricultural child always comes up on these occasions. It is very true of the agricultural child but it is equally true of the urban child, and of many more urban than agricultural children.
How do you explain the demand for cheap labour?
Free Trade.
To talk about cheap labour is a sneer as cheap as the labour, and a good deal cheaper, because what has been the actual instance brought up? No one opposite has had the courage to get up and answer it. It has been the case of the smallholder.
Does the Noble Lord mean to say that the demand for cheap labour is doing away with education? Does he want cheap labour only from the agricultural point of view? I have heard of nothing else to-night.
If the hon. Member had listened, he would have heard something else about agriculture. May I remind him of the instance of the smallholder which was brought up, not for the first time, on this side of the House, and it was pointed out that the smallholder does not pay wages. He does not depend upon cheap hired labour.
Does the Noble Lord agree that the child of the smallholder should have no education?
The hon. Member must really try to follow our debates a little.
I am trying to follow the Noble Lord, but it is a little hard.
The hon. Member seems to find it very hard. Our contention has been that you ought to exempt the child of the smallholder at least for seasonal work, as is done in every other country in the world.
No, it is not done in the United States.
I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I know the United States very much better than he does. There is the widest power of exemption for children in the United States in all the rural areas. As a matter of fact, in most remote rural areas there is not so much need for exemption, because the school year is so short, and the child gets so few months schooling in the year, that exemption is not required.
I am sorry we always get dragged away on to the rural problem, because it is the urban child that I mainly want to deal with in this new Clause. There are many children who, under the existing system, will wake up intellectually and learn more in a day continuation school than they will learn from an extra year at school, and that is common knowledge and common talk among all the teachers and all the members of education authorities in the country. If only hon. Members opposite, especially the President of the Board of Education, would acquaint themselves with the work that is being done in many voluntary continuation schools and in work schools like Tootal, Broadhurst and Company in Bolton and Manchester, Cadbury's at Bournville, the Boot school at Nottingham and many others, they would confess, as all their friends who are interested in education confess—those who are not more concerned with politics than with education—that you must have these two alternatives if you are going to provide for each child the education best suited to its needs. Our debates have shown, as usual, that one can discuss education with Socialists and Liberals and Conservatives outside the House of Commons, but inside the House of Commons there are very few Members of any party who are prepared to discuss education at all.
Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 111; Noes, 260.
Division No. 64.] AYES. [8.45 p.m. Ainsworth, Lieut. -Col. Charles Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth,S.) Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Albery, Irving James Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton Hamilton, Sir George (ilford) Atholl, Duchess of Chamberlain, Rt. Hon.SirJ.A.(Birm.,W.) Hammersley, S. S. Atkinson, C. Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Balfour, George (Hampstead) Christie, J. A. Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) Clydesdale, Marquess of Heneage, Lieut. -Colonel Arthur P. Balniel, Lord Colfox, Major William Philip Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) Beaumont, M. W. Cranborne, Viscount Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) Bevan, S. J. (Holborn) Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Dawson, Sir Philip Kindersley, Major G. M. Bird, Ernest Roy Dixey, A. C. Knox, Sir Alfred Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Dugdale, Capt. T. L. Leighton, Major B. E. P. Boyce, H. L. Eden, Captain Anthony Lewis, Oswald (Colchester) Brass, Captain Sir William Edmondson, Major A. J. Little, Dr. E. Graham Briscoe, Richard George Fermoy, Lord Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l d'., Hexham) Fielden, E. B. McConnell, Sir Joseph Brown, Brig-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y) Galbraith, J. F. W. Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Bullock, Captain Malcolm Gault, Lieut. -Col. Andrew Hamilton Makins, Brigadier-General E. Cadoqan, Major Hon. Edward Grace, John Marjoribanks, Edward Campbell, E. T. Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Mason, Colonel Glyn K. Carver, Major W. H. Grattan Doyle, Sir N. Meller, R. J. Castle Stewart, Earl of Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mond, Hon. Henry Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y) Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Monseil, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) Stanley, Lord (Fylde) Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencetter) Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton) Nelson, Sir Frank Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement. Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart Turton, Robert Hugh Oman, Sir Charles William C. Savery, S. S. Ward, Lieut-Col. Sir A. Lambert Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome Warrender, Sir Victor Peake, Captain Osbert Simms, Major-General J. Waterhouse, Captain Charles Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) Wells, Sydney R. Ramsbotham, H. Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) Womersley, W. J. Reid, David D. (County Down) Smith-Carington, Neville W. Remer, John R. Smithers, Waldron TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Reynolds, Col. Sir James Somerset, Thomas Major the Marquess of Titchfield and Sir George Penny.
NOES. Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Gould, F. Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) MacNeill-Weir, L. Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M. Granville, E. Mansfield, W. Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) Marcus, M. Alpass, J. H. Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Markham, S. F. Ammon, Charles George Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) Marley, J. Angell, Norman Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Marshall, F. Arnott, John Groves, Thomas E. Mathers, George Aske, Sir Robert Grundy, Thomas W. Matters, L. W. Attlee, Clement Richard Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Maxton, James Ayles, Walter Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Messer, Fred Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Middleton, G. Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) Milner, Major J. Barnes, Alfred John Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) Montague, Frederick Batey, Joseph Harbord, A. Morgan, Dr. H. B. Bellamy, Albert Hardle, George D. Morley, Ralph Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central) Harris, Percy A. Morris, Rhys Hopkins Benson, G. Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Bentham, Dr. Ethel Hastings, Dr. Somerville Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Haycock, A. W. Mort, D. L. Birkett, W. Norman Hayday, Arthur Moses, J. J. H. Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on- Trent) Bowen, J. W. Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick) Broad, Francis Alfred Herriotts, J. Muff, G. Brockway, A. Fenner Hirst, G. H. (York W.R. Wentworth) Muggeridge, H. T. Bromfleld, William Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Naylor, T. E. Bromley, J. Hoffman, P. C. Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Brothers, M. Hoillns, A. Noel Baker, P. J. Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield) Hopkin, Daniel Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.) Brown, Ernest (Leith) Horrabin, J. F. Oldfield, J. R. Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) Buchanan, G. Isaacs, George Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) Burgess, F. G. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) Burgin, Dr. E. L. Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Owen, H. F. (Hereford) Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Palin, John Henry. Cameron, A. G. Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Cape, Thomas Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston) Perry, S. F. Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.) Kelly, W. T. Peters, Dr. Sidney John Charleton, H. C. Kennedy, Thomas Pethick- Lawrence, F. W. Church, Major A. G. Kirkwood, D. Phillips, Dr. Marion Cocks, Frederick Seymour Knight, Holford Picton-Turbervill, Edith Cove, William G. Lang, Gordon Pole, Major D. G. Cowan, D. M. Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Potts, John S. Daggar, George Lathan, G. Price, M. P. Dallas, George Law, Albert (Bolton) Pybus, Percy John Dalton, Hugh Law, A. (Rossendale) Quibell, D. J. K. Davies, E. C. (Montgomery) Lawrence, Susan Ramsay, T. B. Wilson Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybrldge) Rathbone, Eleanor Denman, Hon. R. D. Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) Raynes, W. R. Dudgeon, Major C. R. Leach, W. Richards, R. Dukes, C. Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Duncan, Charles Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) Ede, James Chuter Lees, J. Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) Edmunds, J. E. Lewis, T. (Southampton) Ritson, J. Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Lloyd, C. Ellis Romeril, H. G. Edwards, E. (Morpeth) Logan, David Gilbert Rosbotham, D. S. T. Egan, W. H. Longbottom, A. W. Rothschild, J. de Elmley, Viscount Longden, F. Rowson, Guy Forgan, Dr. Robert Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) Freeman, Peter Lowth, Thomas Sanders, W. S. Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) Lunn, William Sandham, E. Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Sawyer, G. F. Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) MacDonald, Malcolm (Bastetlaw) Scott, James Gill, T. H. McElwee, A. Scrymgeour, E. Gillett, George M. McEntee, V. L. Scurr, John Glassey, A. E. McKinlay, A. Sexton, James. Gossling, A. G. MacLaren, Andrew Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. Shepherd, Arthur Lewis Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) Welsh, James (Paisley) Sherwood, G. H. Strauss, G. R. Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) Shield, George William Sullivan, J. West, F. R. Shiels, Dr. Drummond Sutton, J. E. Westwood, Joseph Shillaker, J. F. Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) White, H. G. Shinwell, E. Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.) Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) Simmons, C. J. Thurtle, Ernest Whlteley, William (Blaydon) Sinkinson, George Tillett, Ben Williams, David (Swansea, East) Sitch, Charles H. Tinker, John Joseph Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) Tout, W. J. Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Atterclifle) Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) Townend, A. E. Wilson, J. (Oldham) Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley) Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Wilson R. J. (Jarrow) Smith, Rennie (Penistone) Vaughan, D. J Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh) Smith, Tom (Pontefract) Walkden, A. G. Wise, E. F. Snell, Harry Walker, J. Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip Wallace, H. W. Young, R. S. (Islington, North) Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) Wallhead, Richard C. Sorensen, R. Watkins, F. C. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Stamford, Thomas W. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline). Mr. Paling and Mr. Hayes. Stephen, Campbell Wellock, Wilfred
NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision of part-time courses for children between ages of 14 and 15.)
The courses of instruction which local education authorities are required to provide for children between the ages of fourteen and fifteen under the provisions of Section twenty of the principal Act as amended by this Act may be part-time courses of the nature defined by Sub-section (2) of Section seventy-six, and Section seventy-eight of the principal Act, and in that case the duties
of the parents under Section one of this Act shall be limited to causing such children to attend these courses.—[Mr. Beaumont. ]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."— [ Mr. Beaumont .]
The Committee divided: Ayes, 107; Noes, 258.
Division No. 65.] AYES. [8.50 p.m. Albery, Irving James Edmondson, Major A. J. Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-M.) Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William Atholl, Duchess of Fielden, E. B. Peake, Capt. Osbert Atkinson, C. Galbraith, J. F. W. Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Balfour, George (Hampstead) Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Ramsbotham, H. Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) Grace, John Reid, David D. (County Down) Balniel, Lord Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Remer, John R. Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Reynolds, Col. Sir James Beaumont, M. W. Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy) Bevan, S. J. (Holborn) Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Bird, Ernest Roy Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Hammersley, S. S. Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Savery, S. S. Boyce, H. L. Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome Brass, Captain Sir William Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Simms, Major-General J. Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham) Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C. (Berks, Newb'y) Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Hurst, Sir Gerald B. Smlth-Carington, Neville W. Campbell, E. T. Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Smithers, Waldron Carver, Major W. H. Kindersley, Major G. M. Somerset, Thomas Castle Stewart. Earl of Knox, Sir Alfred Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Cayzer, Maj.Slr Herbt. R.(Prtsmth,S.) Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) Stanley, Lord (Fylde) Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton Leighton, Major B. E. P. Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. Chamberlain, Rt.Hn. Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.) Lewis, Oswald (Colchester) Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton) Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) Little, Dr. E. Graham Tinne, J. A. Christie, J. A. Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement Clydesdale, Marquess of McConnell, Sir Joseph Turton, Robert Hugh Colfox, Major William Philip Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) Warrender, Sir Victor Cranborne, Viscount Makins, Brigadier-General E. Waterhouse, Captain Charles Crichton-Stuart. Lord C. Marjorlbanks, Edward Wells, Sydney R. Dawson, Sir Philip Mason, Colonel Glyn K. Withers, Sir John James Dixey, A. C. Meller, R. J. Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Dugdale, Capt. T. L. Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Sir George Penny and Major the Marquess of Titchfield, Eden, Captain Anthony Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) NOES. Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife. West) Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') Arnott, John Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Alpass, J. H. Aske, Sir Robert Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Ammon, Charles George Attlee, Clement Richard Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M. Angell, Norman Ayles, Walter
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Hoffman, P. C. Pybus, Percy John Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) Hollins, A. Quibell, D. J. K. Barnes, Alfred John Hopkin, Daniel Ramsay, T. B. Wilson Batey, Joseph Horrabin, J. F. Rathbone, Eleanor Bellamy, Albert Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) Raynes, W. R. Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central) Isaacs, George Richards, R. Benson, G. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Bentham, Dr. Ethel Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) Birkett, W. Norman Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. Ritson, J. Bondfleld, Rt. Hon. Margaret Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston) Romeril, H. G. Bowen, J. W. Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) Rosbotham, D. S. T. Broad, Francis Alfred Kelly, W. T. Rothschild, J. de Brockway, A. Fenner Kennedy, Thomas Rowson, Guy Bromfield, William Kirkwood, D. Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) Bromley, J. Knight, Holford Sanders, W. S. Brothers, M. Lang, Gordon Sandham, E. Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield) Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Sawyer, G. F. Brown, Ernest (Leith) Lathan, G. Scott, James Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) Law, Albert (Bolton) Scrymgeour, E. Buchanan, G. Law, A. (Rossendale) Scurr, John Burgess, F. G. Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) Sexton, James Burgin, Dr. E. L. Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland) Leach, W. Shepherd, Arthur Lewis Cameron, A. G. Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.) Sherwood, G. H. Cape, Thomas Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) Shield, George William Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.) Lees, J. Shiels, Dr. Drummond Charleton, H. C. Lewis, T. (Southampton) Shillaker, J. F. Church, Major A. G. Lloyd, C. Ellis Shinwell, E. Cocks, Frederick Seymour Logan, David Gilbert Simmons, C. J. Cove, William G. Longbottom, A. W. Sinkinson, George Cowan, D. M. Longden, F. Sitch, Charles H. Daggar, George Lovat-Fraser. J. A. Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) Dallas, George Lowth, Thomas Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) Dallon, Hugh Lunn, William Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley) Davies, E. C. (Montgomery) Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Smith, Rennie (Penistone) Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) Smith, Tom (Pontetract) Denman, Hon. R. D. McElwee, A. Snell, Harry Dudgeon, Major C. R. McEntee, V. L. Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip Dukes, C. McKinlay, A. Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) Duncan, Charles MacLaren, Andrew Sorensen, R. Ede, James Chuter Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Stamford, Thomas W Edmunds, J. E. MacNeill-Weir, L. Stephen, Campbell Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) Edwards, E. (Morpeth) Mansfield, W. Strachey, E. J. St. Loe Egan, W. H. Marcus, M. Strauss, G. R. Elmley, Viscount Markham, S. F. Sullivan, J. Forgan, Dr. Robert Marley, J. Sutton, J. E. Freeman, Peter Marshall, Fred Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) Mathers, George Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.) Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) Matters, L. W. Thurtle, Ernest Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley) Maxton, James Tillett, Ben Gill, T. H. Messer, Fred Tinker, John Joseph Gillett, George M. Middleton, G. Tout, W. J. Glassey, A. E. Milner, Major J. Townend, A. E. Gossling, A. G. Montague, Frederick Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Gould, F. Morgan, Dr. H. B. Vaughan, D. J. Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Morley, Ralph Walkden, A. G. Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.) Morris, Rhys Hopkins Walker, J. Granville, E. Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Wallace, H. W. Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne). Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) Wallhead, Richard C. Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Mort, D. L. Watkins, F. C. Griffith, F. Klngsley (Middlesbro' W.) Moses, J. J. H. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) Wellock, Wilfred Groves, Thomas E. Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick) Welsh, James (Paisley) Grundy, Thomas W. Muff, G. Welsh, James C. (Coatbrldge) Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Muggeridge, H. T. West, F. R. Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Naylor, T. E. Westwood, Joseph Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) White, H. G. Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) Noel Baker, P. J. Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) Oldfield, J. R. Whiteley, William (Blaydon) Harbord, A. Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) Williams, David (Swansea, East) Hardie, George D. Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) Harris, Percy A. Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Atterclifle) Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Owen, H. F. (Hereford) Wilson, J. (Oldham) Hastings, Dr. Somerville Palin, John Henry Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) Haycock, A. W. Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh) Hayday, Arthur Perry, S. F. Wise, E. F. Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) Phillips, Dr. Marion Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield Picton-Turbervill, Edith Young, R. S. (Islington, North) Herriotts, J. Pole, Major D. G. Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) Potts, John S. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Price, M. P. Mr. Hayes and Mr. Paling.
NEW CLAUSE.—(Out-door relief.)
In determining whether out-door relief shall or shall not be granted to a person in receipt of or entitled to receive any maintenance allowance under this Act the authority having power to grant the relief shall not take such maintenance allowance into account.—[ Mr. Logan .]
Brought up, and read the First time.
rose —
On a point of Order. May I submit that this new Clause is outside the scope of the Bill? It seeks to amend Poor Law legislation and is entirely outside the title and scope of the Bill.
The point raised by the Noble Lord is a very important one. Had this been the first occasion on which a Clause of this kind had arisen I should certainly have ruled it out of order, but I understand that there are precedents. The National Health Insurance Act is a case in point. There are one or two other precedents which have been raised and decided in this way. It did appear to me at first sight to be entirely improper, but in view of these several precedents I could not rule the new Clause out of order. I still think that it is dangerous to have created such precedents.
Do I understand that under the National Health Insurance Act there is the precedent that insurance benefit shall not be taken into account in granting Poor Law relief?
Yes, and that is not the only precedent which guided my decision to select the proposed new Clause.
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
May I say that in respect of outdoor relief you will find a provision to the same effect in the National Insurance Act of 1924.
Can the hon. Member quote the Section to which he refers, as I should like to know?
Under the National Health Insurance Act, 1924, there is a provision that the first 7s. 6d. of benefit is not to be taken into consideration by a Poor Law authority in respect of any benefit that may be paid. The words are:
"In granting outdoor relief to a person entitled to receive any benefit under the National Health Insurance Act, 1924, the guardians shall not take into consideration any such benefit except so far as such benefit exceeds 7s. 6d. a week."
I am perfectly justified, therefore, in moving this new Clause. I do not intend to detain the Committee at any length because I am convinced there will be agreement on all sides of the Committee in regard to this matter. There are a thousand and one reasons why this provision should be adopted, and I feel sure that the Committee will give this benefit to those deserving cases which ought to receive it. The maintenance grants are certainly going into the homes of the poorest of the poor. I hope the Minister will accept this proposal. It will, I am sure, prove one of the most beneficial Clauses in the Bill in thousands of homes up and down the country.
I desire to support the Second Reading of this new Clause. Maintenance grants are for the purpose of helping children to attend school up to the age of 15, and if they are not taken into account in granting relief they will be of no benefit to the parents. That is the reason why we have put this new Clause down and I hope the House will give it its support.
As regards the feeding of school children I have always tried to secure that it should be an extra and should not simply go to reduce the amount of poor relief. That has been the general practice of the Board, and this new Clause is very much on the same lines. I strongly recommend the Committee to accept it.
May I point out to the Committee that there is rather a difference between this and the instance which the hon. Member gave from health insurance. Those benefits are contributory, and are secured to the person on his contributions, whereas maintenance allowances are quite non-contributory. But I recognise that the practice of the Board is to desire that what is given to the child shall be something special to the child and should not be counted in the family income. Therefore, we do not propose to divide the Committee upon this new Clause.
Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time, put, and agreed to.
Clause added to the Bill.
NEW CLAUSE—(Exemption by local authorities.)
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in the principal Act it shall be lawful for the local education authority to grant exemption from the obligation to attend school to individual children between the ages of fourteen and fifteen for such time and upon such conditions as the authority thinks fit in any case where, after due inquiry, the circumstances seem to justify such a exemption—[ Mr. Cadogan. ]
Brought up, and read the First time.
In calling upon the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan) to move the Second Beading of this new Clause, it appears to me that it is sufficiently wide to allow a discussion upon the new Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) dealing with exemptions in agricultural employment and upon the new Clause in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord) dealing with exemption for apprentices.
I assume that on this new Clause I shall be able to discuss the points I raise in my new Clause.
The new Clause is, I think, sufficiently wide to enable a discussion on those points to take place.
The new Clause dealing with the exemption for apprentices raises a specific issue. I agree that it might be discussed conveniently upon the new Clause which you have called, but at the same time hon. Members may take a definite view with regard to the very limited exception proposed by the hon. Member for Leominster which they may not take in regard to a general exception. Would it not be right to allow the whole matter to be discussed on this new Clause, and then to allow a Division at any rate upon the limited exception proposed in the new Clause in my name and that of the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy).
I think there is substance in the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord). While I am not prepared to allow a separate discussion on his new Clause, the hon. and learned Member has raised a point which deserves consideration, and is one upon which a Division might be taken. I am quite willing to take the general discussion on this new Clause and allow a seperate Division upon the new Clause of the hon. and learned Member for Norwood without discussion.
The new Clause of the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) raises definitely the question of total exemption in rural areas.
I pointed out to the Committee some time ago that it is impossible for me to allow every hon. Member who has tabled an Amendment which is not selected to rise to a point of Order and debate its merits. The particular proposal of the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) has been discussed again and again, but I think I should be meeting the wishes of the Committee by allowing a Division to be taken on the new Clause of the hon. and learned Member for Norwood, after we have had a discussion on the new Clause moved by the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan).
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The new Clause raises a question of principle to which we on this side of the Committee attach supreme importance, especially in the rural areas where not even the President of the Board of Education with all his enthusiasm and optimism and his impetuousness can contend that the schools can be properly organised for some time to come, and where the peculiar circumstances of the agricultural industry make exemption so imperative. We attach great importance to the principle of giving local authorities a power of exemption for various reasons and all the evidence available warrants the inference that this power would be discreetly and sparingly used. It is none the less important that local authorities should have that power. The Minister surely cannot insist that it is desirable to keep a particular child in school, if, so far from such a course being an advantage to the child, its circumstances and the circumstances of its parents are such that it will derive no benefit and may be adversely affected as regards its after-career.
I am not speaking of children who would otherwise have to spend their time in unsuitable surroundings, but of boys and girls who have a career open to them and have the chance of continuing their education under part-time instruction. But the right hon. Gentleman is obsessed with two ideals. One is that of making every education authority toe the line and compelling them all to put the Measure into operation on the same day whether they are ready or not. The other is that of herding all children into the schools without exception. I sometimes think that if a child developed rash the right hon. Gentleman would say that the atmosphere of the school was more beneficial than the atmosphere of the fever hospital. There can be no benefit in uniformity carried to such an absurd extent. If it is insisted upon then, sooner or later, a certain number of children are bound to be victimised, quite unnecessarily, by having forced upon them a type of education which is unsuitable to their ability, their attainments and I may add their predilections —and I do not see why their predilections should not be taken into account.
The Government attitude is that neither the local authorities, nor even the parents responsible for the existence of the child, should have any voice or say in the matter. Is this the beginning of the Socialisation or nationalisation of the family? Are parents to become mere breeding machines, and is all their responsibility and all their authority to cease when the child is born? Is that the principle at the root of this proposed rigidity? If so, all I can say is that we on this side will fight it not only here but in the country, and I am certain that when parents realise the full implications of this Measure we shall receive a very large measure of support against the Government's proposals. The Government are abandoning the principle of exemption for the first time and are scrapping machinery which has hitherto worked smoothly and well. They are doing so on the plea that the raising of the school age is a new departure, but there is a precedent for it on the Continent and on the Continent this machinery has not been scrapped. In spite of what an hon. Member said about the United States I think I am right in stating that all the schemes in operation abroad allow a certain flexibility in this respect either by the principle of exemption or by allowing part-time of school attendance. The Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) is very well versed on this subject and I hope that she will give the Committee some further information on the principle of exemption as applied in Continental countries.
The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) said that exemption was as important in urban as in agricultural areas, but I maintain that it is all-important in the rural areas, especially in those single school areas, which, for some time to come, must in the nature of things be deficient in the type of education which the new scheme demands. There is one reason in particular why this Clause will be necessary to make the Measure workable in rural areas. It has been truly said that there is a certain type of education which is as valuable as any other type, and which cannot be given in the classroom, but must be given in its own primitive and congenial surroundings. Hon. Members opposite will discover, possibly too late, that when the people of the rural areas understand the implications of this Bill, there will be an outcry against this rigidity, which prevents children making a timely start in the very industry above all others which requires an early apprenticeship in the field. Even if the right hon. Gentleman has decided to reject the principle of selecting only those children who appear capable of profiting by advanced education, I do not see why he should also reject the principle of selecting for exemption those who quite obviously cannot profit by it but must suffer by it. This power of exemption would be very limited; it would be judiciously used, and it would introduce into this Measure an element which is painfully conspicuous by its absence, namely, the element of common sense.
As you, Mr. Dunnico, have ruled that we may have a general discussion upon the question raised in this proposed new Clause, I rise for the purpose of supporting the proposal of a general exemption by local authorities, and also of drawing attention specifically to the proposed new Clause—[ Exemption for apprentices ]— which stands further down on the Paper. While I am in favour of giving the more general exemption, I can conceive of a very different view being taken with regard to the more limited exemption in the case of apprentices. We all realise some of us to our sorrow, that apprenticeship is by no means as common as it was some years back. At the same time I think that the experience of many of us inclines us to the view that we have to some extent parted with apprenticeship too readily, and that it would be a good thing for this country and the youth of this country if there were something in the nature of a revival of apprenticeship.
I wish to put one or two general considerations forward in support of this more limited exemption, but, may I first point out, that there are still some trades in which an appenticeship is required? The printing trade still requires a seven-years' apprenticeship. It is true that, in the case of the Typographical Association, while the apprenticeship is normally seven years, there is a provision in the case of the young person who remains at school to the age of 15 or 16 for a slightly shorter apprenticeship. There are a number of trades where there is still provision for apprenticeship, as for example, engineering, woodworking, boiler-making, printing, bookbinding, machine-rolling, electrical trades, the Society of Compositors, the Machine Edge and Iron Grinding Society, the Society of Journeymen Hatters and the Federation of Building Trade Operatives. All these have provision for apprenticeship, and in some cases for at least a period of five years. There is also one more part of the life of the country where apprenticeship is still desired, and where the normal age for starting is 14, and that is in the mercantile marine. After all, as the whole prosperity of this country has been built up upon the mercantile marine, it is rather a serious matter that we should at this date decide suddenly to interfere with the system of apprenticeship upon which our greatest trade asset has been founded. If this Bill passes as it stands, without a Clause of this description, it will no longer be possible to apprentice a boy to the mercantile marine at the age of 14. Of course there are hon. Members opposite who say the boy will be at school, but it has been shown by long experience that it is desirable to begin a boy's apprenticeship at that age for the mercantile marine.
Apart from everything else, there are two positions at the present time which will militate against the welfare of the youth of the country. There is the position one finds time after time militating against the young man where the boy on leaving school at 14 goes into employment, gets a job which lasts a month or so and then is thrown out of employment and is hanging about the streets. I am entirely with those who believe that that is bad for the youth of the country. Unfortunately, I see much too frequently the results of that position of affairs. On the other hand, if you have a boy who has formed, as many boys do form at that age, a definite bent in the direction of some practical trade, that boy will certainly chafe under school conditions. If you continue to keep him at school, it will be under conditions where his heart is not in the work he is doing, and there is no worse thing for a boy of 14, 15 or 16 than to be put to work in which he is not interested, and to which he gives no serious thought. It really bores him to a serious degree, and makes him turn away from it. There is no doubt that if we cannot attract the attention of the boy who is just under 14 and if we put him somewhere where his attention is not closely attracted, we are doing him a serious ill-service.
Time after time we see the results. There is nothing sadder than the condition of affairs where we find young fellows of 15 and 16 who, largely because they are doing something in which they have no serious interest, or because they are doing something of a casual nature,, have become restless. As a result they often do things which at first are boyish escapades, but which, in the course of time, leads to something far worse which destroys their whole life. If the boy has a practical bent and can be apprenticed to something where his attention is really seriously attracted, then you get his interest from the start, and his apprenticeship is a thing which will endure, does not lead to a mere casual state of existence and does not result in the boy being put out on the open market or anything of that kind, or being discharged, and, as a result, hanging about the streets. If you do that, you do something which tends to fill what is, undoubtedly, the really serious need of the present age, namely, discipline and employment of a semi-permanent nature. You will then get that discipline which will keep the boy from straying, and, at the same time, keep him in practical work which is of real interest to him, and a real training to his mind.
In my view, this Bill, as framed, will prevent this position arising, and will prevent a boy who has a real practical bent from getting the training which is so desirable in his case. It will put him in a position where he will inevitably grow restless, and lose, very often, the capacity for ultimate serious thought of occupation. There is nothing more serious than that this country should abound in people who have been kept in a position in which they do not take interest, and which results in their getting restless and becoming irregular in their methods of life, indisciplined and so falling among the least desirable elements of our country. [ Laughter ]. I am surprised that an hon. Member opposite can treat this as a laughing matter, when he knows perfectly well, if he follows the interests of the youth of the country, that one of the most serious things from which we are suffering is complete lack of discipline in the youth of the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] All I can say is that I see the results of it, and if the hon. Member opposite does not, he ought, at any rate, to have more regard for the future of the country than to laugh when a serious subject of this kind is being discussed.
There is nothing more serious to a youth than to unsettle his mind in the early stages of adolescence. Once he gets an unsettled state of mind, that boy is deprived of the real foundations of future success. Because I think that to a Committee which is formed of men with experience of industry and of the world, the idea of discipline and of semipermanent employment of a practical and attractive nature will present itself as a real alternative to school, and supply in the one case what the school supplies in the case of a boy who wants to remain at school and get the benefit of further education, and because I believe that that alternative would be a real advantage to this country, I have put down my name to a Clause, and I hope the Minister will see his way to consent to a Clause of the kind being placed in the Bill, so that it may be really helpful to all classes, of children, and not destructive to one class.
The hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan) was indignant that we should not continue a system of exemption that exists at the present moment. I suppose he means the system of exemptions which exists for those local authorities who have raised the school age to 15.
My intention was to show that we have a precedent for a system of exemptions working smoothly, and I see no reason for scrapping it.
The hon. Member talks about the scrapping of this system of exemptions, but the system exists in only four places, and it happens that it exists in the few places where the school age has been raised to 15. But what is the result? The result is that half the children leave school and get exemption. That is not what the majority of the Committee are out to get. We definitely wish to give the children a chance of training an extra year at school, and the machinery which we refuse to scrap is the machinery which we now have for children up to the age of 14. We refuse to scrap the machinery which we find thoroughly effective up to 14, and we say that the country is ready to raise the school age to 15, and to carry on the same machinery for the extra year.
Is it not the case that the First Schedule of the Bill provides for the omission of Section 46 (3) of the 1921 Act, which gives power of exemption and carefully restricts the local authorities all over the country.
I am dealing with the general exemption which exists in cases where the school age is now raised. They are the only cases in which there is any wide exemption at the present time, and it is that wide exemption to which we are opposed. I do not propose to accept any Amendment which is going to substitute any wide system of exemption. The House has already determined to give maintenance allowances in order to meet the economic difficulty of parents who would otherwise want exemption. The hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord) made a very interesting speech about apprenticeship. He said a good many things with which none of us will disagree, but there is nothing hostile to apprenticeship in what we are proposing to do. It is quite true that in some cases apprenticeship would have to begin a year later. The tendency now is to raise the age of apprentices, and very definitely to reduce the period of apprenticeship. I do not think that the hon. and learned Member is quite correct in his facts. He said that in the mercantile marine the age was 14. That is not my information. I have here a report of an inquiry into apprenticeship and training, which says that in the wool textile, leather goods, food, drink and tobacco industries, and in the mercantile marine the apprenticeship begins mostly at 16 years.
That does not contradict what I said. I said that normally the age was 14. The right hon. Gentleman quotes from a paragraph which deals with a number of trades, and says "mostly."
I refer the hon. and learned Member to the information in this report. It says that 16 is the usual age. That is so with an increasing number of trades. It is true that there are some where 14 is still quite commonly found, but in those cases it would be better for a boy to have a good foundation of another year of education before apprenticeship. It would do no harm to the boy to come brighter and more vigorous to the apprenticeship, even where it now begins at 14. This is the opinion of most people who have investigated the matter carefully. The Royal Commission on Poor Law Relief and Distress said:
"One modification which seems pretty generally approved is that the term of apprenticeship should be shortened; at any rate, if the school age were extended, and some amount of manual and technical training introduced, it seems agreed that three, or at most four years in the shops, would turn out a qualified journeyman."
[ Interruption. ] Do not let us begin our argument again as to whether there is going to be effective education. We both want effective education, and I am going to assume that I shall get effective education. Supposing we get effective education, which is what we shall all try to get under this Bill when it becames law, is it not better for the child to be continually at school and to get a good groundwork which the school gives, and then go into an apprenticeship, which will be the more effective because of the groundwork of education that he has received?
I trust that the Committee will not accept the proposed new Clause as it stands. I happen to represent a constituency where the school leaving age has already been raised to 15, and it has now been in existence for several years. One of the greatest difficulties and handicaps in carrying out a proper system of education in the county of Carnarvon has been the fact that exemptions are possible, and a tremendous amount of time of the local education committee is wasted in considering cases of this kind; and when cases are rejected, it always leads to a great deal of correspondence and dissatisfaction on the part of parents. As to the question of apprenticeship, I admit that, while there are counties which have not adopted the age of 15, some difficulties have been created in my own county where boys have been apprenticed to the slate quarrying industry. As a rule, the quarries like to get the boys at 14, but as the age is raised in the county of Carnarvon, it very often happens that boys come in from the neighbouring counties, and take the very places which should be open to the boys of the county of Carnarvon. I hope that one result of this Bill will be uniformity throughout the country. We cannot have one education: authority adopting a certain principle while neighbouring authorities adopt entirely different principles. That is bound to lead to bad education and dissatisfaction among parents and children. I strongly urge the Committee to reject this Clause.
I was unable to support the Clause to exempt children on the ground of financial stress. I did not think that was right. But this Clause I should like to see read in this way:
"Where, after due inquiry, the circumstances, other than financial, seem to justify such an exemption in the interests solely of the child."
That is, I think, the sort of Clause that ought to be inserted. As it stands now, the Bill is extremely rigid. The Minister has cut out Sub-section (3) of Section 46 of the principal Act, so that the only exemptions which will be possible will be that the child must be seriously ill under Section 49, or he must be deaf, blind, defective or epileptic under Part V. I have had at one time or another a good deal of experience of young people, and I am quite convinced that a number of them of the age of 14 do not come within these categories, and it would be unwise to put them through the mill of a scheme of general education such as this. I refer to the rather abnormal child, the curious, self conscious, irritable child who cannot very well associate with his comrades, and gets crabbed in his nature. If the Minister does not accept this Clause, I would seriously ask him to put in some Clause which will give a little latitude, and make the Bill more scientific.
I make no excuse for again introducing the question as to how this Bill affects agriculture and the agriculturist. I attach very great importance to education as applied to the industrial agriculturist, and that is my attitude towards this Bill and towards agriculture generally. I do not apologise for asking the Minister to grant exemption, after the age of 14, for those cases where parents desire their children to enter the occupation of agriculture. I do so, in the first place, in the interest of the child itself. We will assume that the child is going to be an agricultural worker, an allotment holder, a smallholder or a small farmer. Will the interest of the child between 14 and 15 be better spent in, a continuation school, learning higher mathematics, Euclid, foreign languages or the classics, or will it be better for the child to be getting some technical knowledge of the work he has to do in after life?
Some hon. Members assume that the agricultural labourer is an unskilled worker. I want to disabuse their minds as to that. The agricultural labourer is a highly skilled individual. He may have to go into a field at harvest time, driving a binder with four horses, and have three or four levers to look after. He will have to go round the field, without going into the corn or pulling out. That is the work of a skilled man. The same man, later in the year, will be expected to chop out evenly some 2,000 sugar-beet plants.
Might I ask the hon. Member to keep a little nearer to the subject of the Clause? He is wandering a little too far.
I bow to your Ruling. Between the ages of 14 and 15 it is essential, I submit, that a child should be learning something about the Work which he will be doing in after life. It is in the interests of the child that it should be so. Now I come to the interest of the parents. I am rather old-fashioned, so old-fashioned that I think a parent should still have some right over what is to be the child's future walk in life. In some of our country villages, schools cannot give education between the ages of 14 and 15 such as is available in towns. The children in such districts will have to remain in school, and probably do the same work between 14 and 15 years of age as was previously done between 13 and 14.
Might I remind the hon. Member that the Committee has already discussed that subject at great length.
I will not pursue that point further. I appeal to the Minister, in the interests of the child and of the parent, to make an exception in regard to agriculture. His colleague the Minister for Agriculture is starting a scheme to place families upon the land, while the Minister of Education is taking the family away from it. I am quite prepared, if the Minister will accept my suggestions, that safeguards should be included, so that the privilege shall not be abused. I would suggest that a child in respect of whom the exemptions were granted should have attained a certain standard of education. The second suggestion is that, having regard to the probable future occupation of the child, no benefit is likely to be derived by further elementary instruction. The third safeguard is that suitable employment is available for such child as an agricultural worker. Lastly, the parent must also desire that the child should obtain immediate employment as an agricultural worker. I suggest those safeguards, but I am prepared to accept any which the Minister himself likes to propose to prevent an abuse of this privilege, and I do ask him, in the interests of the rural areas, and of agriculture generally, to make some special exception in these cases.
I have listened with very great interest to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord). He gave us a list of trades in which they take apprentices at 14, and in that list was a trade with which I was associated. Fifty years ago, at the age of 16, I went to serve my time as an engineer; so 50 years ago they would take an apprentice at 16 in the engineering trade.
I referred to the engineering trade not as one that necessarily takes in its apprentices at 14, but as a trade in which apprenticeship continues. For a very long time it has been the generally accepted view that the most useful age is 14.
That only indicates what a very flippant knowledge the hon. and learned Member has of industries. It has evidently escaped his attention that a tremendous change is taking place, not only in the engineering trade, but in every trade, and that within the next 10 or 20 years there will possibly be no trades at all, and everybody will be a "jack-of-all-trades." To suggest that people must be apprenticed at the age of 14 or they will never learn a trade is as futile an argument as could be put forward in this House. It has been suggested that an exception should be made in the case of agriculture. We might go on to pick out each industry in turn and say that for some reason or other it should be exempted. The whole position is too fantastic for anything. I venture to say to the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) that if he had left school at 14 years he would never have been inside this House of Commons.
The great point in the whole argument is, Are the children of to-day to have a real chance to rise in life? It is very easy for hon. Members to tell us what they would like to do for other people's children, but I venture to say that most of the hon. Members who have spoken would not for a single instant dream of sending their own children to work at 14. It is a cruel and brutal thing to send children to start earning their living at that tender age. All experience teaches that it is only after 14, 15 or 16 years of age that the child really begins to develop. Anybody who has been to Cambridge or Oxford must have seen there the young men of 24 and 25 years of age, who have never earned a halfpenny in their lives, still going to school to equip themselves to be, I suppose, our pastors and masters in years to come. I am pleading that the children of the future shall have a chance. It is our business to see that they have a chance, and I am here to see that they get it.
10.0 p.m.
I do not propose to approach this question from the sentimental point of view taken up by the last speaker. As regards apprentices, to my mind there is one important profession where apprenticeship is still very necessary, and where it is essential for a boy to begin very young. That profession is restricted to a very few and will not, I daresay, have the sympathy of the Minister of Education. The profession to which I am alluding is that of jockey. However, I am not going to enlarge upon that point. I feel a little nervous, because though I am not going to cross swords with the Minister or with a member of my own party, I feel I must cross swords with one of my own constituents, the Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson), and, as every Member knows, there is nothing more unnerving than to tackle one's own constituents. I cannot conceive why he should advocate exceptions for the children of agricultural workers. The proposal he has put forward throws a revealing light on the attitude of this country towards agriculture. Anyone does for the land! If a child is destined for agricultural work, why bother to give him any education? Is it any wonder that our agricultural industry is in the slough of despond? If we are to take any steps in this matter, surely it is important that the child whose life is destined to be spent in agriculture should be thoroughly trained and should have some vocational education.
I was glad to hear the Minister say he hoped the education to be given in the higher elementary schools would be of a nature to fit these children for the future life they have to lead. Unless there is a definite vocational training in these schools it will be quite useless for the children of agriculturists to attend them. The results of scientific research in such subjects as manuring, animal husbandry, treatment of soil, selection of seed and use of machinery should no longer be a closed book to them. Under Section 20 of the old Education Act it is a matter for the school authorities and the local authorities to give the children the requisite training, but only in very few cases is training given in agriculture. The raising of the school-leaving age makes it all the more necessary to foster the interests of children in agricultural pursuits. There is at present a great gap between the employer and the employed, a far greater gap than there was 40 or 50 years ago, because the strides of education and the strides of science in matters of agriculture have enabled the employer to go ahead while the workman lags behind. In old days boys began to gain their experience in the fields at the age of six, and they could improve until they had attained the very highest skill, which is still seen among agricultural labourers, though it is every day disappearing. The, children now go to the fields later. They arrive at the age of 14, too late to learn and totally unprepared for their future life.
Too late to learn what?
To learn to do agricultural work—to drive a team of cart horses, to plough, to prune, to tend stock and sick animals, and do all the different things which an agricultural' labourer requires to know.
Does the hon. Member suggest that at 14 it is too late to learn these things?
I do not in the least suggest that 14 is too late to learn. I 'am urging that these children should be taught this in the schools before they go into the fields. At the age of 15 it is too late for a child to acquire this knowledge. I will explain why. In the early days, children of the age of six went into the fields where they followed the labourers about, and they were paid hardly anything, but at the present time a boy of 15, or even a girl, expects to get decent pay. Therefore, those children of 15 will be put into blind-alley jobs, and never get any further. If the hon. Member goes to the rural districts, he will find that the employed men are mostly older men, and that the younger men have gone elsewhere.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Education, in elaborating his educational programme, will introduce a distinct agricultural bias in the last year in rural schools. At the present time, there are not 30 per cent, or 40 per cent, of these where gardens or workshops are provided, and that is a very small proportion. Unless something is done to alter this, and the last year at school becomes for these agricultural children a specialised year, I feel that that will handicap them in the race of life when they come to work on the farm with their fathers or employers. Besides that, I urge that special arrangements should be made for training girls in rural housekeeping, and also in the work of the fields. There are a great many smallholdings being created, and, if the Government scheme, which is now being discussed upstairs, comes to fruition, there will be many more, and the women who go on smallholdings will require a higher scale of agricultural education. This will depend on proper facilities and adequate teachers. If this is done, there will be fewer people in blind-alley occupations, and more attracted to the land. There will be no disturbance of normal education, and, in the end, this great country may achieve the great agricultural prosperity which exists in Denmark, where agricultural education has reached a very high pitch. This would be a constructive effort. It would not be merely a negative one like the proposals put forward in this Clause.
The Clause of the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan) has a distinction which does not attach to any other Clause put forward in regard to exemption. It is the only one which includes exemption of girls for home duties. We have discussed the exemption of children for seasonal occupation in agriculture. I do not want to go over the ground I covered the other day on that subject, except to say that the Minister has claimed that it is unnecessary to give children exemption for seasonal occupations, because many schools fix their holidays to suit these. Having been for some years chairman of a local management committee in a rural area, I know how difficult it is to fix these holidays to be sure that they coincide with the time when the crops are ready. Holidays have to be fixed a month or two beforehand, and when the time comes, bad weather may keep back or good weather may accelerate the crops, and you will want exemptions because these times do not coincide with the holidays. The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) is very much mistaken if he thinks that we on these benches do not wish to see children who are going into agriculture educated, or are indifferent to the importance of giving an agricultural bias to education in the last year. I yield to no one in the importance I attach to that.
Surely I never hinted that I thought in any way the party above the Gangway were anxious not to give those children agricultural education. I simply asked the Minister to do so, and I am very glad that the Noble Lady agrees with me in that matter.
I am very sorry if I misrepresented the hon. Member, and I am very glad to hear what he has now said. We have also had under consideration the exemption of the urban child for regular occupation and apprenticeship, but we have so far omitted the case of the girl whose mother is ill and unable to attend to home duties. Who is going to attend to that house if the girl of 14 is not able to stay at home to look after younger children below school age? The whole house will be in chaos if that girl has to go to school in spite of the illness of her mother.
I do not think that this subject is covered by the new Clause which is before the Committee.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am speaking to the new Clause which would give local authorities power to grant exemptions to individual children between the ages of 14 and 15 where the circumstances justify them. I have scanned the whole of the new Clauses in vain in the hope of discovering another covering girls in this position. This contingency may arise anywhere at any time in rural or urban areas, and it is entirely unprovided for in the Bill. On a former occasion, I brought before the Committee the fact that none of the other countries which have raised the school age to 15 have left themselves without the power of granting exemption for seasonal occupation in agriculture. I am not going to repeat that. I want to emphasise that none of those countries, in raising the school age to 15, have left themselves without the power to grant exemptions generally in certain circumstances, and in some cases there is actually specific mention of husbandry and necessary and urgent household duties.
Take the case of Canada. You find there that in every one of the provinces exemptions are allowed for employment in some circumstances or another. Sometimes the exemptions are limited to six weeks, and sometimes the children have had to pass a certain grade, but in every case in every province there is provision for making exemption for employment in some form or another. In Nova Scotia they allow exemptions from the age of 12, and in Manitoba they are allowed at the age of 12 if the child is needed for husbandry or household duties for a period not exceeding six weeks in Alberta and Manitoba husbandry and urgent domestic duties are especially mentioned as reasons why children may be exempted. In South Africa exemption is allowed for regular occupations. There is no special provision for seasonal occupations, but it does seem to me that children should be given exemption for seasonal work in this country.
When we pass to the United States we find that in the forty-four States where the school age has been raised, as my right hon. Friend has said, exemptions are allowed for employment under varying conditions. It has already been stated that in the United States, or at any rate in many of them, you start with a year which is very much shorter than ours. In Wyoming the school year is no more than three months, and in many of the other States it is not more than six months. In some of those States it is seven or eight months, and I doubt whether in any State it is as long as our school year, but in every case there is provision for exemption on reaching a certain educational standard and always for suitable employment. Sometimes the reason for exemption is when the child is shown to be in poor circumstances. In Switzerland and Norway, in the same way, power of exemption is carried into effect by a shorter school year.
The President of the Board of Education said a few days ago that he was not going to consider what other countries did, but surely we live in a much more international world than ever existed before. Communications, the League of Nations, trade, in fact everything is linking up more and more the nations of the world, and that makes it more impossible than ever that we should shut our eyes to what is happening elsewhere. We know well the interest of hon. Members opposite in international matters. We cannot put a ring fence round education in this country, irrespective of conditions abroad. I also say to the right hon. Gentleman, as I have said before, that, for the first time, this power of exemption is to be taken from the local authorities, although they have always had it before.
When the local authorities were first brought into existence in 1870 they were obliged to exempt the children between 10 and 13 years of age on reaching a certain grade. That is what we started from, and, as the years went on, the age below which they were not allowed to grant exemption was raised, first to 11, then to 12, and then to 13, at which it stands now. I want to make it clear that we are not asking for the wide powers of exemption that have been used in the four or five areas in which the school age has been raised. We know that very wide use has been made of those powers, but we do not want to see widespread exemption from the raising of the school age, as in those areas; we want to see the powers possessed by the authorities exercised with great care and circumspection, but also with consideration.
This proposed new Clause, as, no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman has observed, differs in one very important respect from Sub-section (3) of Section 46, in that it does not propose to exempt children who are in special occupations. At the present moment the local education authorities have the power, when they have considered the circumstances and after due inquiry, to grant exemption either to individual children or to children in certain specified occupations. We do not propose to ask that they should retain the power to exempt whole classes of children just because they happen to be in a special occupation; we want every case to be considered on its merits. We want the case of the child who is, perhaps, not making very great progress with his books, and whose family is in necessitous circumstances, to be considered. We do not want education authorities to be put in a position in which it is quite impossible for them to take into account the whole of the circumstances of the child, or the fact that he is not making very much of his school work.
Again, we do not want the education authority to find itself in the really absurd position of having to say, when a mother is seriously ill and there are small children in the house, that her eldest daughter, a girl of 14, must go to school during the whole of the day or her father will be breaking the law and will have to be prosecuted. To carry concern for school attendance to such a point is to hold up our school attendance law to ridicule, because it is enacting a law which we know cannot be kept. No man, knowing that Sis wife is seriously ill, with one or two small children in the house, is going to let his daughter go to school. He cannot possibly do it. The girl would not be worth her salt if she did go away and leave her mother under such conditions. It cannot be done, and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is simply offering an inducement to self-respecting, law-abiding parents to break the law, and is also, perhaps, putting the girl in a very difficult position. He may also be putting the mother in a position of difficulty, where she may well be torn in two between her desire not to get her husband into trouble and her desire not to see her children and her home neglected.
I am not altogether without hope in this matter, because I thought that I detected an indication in tie right hon. Gentleman's speech that he was ready to consider the possibility of leaving some power of exemption to the local education authorities. He expressed himself as very strongly against the system in vogue in the four areas where the school age is raised, and I am not surprised that he does not wish to continue that system, because it is really rather making a mockery of the raising of the school age; but I did think that I caught, in one of his phrases, a faint echo of the possibility that he might be ready to leave to authorities some power of exemption, within limits. I earnestly hope that that is the case, because, if not, I think he will really bring the whole law of school attendance into ridicule, with very unfortunate results to education.
One case calling for special consideration in regard to exemption is, I would suggest to the Minister, that of the mercantile marine apprentice. The right hon. Gentleman stated that these boys went to sea at the age of 16, but I think he must have made a mistake. I am not certain, but I think that the age is 14, and not 16. In any case, while in the
old days it was always the fool who went to sea, to-day it is the fool who does not go to sea. I do not think that anyone will deny the efficiency of the Mercantile Marine, and, if I am correct, to retain the young boy for an extra year at school, and keep him away from the best school to which he can possibly go to obtain his practical knowledge, that is to say, the sea, is the worst thing that could possibly be done. I should like consideration to be given if possible, to this point. I believe that, in the ships in which these apprentices go to sea, not only are they taught their practical knowledge of the sea, but they are also given some school instruction. If that is so, I would ask the Minister if he would give some special consideration in that case. It is pure waste of time keeping them away from their practical work, and the sooner they get to sea the better.
I wish to say a word in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Carnarvonshire (Major Owen). He hoped that this exemption would not be given, because he was in favour of uniformity of education. That is exactly what you are not going to get for years under this Bill. It is because you are not going to get uniformity, and because in the rural areas you are not going to get the particular type of education which is most suitable to those who go to school in these areas, that I am moving the Clause.
Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 124; Noes, 256.
Division No. 66.] AYES. [10.28 p.m. Albery, Irving James Castle Stewart, Earl of Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.) Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth,S.) Glyn, Major R. G. C. Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Atholl, Duchess of Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.) Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Atkinson, C. Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) Christie, J. A. Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Balniel, Lord Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Beaumont, M. W. Crookshank, Capt. H. C. Hamilton, Sir George (llford) Bevan, S. J. (Holborn) Croom-Johnson, R. P. Hammersley, S. S. Bird, Ernest Roy Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Bourne, Captain Robert Croft. Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Boyce, H. L. Dawson, Sir Philip Heneage, Lieut. -Colonel Arthur P. Bracken, B. Dixey, A. C. Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Brass, Captain Sir William Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) Briscoe, Richard George Dugdale, Capt. T. L. Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Edmondson, Major A. J. Hurst, Sir Gerald B. Bullock, Captain Malcolm Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Burgin, Dr. E. L. Everard, W. Lindsay Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Falle, Sir Bertram G. Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) Campbell, E. T. Ferguson, Sir John Kindersley, Major G. M. Carver, Major W. H. Fielden E. B. Knox, Sir Alfred Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Leighton, Major B. E. P. Peters, Dr. Sidney John Stanley, Lord (Fylde) Lewis, Oswald (Colchester) Ramsbotham, H. Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South) Llewellin, Major J. J. Remer, John R. Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F. McDonnell, Sir Joseph Reynolds, Col. Sir James Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy) Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton) Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) Tinne, J. A. Makins, Brigadier-General E. Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell Titchfield, Major the Marquess of Marjoribanks, Edward Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement Mason, Colonel Glyn K. Salmon, Major I. Turton, Robert Hugh Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey) Mond, Hon. Henry Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Ward, Lieut-Col. Sir A. Lambert Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart Waterhouse, Captain Charles Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond) Savery, S. S. Wells, Sydney R. Morris, Rhys Hopkins Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) Simms, Major-General J. Withers, Sir John James Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld) Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Oman, Sir Charles William C. Smith-Carington, Neville W. Captain Margesson and Sir Victor Warrender. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William Smithers, Waldron Peake, Capt. Osbert Somerset, Thomas
NOES. Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Forgan, Dr. Robert Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Freeman, Peter Lawson, John James Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M. Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) Leach, W. Alpass, J. H. George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.) Ammon, Charles George Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) Angell, Norman Gill, T. H. Lees, J. Arnott, John Gillett, George M. Lewis, T. (Southampton) Aske, Sir Robert Glassey, A. E. Lloyd, C. Eills Attlee, Clement Richard Gossllng, A. G. Logan, David Gilbert Ayles, Walter Gould, F. Longbottom, A. W. Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Longden, F. Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) Granville, E. Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Barnes, Alfred John Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) Lowth, Thomas Barr, James Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Lunn, William Batey, Joseph Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Bellamy, Albert Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) Benson, G. Groves, Thomas E. McElwee, A. Bentham, Dr. Ethel Grundy, Thomas W. McEntee, V. L. Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) McKinlay, A. Birkett, W. Norman Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) MacLaren, Andrew Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Bowen, J. W. Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) MacNeill-Weir, L. Broad, Francis Alfred Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) Mansfield, W. Brockway, A. Fenner Harbord, A. Marcus, M. Bromfield, William Hardle, George D. Marley, J. Bromley, J. Harris, Parcy A. Marshall, F. Brooke, W. Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Mathers, George Brothers, M. Hastings, Dr. Somervllle Matters, L. W. Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) Haycock, A. W. Maxton, James Brown, Ernest (Leith) Hayday, Arthur Messer, Fred Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) Hayes, John Henry Middleton, G. Burgess, F. G. Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) Milner, Major J. Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland) Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) Montague, Frederick Cameron, A. G. Herriotts, J. Morgan, Dr. H. B. Cape, Thomas Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) Morley, Ralph Carter, W. (St. Pancrat, S.W.) Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Charleton, H. C. Hoffman, P. C. Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) Chater, Daniel Hollins, A. Mort, D. L. Church, Major A. G. Hopkin, Daniel Moses, J. J. H. Clarke, J. S. Hore-Belisha, Leslie Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) Cluse, W. S. Horrabin, J. F. Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick) Cocks, Frederick Seymour. Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) Muff, G. Compton, Joseph Isaacs, George Muggeridge, H. T. Cove, William G. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Naylor, T. E. Cowan, D. M. Johnston, Thomas Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Daggar, George Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne) Noel Baker, P. J. Dallas, George Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.) Dalton, Hugh Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. Oldfield, J. R. Davies, E. C. (Montgomery) Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Priston) Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Kelly, W. T. Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) Denman, Hon. R. D. Kennedy, Thomas Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) Dudgeon, Major C. R. Kirkwood, D. Owen, H. F. (Hereford) Dukes, C. Knight, Holford Palin, John Henry. Duncan, Charles Lang, Gordon Paling, Wilfrid Ede, James Chuter Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Palmer, E. T. Edmunds, J. E. Lathan, G. Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Edwards, E. (Morpeth) Law, Albert (Bolton) Perry, S. F. Egan, W. H. Law, A. (Rossendale) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Elmley, Viscount Lawrence, Susan Phillips, Dr. Marion Pole, Major D. G. Shillaker, J. F. Townend, A. E. Potts, John S. Shinwell, E. Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Price, M. P. Simmons, C. J. Walkden, A. G. Pybus, Percy John Sinkinson, George Walker, J. Quibell, D. J. K. Sitch, Charles H. Wallace, H. W. Ramsay, T. B. Wilson Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) Wallhead, Richard C. Rathbone, Eleanor Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) Watkins, F. C. Raynes, W. R. Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley) Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne) Richards, R. Smith, Rennie (Penistone) Wellock, Wilfred Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Smith, Tom (Pontefract) Welsh, James (Paisley) Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) Snell, Harry Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip West, F. R. Ritson, J. Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) Westwood, Joseph Romeril, H. G. Sorensen, R. Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) Rosbotham, D. S. T. Stamford, Thomas W. Williams, David (Swansea, East) Rothschild, J. de Stephen, Campbell Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) Rowson, Guy Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercilffe) Sanders, W. S. Strachey, E. J. St. Loe Wilson, J. (Oldham) Sandham, E. Strauss, G. R. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) Sawyer, G. F. Sullivan, J. Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh) Scott, James Sutton, J. E. Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) Scurr, John Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) Young, R. S. (Islington, North) Sexton, James Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.) Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. Thurtle, Ernest TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Shepherd, Arthur Lewis Tillett, Ben Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. William Whiteley. Sherwood, G. H. Tinker, John Joseph Shield, George William Tout, W. J.
NEW CLAUSE.—(Exemption for apprentices.)
(1) It shall be the duty of the local education authority to grant exemption from the obligation to attend school to an individual child who has attained the age of fourteen years, whose parent applies for such exemption and shows that the child or the parent on the child's behalf has entered into articles of apprenticeship, or the child has otherwise been lawfully apprenticed in any trade or craft where the recognised period of apprenticeship is five years or over.
(2) An exemption so granted shall commence as from the entry of the child upon his apprenticeship and shall be valid only during the continuance of such apprenticeship. For such purpose a certificate of exemption shall be issued by the local education authority to the child's employer, who
shall return it to the authority should the apprenticeship terminate or be suspended before the child attains the age of fifteen years.
(3) An exemption under this section may be granted subject to the condition that the child shall attend a course of part-time education prescribed in the certificate and that in that case the provision of Sub-section (2) of Section seventy-six and Section seventy-eight of the principal Act shall apply to the course of education so prescribed—[ Sir W. Greaves-Lord. ]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."—[ Sir W. Greaves-Lord. ]
The Committee divided: Ayes, 118; Noes, 251.
Division No. 67.] AYES. [10.38 p.m. Albery, Irving James Croom-Johnson. R. P. Hurst, Sir Gerald B. Allen, sir J. sandeman (Liverp'l., W.) Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) Cunilffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Kindersley, Major G. M. Athoil, Duchess of Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Knox, Sir Alfred Atkinson, C. Dawson, Sir Philip Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) Dixey, A. C. Leighton, Major B. E. P. Balniel, Lord Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert Lewis, Oswald (Colchester) Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Dugdale, Capt. T. L. Llewellin, Major J. J. Beaumont, M. W. Edmondson, Major A. J. McConnell, Sir Joseph Bevan, S. J. (Holborn) Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Bird, Ernest Roy Everard, W. Lindsay Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) Bourne, Captain Robert Croft. Falle, Sir Bertram G. Makins, Brigadier-General E. Boyce, H. L. Ferguson, Sir John Margesson, Captain H. D. Bracken, B. Fielden, E. B. Marjoribanks, Edward Brass, Captain Sir William Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Mason, Colonel Glyn K. Briscoe, Richard George Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley) Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Brown, Col. D. C.(N'th'I'd.,Hexham) Glyn, Major R. G. C. Mond, Hon. Henry Bullock, Captain Malcolm Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Butler, R. A. Grattan- Doyle, Sir N. Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond) Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) Campbell, E. T. Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Mulrhead, A. J. Carver, Major W. H. Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W. G.(Ptrsf'ld) Castle Stewart, Earl of Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Oman, Sir Charles William C. Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton Hammersley, S. S. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William Christie, J. A. Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Peters, Dr. Sidney John Crookshank, Capt. H. C. Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) Ramsbotham, H. Remer, John R. Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) Turton, Robert Hugh Reynolds, Col. Sir James Smith-Carington, Neville W. Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey) Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy) Smithers, Waldron Ward, Lieut. -Col. Sir A. Lambert Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesail) Somerset, Thomas Wardlaw-Milne, J. S. Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Waterhouse, Captain Charles Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Southby, Commander A. R. J. Wells, Sydney R. Salmon, Major I. Stanley, Lord (Fylde) Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) Withers, Sir John James Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South) Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F. Savery, S. S. Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome Tinne, J. A. Major the Marquess of Titchfield and Sir Victor Warrender. Simms, Major-General J. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
NOES. Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Glassey, A. E. McKinlay, A. Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Gossling, A. G. MacLaren, Andrew Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Alpass, J. H. Granville, E. MacNeill-Weir, L. Ammon, Charles George Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Coine) Mansfield, W. Angell, Norman Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Marcus, M. Arnott, John Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) Marley, J. Aske, Sir Robert Groves, Thomas E. Marshall, Fred Attlee, Clement Richard Grundy, Thomas W. Mathers, George Ayles, Walter Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Matters, L. W. Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Maxton, James Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Messer, Fred Barnes, Alfred John Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) Middleton, G. Barr, James Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) Milner, Major J. Batey, Joseph Harbord, A. Montague, Frederick Bellamy, Albert Hardie, George D. Morgan, Dr. H. B. Bennett, William (Battersea, South) Harris, Percy A. Morley, Ralph Benson, G. Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Bentham. Dr. Ethel Hastings, Dr. Somerville Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Haycock, A. W. Mort, D. L. Birkett, W. Norman Hayday, Arthur Moses, J. J. H. Bowen, J. W. Hayes. John Henry Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) Broad, Francis Alfred Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick) Brockway, A. Fenner Herriotts, J. Muff, G. Bromfield, William Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) Muggeridge, H. T. Bromley, J. Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Naylor, T. E. Brooke, W. Hoffman, P. C. Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Brothers, M. Hollins, A. Noel Baker, P. J. Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield) Hopkin, Daniel Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.) Brown, Ernest (Leith) Hore-Bellsha, Leslie Oldfield, J. R. Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) Horrabin, J. F. Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) Burgess, F. G. Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) Burgin, Dr. E. L. Isaacs, George Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland) Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Owen, H. F. (Hereford) Cameron, A. G. Johnston, Thomas Palin, John Henry Cape, Thomas Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Paling, Wilfrid Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.) Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne) Palmer, E. T. Charleton, H. C. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Chater, Daniel Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. Perry, S. F. Church, Major A. G. Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Clarke, J. S. Kelly, W. T. Phillips, Dr. Marlon Cluse, W. S. Kennedy, Thomas Pole, Major D. G. Cocks, Frederick Seymour. Kirkwood, D. Potts, John S. Compton, Joseph Knight, Holford Price, M. P. Cove, William G. Lang, Gordon. Pybus, Percy John Daggar, George Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Quibell, D. J. K. Dallas, George Lathan, G. Ramsay, T. B. Wilson Dalton, Hugh Law, Albert (Bolton) Raynes, W. R. Davies, E. C. (Montgomery) Law, A. (Rossendale) Richards, R. Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lawrence, Susan Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Denman, Hon. R. D. Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) Dudgeon, Major C. R. Lawson, John James Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) Dukes, C. Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) Ritson, J. Duncan, Charles Leach, W. Romeril, H. G. Ede, James Chuter Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.) Rosbotham, D. S. T. Edmunds, J. E. Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) Rothschild, J. de Edwards, E. (Morpeth) Lees, J. Rawson, Guy Egan, W. H. Lewis, T. (Southampton) Sanders, W. S. Eimley, Viscount Lloyd, C. Ellis Sandham, E. Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) Logan, David Gilbert Sawyer, G. F. Forgan, Dr. Robert Longbottom, A. W. Scurr, John Freeman, Peter Longden, F. Sexton, James Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. Gardner, J: P. (Hammersmith, N.) Lowth, Thomas Shepherd, Arthur Lewis George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Lunn, William Sherwood, G. H. Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley) Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Shield, George William Gill, T. H. McElwee. A. Shillaker, J. F. Gillett, George M. McEntee, V. L. Shinwell, E. Simmons, C. J Sullivan, J. Welsh, James (Paisley) Sinkinson, Georg Sutton, J. E. Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) Sitch, Charles H. Taylor, R. A. (Lincoin) West, F. R. Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.) Westwood, Joseph Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) Thurtle, Ernest Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley) Tillett, Ben Williams, David (Swansea, East) Smith, Rennie (Penlstone) Tinker, John Joseph Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) Smith, Tom (Pontefract) Tout, W. J. Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) Snell, Harry Townend, A. E. Wilson, J. (Oldham) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) Walkden, A. G. Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh) Sorensen, R. Wallace, H. W. Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) Stamford, Thomas W. Walker, J. Young, R. S. (islington, North) Stephen, Campbell Wallhead, Richard C. Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) Watkins, F. C. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Strachey, E. J. St. Loe Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. William Whiteley. Strauss, G. R. Wellock, Wilfred
NEW CLAUSE—(Withdrawal from schools for religious observance and instruction.)
Where, in consequence of any arrangements made for giving effect to this Act in the area of any local education authority, children who formerly attended an elementary school not provided by the authority are attending a school which is so provided or children who formerly attended an elementary school provided by the authority are attending a school not so provided any child attending the school may, notwithstanding any by-laws respecting the attendance of children at school, be withdrawn from the school during any period allotted in the time table of the school to religious observance or instruction in religious subjects if—
(a) his parent so desires; and
(b) the local education authority is satisfied that arrangements have been made for him to attend religious observance or instruction in religious subjects elsewhere.— [ Major Llewellin. ]
Brought up, and read the First time.
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is practically the same, word for word, as Clause 3 of the Bill which the Minister himself introduced last summer. The only difference is-that it is proposed to limit this Clause to arrangements made for giving effect to the provisions of this Act, and the Clause has been drafted in that way so that it may be in order. The Clause in the Minister's Bill of last summer did not provide, as this Clause does, for children who formerly attended an elementary school provided by the authority and are attending a school not so provided. These cases may be very few in number, but it seemed good to those of us who have our names to the proposed new Clause to provide for them as well as for the cases dealt with in the Minister's original Bill.
We all know that considerable reorganisation will probably be necessary when this Measure is put into force and I would ask the Minister why he has omitted the Clause which was in the former Bill? His reply may be that it was part of the religious concordat which was being arrived at when he introduced the Bill of last summer. I understand that negotiations are still proceeding between the Minister and various bodies who take an interest in the non-provided schools. We ask the right hon. Gentleman to-night to make a gesture by accepting this Clause and by allowing those parents who really wish, if their children go—as they may have to go under reorganisation—to a provided school, to withdraw them from that school under the conditions that the Minister thought fit to propose when he introduced his Bill last summer. Those conditions are, first, if the parent so desires, and, secondly, if the local education authorities are satisfied that arrangements have been made for the children to attend religious observance or instruction in religious subjects elsewhere. I would only say to hon. Members opposite, who are, quite obviously, not listening at this moment, that there are a very large number of parents up and down the country, and very large and important religious bodies, who lay a great deal of store by this Clause which was originally put in the Bill by the Minister last summer.
The acceptance of this Clause would not only improve the Bill, but would also improve the Minister's chances of success—as we sincerely hope he will be successful—in trying to bring about some solution of the question of non-provided schools. Let him offer this Clause, which, after all, as drafted, can offend no section of the Committee, whether they are inclined to be in favour of provided or non- provided schols, because it merely allows the parents to ask for children to be withdrawn, and, if the local education authority think they are providing proper religious instruction for them, then they are allowed to withdraw the children from the school if the Clause becomes part of the Bill. If an Education Bill is to work properly, you want to go forward with as much co-operation on the part of the parents as possible. That is why I beg to move this Clause.
I very much hope that the hon. Member will not press this Clause now. I would point out, first of all, that the actual effect of the Clause must be extraordinarily small. It says:
"in consequence of any arrangements made for giving effect to this Act in the area of any local education authority,"
that is to say, for the raising of the school age. In the circumstances in which this Clause was originally included in the last Bill, it was to deal with a very much wider thing than the raising of the school age, the whole question of reorganisation, where it becomes very material to the whole relations of provided and non-provided schools. Therefore, if you did pass the Clause, it would have extraordinarily little effect. But the real reason why I do not wish it to be introduced is that the Clause is, as the whole of the hon. Member's speech showed, to be regarded as a gesture. Yes, but I do not want to make a gesture in regard to one of the things which might be presumed to be likely to form part of the larger concordat which many of us would like to see. I do not wish to take up this, and stick it in the Bill. Let it be in its place. It was not
actually part of Clause 2 but of Clause 3, and a part of the Clauses introduced for that purpose. I would very much rather, therefore, it were left for the larger issue, especially as it can have almost no effect because of the actual wording of the Clause.
The right hon. Gentleman must not put too much emphasis on his first point, which was also his last. It will have a very considerable effect if, as the result of raising the age a child has to attend a church school where he was attending a council school, or attend a council school where he was attending a church school; and his parents should have the right of withdrawal. We are, however, quite ready not to press it in order to make the right hon. Gentleman's task of reaching an arrangement more easy, but it would facilitate business a little if he could only inform us of the prospect, even in the vaguest terms, because it should be remembered that there is a large body of opinion in this House on both sides which has stipulated that there shall be some understanding on the Report stage. If the right hon. Gentleman can assure us that he will be able to inform us on the Report stage that something resembling a provisional arrangement has been reached, we will be very ready not to press the new Clause.
I prefer not to say anything. When things are at a critical stage it is better not to do so.
Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 117; Noes, 231.
Division No. 68.] AYES. [10.55 p.m. Albery, Irving James Carver, Major W. H. Fielden, E. B. Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.) Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Aske, Sir Robert Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.) Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Atholl, Duchess of Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter Atkinson, C. Christie, J. A. Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Balniel, Lord Courtauld, Major J. S. Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Beaumont, M. W. Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Bevan, S. J. (Holborn) Croom-Johnson, R. P. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Bird, Ernest Roy Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Bourne, Captain Robert Croft. Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Heneage, Lieut. -Colonel Arthur P. Boyce, H. L. Dawson, Sir Philip Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) Brass, Captain Sir William Dixey, A. C. Hore-Bellsha, Leslie Briscoe, Richard George Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham) Dugdale, Capt. T. L. Kindersley, Major G. M. Bullock, Captain Malcolm Edmondson, Major A. J. Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) Butler, R. A. Everard, W. Lindsay Leighton, Major B. E. P. Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Falle, Sir Bertram G. Lewis, Oswald (Colchester) Campbell, E. T. Ferguson, Sir John Llewellin, Major J. J. McConnell, Sir Joseph Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South) Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F. Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. Makins, Brigadier-General E. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton) Marjoribanks, Edward Salmon, Major I. Tinne, J. A. Mason, Colonel Glyn K. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Titchfield, Major the Marquess of Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart Turton, Robert Hugh Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond) Savery, S. S. Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey) Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome Ward, Lieut. -Col. Sir A. Lambert Muirhead, A. J. Simms, Major-General J. Wardlaw-Milne, J. S. Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) Waterhouse, Captain Charies Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) Smith-Carington, Neville W. Wells, Sydney R. Oman, Sir Charles William C. Smithers, Waldron Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William Somerset, Thomas Withers, Sir John James Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton Ramsbotham, H. Southby, Commander A. R. J. Remer, John R. Stanley, Lord (Fylde) TELLERS FOR THE AYES .—.— Reynolds, Col. Sir James Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) Major Sir George Hennessy and Sir Victor Warrender
NOES. Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Gillett, George M. Lunn, William Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Glassey, A. E. Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') Gossling, A. G. McElwee, A. Alpass, J. H. Gould, F. McEntee, V. L. Ammon, Charles George Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) McKinlay, A. Angell, Norman Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) MacLaren, Andrew Arnott, John Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Attlee, Clement Richard Groves, Thomas E. Mansfield, W. Ayles, Walter Grundy, Thomas W. Marcus, M. Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Marley, J. Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Marshall, Fred Barnes, Alfred John Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Mathers, George Barr, James Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) Matters, L. W. Batey, Joseph Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) Messer, Fred Bellamy, Albert Harbord, A. Middleton, G. Bennett, William (Battersea, South) Hardle, George D. Milner, Major J. Benson, G. Harris, Percy A. Montague, Frederick Bentham. Dr. Ethel Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Morgan, Dr. H. B. Birkett, W. Norman Hastings, Dr. Somerville Morley, Ralph Bowen, J. W. Haycock, A. W. Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Broad, Francis Alfred Hayday, Arthur Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) Brockway, A. Fenner Hayes, John Henry Mort, D. L. Bromfield, William Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) Moses, J. J. H. Bromley, J. Herriotts, J. Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) Brooke, W. Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick) Brothers, M. Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Muff, G. Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) Hoffman, P. C. Muggeridge, H. T. Brown, Ernest (Leith) Hollins, A. Naylor, T. E. Brown, W.J. (Wolverhampton, West) Hopkin, Daniel Noel Baker, P. J. Burgess, F. G, Horrabin, J. F. Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.) Burgin, Dr. E. L. Hudson, James H. (Huddertfield) Oliver, George Harold (Iikeston) Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland) Isaacs, George Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) Cameron, A. G. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Owen, H. F. (Hereford) Cape, Thomas Johnston, Thomas Palin, John Henry Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.) Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Paling, Wilfrid Charleton, H. C. Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne) Palmer, E. T. Chater, Daniel Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Perry, S. F. Church, Major A. G. Jowett. Rt. Hon. F. W. Pethick-Lawrence. F. W. Clarke, J. S. Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston) Phillips, Dr. Marion Cluse, W. S. Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) Pole, Major D. G. Cocks, Frederick Seymour Kelly, W. T. Potts, John S. Compton, Joseph Kennedy, Thomas Price, M. P. Cove, William G. Kirkwood, D. Pybus, Percy John Daggar, George Knight, Holford Quibell, D. J. K. Dallas, George Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Ramsay, T. B. Wilson Dalton, Hugh Lathan, G. Raynes, W. R. Davies, E. C. (Montgomery) Law, Albert (Bolton) Richards, R. Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Law, A. (Rossendale) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Denman, Hon. R. D. Lawrence. Susan Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) Dudgeon, Major C. R. Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) Dukes, C. Lawson, John James Ritson, J. Duncan, Charles Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) Romeril, H. G. Ede, James Chuter Leach, W. Rosbotham, D. S. T. Edmunds, J. E. Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.) Rowson, Guy Edwards, E. (Morpeth) Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) Sanders, W. S. Elmley, Viscount Lees, J. Sandham, E. Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) Lewis, T. (Southampton) Sawyer, G. F. Freeman, Peter Lloyd, C. Ellis Sexton, James Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) Longbottom, A. W. Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) Longden, F. Shepherd, Arthur Lewis George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Sherwood, G. H. Gill, T. H. Lowth, Thomas Shield, George William Shillaker, J. F. Sutton, J. E. Welsh, James (Paisley) Shinwell, E. Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) Simmons, C. J. Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.) West, F. R. Sinkinson, George Thurtle, Ernest Westwood, Joseph Sitch, Charles H. Tillett, Ben Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) Tinker, John Joseph Whiteley, William (Blaydon) Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) Tout, W. J. Williams, David (Swansea, East) Smith, Rennie (Penistone) Townend, A. E. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) Smith, Tom (Pontefract) Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) Snell, Harry Walkden, A. G. Wilson, J. (Oldham) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip walker, J. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) Wallace, H. W. Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) Sorenson, R. Wallhead, Richard C. Young, R. S. (Islington, North) Stamford, Thomas W. Watkins, F. C. Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) TELLERS FOR THE NOES .—.— Strauss, G. R. Wellock, Wilfred Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards.
FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Consequential Amendments of 11 & 12 Geo. 5. c. 51.)
I beg to move, in page 4, line 17, at the end, to add the words:
The other provision of the Sub-section of the governing Act gives the local authority the power to prohibit certain employments for children of school age. Some of those employments I might give to the Committee, but I dare say that hon. Members are already familiar with the list of occupations which the local authorities have prohibited. Unless this Amendment is accepted by the Committee we shall have the anomaly that the local education authority will be able to govern by by-laws the employment of children of school age up to 14 years, but they will not be able to govern the employment, hours and conditions of employment during the last year of the school age from 14 to 15. It is very desirable that that power should be conferred on local education authorities. Some of the anomalies which arise provide a continual incentive for the employment of children between the ages of 14 and 15. There is the fact that the child has not to be insured whereas, when the Bill becomes established, the insurable age will drop to 15. There is the definite incentive, therefore, to-employ children at the age of 14 to 15 attending school. There is also the incentive in regard to wages, and, if the Bill reaches the Statute Book with the provision for maintenance allowances the anomaly will be created of maintenance allowances being paid for children from 14 to 15 who will, in addition, be earning wages.
I think it is the desire of the Committee that this Amendment should be accepted. In the City of Cardiff, prior to 1918, there were 3,000 school children employed out of school hours. As a consequence of the Act of 1918, that number has dropped until at present there are only some 300 employed. At present in Cardiff there are some 3,000 children in the age group of 14 to 15, and it is to protect those children that I am moving the Amendment. It is not necessary that I should point out to the Committee that the educational advantages will be largely reduced unless you equip the local education authority with powers to prescribe the hours during which school children can be employed. In order that this age group of children may receive the full advantage of this Education Bill and the protection which the child of 14 is receiving at the hands of this House, I move the Amendment standing on the Paper.
I think those who have listened to my hon. Friend the Member for East Cardiff (Mir. Edmunds) will see that, if we are raising the education age to 15, it is only right that the employment age should follow on, and that the local education authority should have the right to make by-laws on the changed age. I think that the thing is so obvious that I should he ready to accept the Amendment. I would only say that I think the reason why it was not originally put in the Bill was that it was thought possible that there might be some Home Office Bill to deal with it; but, as the question has been raised, there can be no doubt that we ought to do it now.
Really, the right hon. Gentleman's speech has almost reduced me to despair. The hon. Member for East Cardiff (Mr. Edmunds) is perfectly right in moving the Amendment. I think that one of my hon. Friends behind me would have put down an Amendment of this kind if we had thought it would have been within the scope of the Bill. I had grave doubts whether it would have been within the Rules of Order or the scope of the Bill, but I will not raise that point. What reduces me to despair is that the representatives of the Government have given so little thought to this matter and that they are prepared to accept this and the following Amendment without realising apparently that they need a number of consequential Amendments as well. Under the Act of 1921, look at the position that will be created by this Amendment. The hon. Member for East Cardiff has missed out Subsection (2) of Section 90. I apologise to the Committee for these technicalities. When these provisions were inserted up to the age of 14 in the 1918 Act there was a special provision exempting all children who were actually employed in "any factory, workshop, mine or quarry" at the time when the Act came into force. Clearly, the same kind of provision is needed here in raising the age to 15 for children who are actually employed when the Act comes into force. If you do not have that, look at the curious position you will be in. We have already got in this Bill a provision that the raising of the school age shall not apply to any child who is 14 when the Act comes into force, but under the Bill, as it will be amended by the Amendment, you will have the child not obliged to attend school, but prevented from being employed in "any factory, workshop, mine or quarry."
My Amendment deals only with Sub-section (1).
That is what I complain of, because it stands like this, that the Act shall not apply to any child employed legitimately under this Bill in any factory, workshop, mine or quarry when the Act of 1918 came into operation or under the operation of the Education Act of 1929 or 1930, as the case may be. There is another point with which the right hon. Gentleman ought to have dealt. Section 90 and Section 92 give local authorities power to make by-laws for children of the age of 12 and upwards. Does that give local authorities power to make different sets of by-laws for children between 12 and 14 and children between 14 and 15? It is quite clear that it would be absurd to say that the number of hours before school in the morning or after school in the evening that may be worked by a child between 12 and 14 is necessarily the same number that can be worked between 14 and 15. If the hon. Member for East Cardiff looks at the provisions of Section 92, he will see that there are provisions in that Section which do not necessarily entirely apply to children between 14 and 15. Can the local authorities make by-laws for the children between the ages of 13 and 14 and between 14 and 15, because if they can then this simple substitution of 16 for 14 is wrong. In short the Government has left this most important and complicated piece of machinery to a private Member, and now that the private Member has done his best the Government are not prepared to come forward with any ideas of their own. I suggest that the Government should reserve this whole question, as they do not seem to have thought it out, for the Report stage, and bring in their own drafting Amendment.
I am extremely sorry that the Noble Lord thinks that we have not attended to this point. We have had this Amendment on the Paper for some time, and I have taken what advice I can about it. The points which the Noble Lord has raised were not raised to me, and I find some difficulty in seeing what they are, but I am perfectly ready, before Report, to consult my advisers very carefully on these legal points, and, if they feel that there is any uncertainty remaining with regard to them, I will have the necessary alterations made. But that does not invalidate the general question, and I hope that the Committee is going to accept my hon. Friend's proposal, subject, of course, to any necessary legal alterations when I have put the Noble Lord's points before my advisers.
I do not object to this Amendment, because I think it is extremely desirable, but I do object to its being put in the First Schedule. This Amendment, without straining the term, may be regarded as a consequential Amendment, but it is of very great importance, and I think it ought to have come in the body of the Bill, where people will look for it, and not in the Schedule. Most of us who have to read Acts of Parliament read the Clauses, but do not read the Schedules, and especially alterations in the law arising in the Schedules, nearly so easily, and, although I am in favour of the Amendment, I think it would come better as a new Clause. I would like the Government to consider that point before Report.
I do not want to oppose the kind of alteration which is intended by this Amendment, but in these days at any rate I think it is somewhat important that we should be careful how we deal with procedure rules in Bills of this kind, and I want to put to you, Mr. Young, a point which was mentioned casually by the Noble Lord, as to whether this Amendment is in order. I submit to you that it is outside the Title and scope off the Bill. The Title of this Bill is, if I may put it quite shortly, to raise to 15 years the age up to which children should receive elementary education and attend school, and to make provision for maintenance allowances in respect of children attending school up to that raised age who are over the age of 14. This Amendment deals with another matter entirely, namely, the employment of children and young persons. It seeks to amend the Act of 11 and 12 George V, c. 51, which is not merely an Education Act, but is also an Act dealing with the employment of children and young persons, and is so described in the Title. I do not want to raise points of Order of this kind unnecessarily, but I submit that it is perfectly obvious from what has taken place already, that if this Amendment were inserted by itself it would make this part of the Bill ridiculous. It is quite an impossible Amendment standing by itself, without a number of other consequential Amendments, and I do not think it ought to be put in on the mere suggestion that these questions are going to be looked into before the Report stage. I submit to you that the Amendment is not in order at this stage, as not being within the Title and scope of the Bill.
May I direct your attention, Mr. Young, to the Title of the Bill, which says:
"to cause their children to receive efficient elementary instruction and to attend school."
I submit that, if this Amendment be not put in, the children will not be attending school, and, therefore, will not be receiving efficient instruction.
I regarded this Amendment as consequential, arising from the fact that, as has been said by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr), it is provided that the children must receive efficient instruction; but, in view of what has been said by the hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert), it seems to me that the Amendment is outside the scope of the Bill, and I shall have so to rule.
Does not the raising of the school age affect employment, in that it stops children from going on with their work? On that ground I submit that the Amendment is quite in order.
That was the view I took, but I find here in this Clause power to make by-laws for regulating the employment of children, and the Bill itself is clearly for raising the school age. Consequently this seems to me to be outside the scope of the Bill. At first I treated it as a consequential Amendment and nothing more but I must rule it out of Order. The Education Act of 1921 is an Act dealing with education and employment.
Is it not entirely within the scope of the educational authorities, who have charge of education and not of employment? These powers are put into the hands of local education authorities in order that they may ensure that the children attending school shall be in a condition to benefit by it and to receive efficient education. The Section in the original Act equipped the education authority with power to ensure that children of school age should receive efficient education, and, unless the Bill is amended as suggested in my Amendment, the age group for which the Bill makes provision will not be in a position to receive the efficient education that the Bill is intended to give them.
That was the point of view that I took. I did not turn up the Section particularly at the time, but the Bill is for the purpose of raising the school age to 15 and granting maintenance allowances. The other Act was to raise the school age to 14. The Minister will have to find another way of getting round the difficulty.
The original Act from which this is derived is described as an Education Act. If the by-laws under the original Act covered it, why does not this Bill cover it?
I am still tied down by the fact that the Bill is to do two things only, to raise the school age and to give maintenance.
After half-an-hour's discussion you have ruled the Amendment out of order.
I regret that I called the Amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this be the First Schedule to the Bill."
I hope the right hon. Baronet will agree not to go further tonight than the First Schedule. It contains the repeal of the existing law in regard to the granting of exemptions. The debate as regards exemption ended half an hour or more ago in the rather unsatisfactory silence of the Government. The question is one on which we feel strongly, not at all from the point of view of exempting children whose parents are in a bad economic condition, but exempting children in the interest of the children themselves. I should like some assurance that the Government are prepared between now and Report to consider the whole question of exemption in the interest of the child, and that they are prepared to consider how reasonable flexibility and elasticity may be given to the administration of the provisions.
I am prepared to consider the question, but I cannot say that I agree that a very strong case has been made out by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. If there is any particular new point which he wants to put where he thinks any valuable concession can be made without altering the main scope of the Bill, I will give serious attention to it, but I cannot say more.
Question put, "That this be the First Schedule to the Bill."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 222; Noes, 85.
Division No. 69.] AYES. [11.32 p.m. Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Bennett, William (Battersea, South) Burgess, F. G. Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Benson, G. Burgin, Dr. E. L. Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') Bentham, Dr. Ethel Cameron, A. G. Alpass, J. H. Birkett, W. Norman Cape, Thomas Ammon, Charles George Bowen, J. W. Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.) Angell, Norman Broad, Francis Alfred Charleton, H. C. Arnott, John Brockway, A. Fenner Chater, Daniel Aske, Sir Robert Bromfield, William Church, Major A. G. Ayles, Walter Bromley, J. Clarke, J. S. Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) Brooke, W. Cluse, W. S. Barnes, Alfred John Brothers, M. Cocks, Frederick Seymour. Barr, James Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) Compton, Joseph Batey, Joseph Brown, Ernest (Leith) Daggar, George Bellamy, Albert Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) Dallas, George Dalton, Hugh Lathan, G. Rathbone, Eleanor Davies, E. C. (Montgomery) Law, Albert (Bolton) Raynes, W. R. Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Law, A. (Rossendale) Richards, R. Denman, Hon. R. D. Lawrence, Susan Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Dudgeon, Major C. R. Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) Dukes, C. Lawson, John James Ritson, J. Duncan, Charles Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) Romeril, H. G. Ede, James Chuter Leach, W. Rosbotham, D. S. T. Edmunds, J. E. Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.) Rothschild, J. de Edwards, E. (Morpeth) Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) Rowson, Guy Egan, W. H. Lees, J. Sanders, W. S. Elmley, Viscount Lewis, T. (Southampton) Sandham, E. Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) Lloyd, C. Ellis Sawyer, G. F. Forgan, Dr. Robert Logan, David Gilbert Scurr, John Freeman, Peter Longbottom, A. W. Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) Longden, F. Shepherd, Arthur Lewis Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Sherwood, G. H. George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Lunn, William Shield, George William Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley) Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Shillaker, J. F. Gill, T. H. McElwee, A. Simmons, C. J. Gillett, George M. McEntee, V. L. Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness) Glassey, A. E. Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Sinkinson, George Gossling, A. G. Mansfield, W. Sitch, Charles H. Gould, F. Marcus, M. Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Marley, J. Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) Marshall, Fred Smith, Rennie (Penistone) Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Mathers, George Smith, Tom (Pontefract) Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) Matters, L. W. Smith, W. R. (Norwich) Groves, Thomas E. Maxton, James Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) Grundy, Thomas W. Messer, Fred Sorensen, R. Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Middleton, G. Stamford, Thomas W. Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvit) Milner, Major J. Stephen, Campbell Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Montague, Frederick Strauss, G. R. Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) Morgan, Dr. H. B. Sullivan, J. Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) Morley, Ralph Sutton, J. E. Harbord, A. Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) Hastings, Dr. Somerville Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.) Haycock, A. W. Mort, D. L. Tinker, John Joseph Mayday, Arthur Moses, J. J. H. Tout, W. J. Hayes, John Henry Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) Townend, A. E. Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) Muff, G. Trevelyan. Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Herriotts, J. Muggeridge, H. T. Walker, J. Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) Naylor, T. E. Wallace, H. W. Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) Hoffman, P. C. Noel Baker, P. J. Wellock, Wilfred Hollins, A. Oldfield, J. R. Welsh. James (Paisley) Hopkin, Daniel Oliver, George Harold (ilkeston) Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) Hore-Belisha, Lesile Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) Westwood, Joseph Horrabin. J. F. Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) Owen, H. F. (Hereford) Whiteley, William (Blaydon) Isaacs, George Palin, John Henry Williams, David (Swansea, East) Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Paling, Wilfrid Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. Perry, S. F. Wilson, J. (Oldham) Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Wilson. R. J. (Jarrow) Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) Phillips, Dr. Marion Winterton, G. E.(Lelcester, Loughb'gh) Kelly, W. T. Potts, John S. Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) Kennedy, Thomas Price, M. P. Young, R. S. (Islington, North) Kirkwood, D. Pybus, Percy John Lang, Gordon Quibell, D. J. K. TELLERS FOR THE AYES .—.— Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Ramsay, T. B. Wilson Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Thurtle.
NOES. Ainsworth, Lieut. -Col. Charles Christie, J. A. Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Albery, Irving James Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George Kindersley, Major G. M. Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) Courtauld, Major J. S. Kinley, J. Atholl, Duchess of Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. Leighton, Major B. E. P. Atkinson, C. Crookshank, Capt. H. C. Llewellin, Major J. J. Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) Croom-Johnson, R. P. McConnell, Sir Joseph Balniel, Lord Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Dugdale, Capt. T. L. Makins, Brigadier-General E. Beaumont, M. W. Edmondson, Major A. J. Margesson, Captain H. D. Bevan, S. J. (Holborn) Everard, W. Lindsay Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Bird, Ernest Roy Falle, Sir Bertram G. Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond) Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Ferguson, Sir John Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) Boyce, H. L. Fremantle, Lieut. -Colonel Francis E. Muirhead, A. J. Briscoe, Richard George Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Oman, Sir Charles William C. Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd'., Hexham) Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Ormsby-Gore. Rt. Hon. William Butler, R. A. Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Penny, Sir George Campbell, E. T. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.) Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) Peters, Dr. Sidney John Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Ramsbotham, H. Remer, John R. Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement Reynolds, Col. Sir James Smith-Carington, Neville W. Turton, Robert Hugh Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) Smithers, Waldron Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell Somerset, Thomas Wells, Sydney R. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay), Salmon, Major I. Southby, Commander A. R. J. Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South) TELLERS FOR THE NOES .—.— Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. A. Major Sir George Hennessy and Sir Victor Warrender. Savery, S. S. Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Resolved, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[ .Sir G. Trevelyan. ]
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
Supply
Report [9th December]
Resolution reported,
Civil Estimates, Supplementary Estimate, 1930
Class V
Ministry of Labour
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10,500,000, be granted to His, Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Labour and Subordinate Departments, including the Exchequer Contribution to the Unemployment Fund, Grants to Associations, Local Education Authorities and others under the Unemployment Insurance, Labour Exchanges and other Acts; Expenses of the Industrial Court; Contribution towards the Expenses of the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations); Expenses of Training and Transference of Work-people and their Families within Great Britain and Overseas (including expenditure additional to that authorised under Section 2 (1) of the Labour Exchanges Act, 1909); and sundry services, including services arising out of the War."
Resolution agreed to.
Ways and Means
Report [9th December]
Resolution reported,
"That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, the sum of £10,500,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
Resolution agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Pethick-Lawrence.
Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill
"to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-one," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 68.]
Unemployment Insurance Bill
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
Do I understand that this important Bill is to have a Third Reading without a word of explanation? If so, I must protest against it.
All I can say is that the Bill has already been fully explained and debated. The House is well aware that the Fund has power to borrow up to £60,000,000, and that this Bill increases the borrowing powers up to £70,000,000. On 6th December the debt amounted to £57,290,000 and was accumulating at the rate of £700,000 per week. At that rate the Fund will be exhausted about Christmas time, and if this Bill is not passed there will be no money for those who are entitled to unemployment benefit. I do not think it is necessary to go into the causes which have led to this position or the steps which the Government have taken. They have decided to appoint a Royal Commission to investigate ways and means for making the Fund self-supporting. This Bill only relates to those who have 30 stamps qualification during the last two years and has nothing whatever to do with those who are in the transitional stage. The argumens that have been put up against the appointment of a Royal Commission have been met by my right hon. Friend and myself during the Second Reading stage of the Bill, and I do not think that, at present, it is necessary to go into that matter. If any hon. Member has any point to raise or any question to ask on the Bill itself I shall be very pleased to answer.
I am very sorry that the Minister of Labour is not here—
May I say that the Minister of Labour was here until about an hour ago and intended to remain to see the Bill through the Third Reading stage, but for private reasons which, I am sure, every hon. Member would understand and appreciate she had to leave the House.
In that case I may perhaps put a question to the Parliamentary Secretary as to how far this Royal Commission, of which we have been told very little—
It would be quite out of Order, on the Third Reading of this Bill.
As the hon. Gentleman mentioned the Royal Commission, I thought I might put a question to him about it, but I appreciate the fact that it does not arise directly on the present occasion. I wish, however, to protest, as the representative of an agricultural constituency, against the continued expenditure of these large sums of money. After all, it is the country which has to find the money, and we have no indication from the Government that this wasteful expenditure is going to cease.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.
Electricity (Supply) Acts
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the county borough of Rotherham, in the West Riding of the county of York, which was presented on the-6th day of November, 1930, be approved."—[ Mr. Herbert Morrison. ]
I wish to ask the Minister of Transport two questions, concerning this and similar Special Orders. If any parties, whether the local authority concerned or private undertakers, whose interests are affected by this Order, are dissatisfied what means have they of bringing up their objection before the Order is presented to the House? My second question relates to these Orders generally. In some of them, there is a paragraph containing stipulations in regard to a maximum price for the current supplied, and in others that paragraph is absent. Will the Minister say why that should be so?
On the first point, the hon. Member may be perfectly sure that there are ample opportunities for all parties, whether public authorities, or private persons, or private undertakers, whose interests are affected to object and to be heard and to state their views fully, before the Order comes to this House. In fact, these opportunities are so full that one of my hon. Friends on the Liberal benches has been worrying me for the past six months to hurry up a Special Order for the district or Buckie, the progress of which has been slow, not through any fault of ours but because of all these rights of interested parties to object. As regards the second question, there are some cases in which the Commissioners can and should insert a maximum price and there are other cases, in which they have not the power or where the maximum price is secured by other means. Where it is appropriate, the Commissioners have the power to put in a maximum price and that is done in-the proper cases.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
"That the Special Order made by the-Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in-respect of the burgh of Grantown-on-Spey, in the county of Elgin or Moray, which was presented on the 5th day of November, 1930, be approved."
Resolved,
"That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban districts of Lathom and Burscough and Skelmersdale and parts? of the rural districts of Wigan and West Lancashire, in the county palatine of Lancaster which was presented on the 5th day of November, 1930, be approved."
Resolved,
"That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the parish of Hambledon, in the rural district of Droxford, in the county of Southampton, which was presented on the 28th day of October, 1930, be approved."— [ Mr. Herbert Morrison .]
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed .
Adjourned at Eight Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.