Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 246: debated on Thursday 18 December 1930

House of Commons

Thursday, December 18, 1930

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions

Unemployment

Cotton Industry (Women)

asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed women in the cotton industry in Lancashire, the number that are married, and the number that are receiving part-time benefit?

Numbers of Persons on the Registers of the Deptford and Greenwich Employment Exchange at the dates stated below.

Date.

Men.

Boys.

Women.

Girls.

Total.

1st December, 1930

5,619

164

1,624

95

7,502

8th December, 1930

5,489

154

1,596

79

7,318

15th December, 1930

5,575

146

1,575

86

7,382

asked the Minister of Labour, with regard to the representations she has received as to the present inadequate accommodation for unemployed persons registering at the Deptford Employment Exchange, whether consideration is being given to the matter and any indication can be given as to when the remedy is to be provided?

A scheme of alterations to the existing building has been approved. Work will be commenced in January, and should take about two months to complete.

Courts of Referees (Payment of Chairmen)

asked the Minister of Labour what remuneration is paid to chairmen of Courts of Referees under the Unemployment Insurance Acts; how many such paid chairmen there are; and what was the total amount received by them during the financial year 1929–30?

At 24th November, 1930, there were 129,578 insured women, aged 18 to 64, classified as belonging to the cotton industry recorded as unemployed in Lancashire, of whom 45,054 were temporarily stopped. The number of married women included in these totals is not available. Separate figures of the numbers receiving benefit for part only of each week are not available.

Deptford

asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons registered as unemployed in the Deptford area at the last convenient date, as compared with the two preceding periods?

As the reply is in the form of a table, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the table:

Chairmen of Courts of Referees are paid a fee of 2½ guineas for each sitting of approximately three hours; the number of chairmen provided for under present arrangements is 380, of whom 116 are reserve chairmen. The total amount received by chairmen as remuneration during the financial year 1929–1930 was £60,724.

Is the Minister satisfied that she is getting value for this, compared with the old rota?

Is the chairman included in the figure that the Minister gave just now in answer to Question No. 4 as to the paid staff?

Benefit (Juveniles)

asked the Minister of Labour how many persons under the age of 17 were receiving unemployment insurance benefit on 1st December last or the last convenient date?

I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not available. There were on 24th November 46,540 juveniles aged 16 or 17 with claims to benefit admitted or under consideration; most of them would be aged 17.

Can the Minister say why the numbers are so very large; and whether they are increasing?

Uddingston (Appeals)

asked the Minister of Labour the number of cases that have been before the court of referees in Uddingston; and how many have been admitted, and how many refused, up to the latest date?

The number of cases dealt with by the Uddingston Court of Referees during the period of six months ended 11th December, 1930, was 229, of which 80 were decided in favour of the claimant and 149 against the claimant.

Yes, I do. I can imagine that it is a very large proportion of the claims.

Insurance Fund (Borrowing Powers)

asked the Minister of Labour whether any decision has been reached as to the maximum limit to which she will at any time ask the House to increase the borrowing powers of the Unemployment Insurance Fund?

The only decision reached on this matter is with regard to the amount which the House has already been asked to sanction.

In view of the progressive increase in those amounts, can the Minister give me some idea as to how long they will continue and to what extent?

Relief Works, Midlothian

asked the Minister of Labour how many persons are directly employed on relief of unemployment works in the county of Midlothian?

755 men were employed at the end of October on various State-aided schemes in the county of Midlothian. In addition 772 men were employed on the Glasgow-Edinburgh Road, a section of which passes through Midlothian.

Road Works, Hertfordshire (Irish Labourers)

asked the Minister of Labour whether she is aware that Irish labourers are employed on the north orbital road through Hertfordshire to the exclusion of the local unemployed; whether local unemployed navvies and other labourers registered at the St. Albans Employment Exchange have been offered work on this road; and, if not, why?

I understand that 16 out of 199 men employed on this scheme are Irishmen, all of whom have been previously employed on similar work in this country. Suitable local men on the unemployed register at the St. Albans Exchange have always received preference and will continue to be offered vacancies as they arise.

Is the Minister aware that when men were asked for at the Exchange, out of 60 not one would go? What is the reason?

I think the hon. Member is misinformed. My information is that a very large number on the register are quite incapable of doing the heavy work involved.

Are we to understand that the Minister is actually taking steps to discourage the employment of Irishmen? Is that also the policy of the War Office? Are they aliens?

Devonshire

asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed in Devonshire, including Exeter and Plymouth, at the latest available date and the corresponding period of last year,

A.—Numbers of persons on the Registers of Employment Exchanges in Devonshire at the dates stated below.

Date.

Men.

Women.

Juveniles.

Total.

16th December, 1929

10,056

1,684

499

12,239

15th December, 1930

13,224

3,005

559

16,788

B.—Employment Exchange Areas in the County with highest numbers on the Registers.

Area.

Numbers on Register.

Numbers on Registers as percentage of the estimated number of insured persons in the area.

15.12.30.

16.12.29.

15.12.30.

16.12 29.

Plymouth and Devonport

8,518

6,280

18·1

13·4

Exeter

1,599

1,088

9·2

6·4

Torquay

1,230

1,019

9·7

8·4

York Racecourse (Temporary Employment)

asked the Minister of Labour whether the Labour Exchanges have ever received applications from the racecourse authorities at York for men to be temporarily employed during race weeks?

Forty-two vacancies with the Racecourse Betting Control Board were filled through the York Employment Exchange in connection with the race meetings held in May, August and September.

Goole

asked the Minister of Labour whether any schemes of work submitted by the Goole Urban District Council are under consideration by the Unemployment Grants Committee; and, if so, when a decision is expected?

Applications for grant in respect of three schemes of work submitted by Goole Urban District Council on 24th November last are at present under consideration by the Un-

specifying the areas where the Largest amount of unemployment exists?

As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

employment Grants Committee. I understand that the Advising Departments are in consultation with the local authority regarding the technical details. Every effort will be made to reach an early decision.

Demonstration, Thames Embankment

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the reason for the strength of the police force which outnumbered the unemployed by over two to one at their demonstration held near Temple station at noon on 16th December; and whether he can state the result of his interview with the unemployed deputation that followed?

The police arrangements in connection with a demonstration have to be made in advance according to the numbers likely to be taking part, and the number of police who may be required to prevent undue interference with traffic and to preserve order. In this case the demonstration seems to have been much smaller than was anticipated. As regards the last part of the question, I have not received any deputation and, in case there is some misunderstanding, perhaps my hon. Friend will consult with me.

Exchequer Grants and Charges

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he can give an estimate of the cost to be borne by the Exchequer for the year ending 31st March, 1931, of the charges involved in respect of the Development (Loan Guarantees and Grants) Act, 1929, the Colonial Development Act, 1929, and any Exchequer contributions which may have to be made to the Ministry of Transport in respect of unemployment works or as advances to the Road Fund?

The estimated cost to the Exchequer for the year ending 31st March, 1931, of the services mentioned by the hon. Member is as follows:

Government Departments

Ministry of Labour

asked the Minister of Labour what increase in staff has taken place in her Department since June, 1929; and what is the increased cost in wages and salaries?

The total staff of the Ministry of Labour (excluding branch managers) was 16,904 on 1st June, 1929, and 23,125 on 1st December, 1930, an increase of 6,221. The cost of wages and salaries of the staff (exclud- ing branch managers) for the financial year 1929–1930 was £3,777,612 as compared with an estimate of £4,518,120 for the financial year 1930–31, an increase of £740,508.

Having regard to the large increase in the staff, could not the Minister engage some accountant to see whether it is not possible to co-ordinate the duties so as to reduce the cost?

As I explained on the occasion of the last debate, the proportionate increase in staff is very much less because of the magnitude of the live register.

asked the Minister of Labour the number of P-class clerks in the Ministry of Labour whose names have been submitted by their supervisors for consideration for promotion to the established clerical classes; and the total number of P-class clerks who have been warned to appear before the promotion panel?

The names of 720 "P" Class Clerks were submitted by the officers responsible for making recommendations for consideration for promotion to the established clerical classes. All of these have been seen by a promotions panel, with the exception of one absent on sick leave.

Can the Minister say whether any conscientious objectors have been promoted over these ex-service men?

Pre-War Pensioners

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the additional cost per annum to the Exchequer of paying to those single pre-War Civil Service pensioners who are in receipt of pensions from £150 per annum the same rate of bonus as was granted in 1920 to married pre-War Civil Service pensioners in the same category?

I regret that this information is not available and could not be obtained without undue labour. Any estimate of cost would be of a speculative nature in the absence of information as to the private means of the pensioners in question. Nor can it be assumed that all those in receipt of pensions between £150 and £200 a year who have not applied for increases under the Pensions (Increase) Acts are unmarried.

Office, Bromyard Avenue, Acton

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the Establishments Department of the Treasury will examine the arrangements by which files are stored at Bromyard Avenue, Acton, in rooms suitable for occupation by the clerical staff.

76 and 77.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (1) if he will, in the interests of economy, have an examination made of the papers stored in offices at Bromyard Avenue, Acton; whether out-of-date files are destroyed at the earliest possible moment to prevent unnecessary accumulations; and whether it will be possible to erect inexpensive and suitable outhouse buildings for the storage of papers and files to avoid storing them in offices suitable for clerical staff occupation?

(2) whether he is aware that fresh expenditure is to be incurred for the erection of new Government offices at a time when office space at Bromyard Avenue, Acton, is being used for the storage of papers and files; and will he request a complete overhaul of the housing of staff at Bromyard Avenue, Acton, to ascertain whether office space there is being used for the clerical staffs to its fullest extent without injury to health?

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will arrange for the office buildings at Bromyard Avenue, Acton, to be inspected with a view to putting them to the most economical use, either for the storage of papers or for occupation by the clerical staff?

The matter is under constant review, and a further concentration is in progress with a view to providing additional accommodation for staff required in connection with the 1931 census. The available office space will then be fully utilised. Files no longer in frequent use are automatically transferred to other accommo- dation, whilst a large part of the records still kept at Acton are already stored in temporary huts.

Can the hon. Gentleman say when it will be possible to make a definite statement on this important matter?

The matter is continually under review, and, as I have said, the accommodation will be fully occupied in connection with the Census.

Is the hon. Member aware that even at the present time files are being stored in office accommodation at Bromyard Avenue, and is not that a very unbusinesslike and uneconomical way of carrying on an office?

As I say, this matter is under review, but it is not correct to suppose that large masses of files which are not being directly used are stored in office accommodation.

Temporary Staff

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what are the grades of the 13,639 non-ex-service male temporary whole-time staff employed in the Civil Service on the 1st July, 1930, as shown in Command Paper 3681?

The answer involves a number of figures and, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell me why ex-service men are not employed?

When the hon. and gallant Member sees the answer, I think he will appreciate why.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the same regulation is in operation as was in force under the late Government, that preference should be given to ex-service men?

Then is the hon. Gentleman aware that a very large number of ex-service men are out of employment and that a large number of non-service men have been taken on instead of ex-service men?

This question does not really arise out of the answer. When the hon. and gallant Member sees the answer I think he will realise the position.

Following is the answer:

The information desired is as follows:

Administrative, Executive, Clerical and Typing Grades

801

Inspectorates, Professional, Scientific and Technical Grades

580

Subordinate Supervisory and Technical Grades

1,726

Boy Messengers in the Post Office

7,646

Other Messengerial, Minor and Manipulative Grades

2,110

Miscellaneous Grades

776

Total

13,639

Inland Revenue Department

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the nature of the additional work in the Inland Revenue offices, which necessitates the increase of 503 officials, as set out in Command Paper 3736; and whether he will state the increased annual cost to the Treasury of their salaries?

The increase in staff is attributable chiefly to the revaluation of property for the purposes of the Income Tax (Schedule A) which was imposed by the Finance Act, 1930, and is additional to the normal work of the year. Some provision has also had to be made to meet seasonal pressure of work which occurs in the autumn and some long-standing vacancies have been filled in the Estate Duty office. On the assumption that the increase of staff is maintained throughout a year, the cost is estimated at £62,000.

As the work is only seasonal in character why is it necessary permanently to increase the establishment?

That was only part of my answer. Perhaps I did not make it clear that the increase is chiefly due to the revaluation of property.

Questions

Industrial Disputes

asked the Minister of Labour the number of days lost in all the industries in Great Britain owing to industrial disputes during each of the three years ended 30th September, 1930?

The numbers of working days lost owing to disputes occurring in Great Britain in the three years ended 30th September, 1928, 1929 and 1930, were approximately 1,400,000, 7,700,000 and 4,000,000, respectively.

Is there any distinction made between those who are locked out and those who are on strike?

No; they could be divided. Of the 1929 figures, 6,600,000 days are due to the cotton dispute and of the 1930 figures 3,260,000 days are due to the wool textile dispute.

Joint Industrial Councils

asked the Minister of Labour the number of joint industrial councils that have been formed since the Government took office; and the number that have ceased to function?

Since May last year one new joint industrial council has been constituted and no joint industrial council has been dissolved.

Aliens (Russian Subjects)

asked the Home Secretary whether he proposes to grant the request of Dr. Rabinovitch and Mr. Terakopoff to be permitted to remain in this country; and if he proposes to grant the application for visas for two persons who desire to come to this country to join the board of Russian Oil Products Limited?

Dr. Rabinovitch has been in this country since August, 1914, and his stay is not subject to any special conditions. Mr. Terakopoff is subject to a condition under which he would be re- quired to leave the United Kingdom not later than the 20th June, 1931, and, as at present advised, I do not propose to make any change in this condition. If the latter part of the question refers to the two visas mentioned in the answer which I gave to the right hon. Gentleman on the 24th November, the answer is that they have already been authorised.

Speed Limit, Constitution Hill (Prosecutions)

asked the Home Secretary whether he can state the number of prosecutions that have been taken place for exceeding the speed limit for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date either in Constitution Hill or the approaches of the park near Buckingham Palace?

During 12 months ended 30th November, the number of prosecutions for exceeding the speed limit on Constitution Hill was 306, and for exceeding it on the Mall 286.

Will the Minister say whether the timing of these vehicles was undertaken by the Metropolitan Police?

Prisoners (Transport)

asked the Home Secretary whether it is still the custom to transport prisoners by train chained together, alter and during their trial, to various prisons in Great Britain; whether any prison motor vans are used for this purpose in the provinces; and will he give particulars?

asked the Home Secretary whether he will arrange that prisoners being conveyed from Darlington to Durham shall travel by road, in view of the fact that the distance is but 17 miles and that road transport facilities are available?

I sympathise with the objects which my hon. Friends have in mind. I have made inquiries, but I have not all the material necessary to enable me to form an opinion. I will make further inquiries and will write to my hon. Friends as soon as I am in a position to do so.

Oh, yes. The general question of transport has frequently been before them, and I can assure the hon. Member that we very largely share the feeling on this subject; but there are many difficulties to be overcome.

Factories (Legislation)

asked the Home Secretary when it is proposed to introduce the Factories Bill?

Does that mean that the position will be about the same as it was last Session?

Lotteries and Sweepstakes

29 and 30.

asked the Home Secretary (1) whether he is aware that great dissatisfaction has been caused by the cancellation under instructions of a large number of sweepstakes and Christmas draws hitherto organised every year in the County of Lindsey; whether any instructions have recently been issued on this subject by his Department; and, if so, what;

(2) whether, in view of the cancellation under the instructions of his Department of various Christmas draws in Gainsborough and other parts of the County of Lindsey, he has taken any steps similarly to cancel the Christmas draw of the Transport and General Workers' Union (Nunhead Omnibus Branch), of which the result is due to be advertised on 18th December; and, if not, will he explain the reason for differentiation?

So far as I know, no proceedings have been taken in Lindsey. No instructions have been issued by the Home Office nor is there any question of the Home Office cancelling Christmas draws. What has happened is that, having had my attention called to a draw promoted by the Rutland and Stamford Divisional Labour Party at Bourne, I followed the course uniformly adopted by myself and my predecessors of forwarding the information to the authority responsible for enforcing the law, namely, the police. The police, in pursuance of what I think the House will regard as the only fair policy, took steps not only concerning that draw, but concerning other similar draws in the same locality, and I am informed that many were abandoned, but proceedings were taken in respect of the Labour draw at Bourne, and also in respect of a Conservative draw at Stamford, and a Labour draw in the parts of Holland. On these facts I see no ground for any suggestion of differentiation. As regards the draw at Nunhead, I may say that attention was not drawn to it, and there was therefore no occasion for any action on my part.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state exactly what he means by "having attention drawn" to it. For example, in to-day's "Daily Herald" there are accounts of no fewer than 67 different draws. Is that "drawing attention" to them, or is it necessary that a common informer should act?

I have not seen the information referred to, but it may well be that that is the first intimation which the Home Office can get of any such proceedings. As I have said, the Home Office does not cancel; it simply passes on the information to the police authorities.

Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his attitude in this matter and introduce legislation in order to do away with all these absurdities?

Police

College Scheme

asked the Home Secretary whether he will accede to the request from the County Council Association that the decision to establish a police college should be postponed, as the time is inopportune for embarking on increased expenditure?

The object of the scheme was to secure improvements in police work at a cost which would be quite small in comparison with the anticipated gain in efficiency. I hope before long to summon a meeting of the Police Council to review the conclusions of all concerned, including the County Police Authorities, and until that has been done I cannot say what action I may take on the proposals which are before me.

Women Police (Regulations)

asked the Home Secretary whether he has submitted draft regulations for policewomen to the police council; and what action was taken upon them?

No draft regulations have been submitted to the Police Council, but at the last meeting the whole question was raised with a view to eliciting the opinion of the Council on the subject. The views expressed were definitely against the framing of any specific regulations. I do not contemplate reopening the matter as regards county and borough police forces until further experience has been gained in regard to the employment of policewomen in the Metropolitan Police District.

Does the issue of statutory regulations depend entirely upon the decision of the police council?

They would, at any rate, be the body in the first instance to take action.

Is it in the power of the right hon. Gentleman to appoint a suitable woman to the Police Council?

What was the Home Office view put before the Police Council; do the statutory regulations depend on the decision of the Police Council, and does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is about time that he had a woman on the Police Council!

Questions

Places of Amusement (Sunday Performances)

asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that, prior to the decision given in the King's Bench on the question of Sunday opening of cinemas, the West Ham Corporation inserted a clause in the licence for opening on Sundays, Christmas Day, and Good Friday, making it a condition that all employés have one clear day off in seven; and whether the Government will give consideration to the question of providing, in any legislation they may introduce, for the insertion of a similar clause in the licences?

I need not say that I sympathise with the principle referred to by my hon. Friend relating to employés, but I regret I am unable to make any public statement at present pending the hearing of the appeal.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be advisable to try to get an agreed Bill, so as to give the cinemas a chance of opening on Sundays and with a view to preventing the London County Council wasting money in going to the House of Lords?

I cannot give a definite answer to a question of that kind on a matter in which a decision is pending.

Are we to understand that in view of the confusion arising out of the recent decision, the Government are contemplating any action to straighten out the law on the subject?

The matter certainly is before us, but even a Government is not above the Courts.

Capital Punishment (Committee's Report)

asked the Home Secretary what action he proposes to take in connection with the Report from the Select Committee on Capital Punishment?

Before I can make any statement on a subject of such vital importance I must have time to consider the report in all its bearings and all the issues involved.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the report appears to contain the unanimous recommendation of the Committee, and will he make it quite clear that such is far from being the case?

I would rather express no opinion as to what the report appears to carry on its face, but I know that popular opinion is to the effect stated.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree, if he has seen the report, that there is nothing in it which would give the impression that the report was not absolutely unanimous.

Is it not the case that the report is issued in the usual form, according to custom, and that, when the evidence appears in a week or two, it will contain the minutes which will show what transpired as well as a divided report?

The Home Office cannot be expected to accept responsibility for the form of the report. I am more concerned with its substance, but I must defer, for the present, any announcement upon it.

Mercantile Corporations (Franchise)

asked the Home Secretary if, in view of the resolution sent to him by the Associated Chambers of Commerce urging the Government to introduce legislation with a view to giving similar rights of local government franchise to nominees of mercantile companies and corporations, so that the latter may have similar franchise facilities as are enjoyed by private firms and individuals, he will consider introducing legislation granting such facilities?

Is it the intention of the Government to deal with the matter in the proposed Electoral Reform Bill, and, if so, upon what lines?

Education

Cinematograph Films

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has recently examined the question of the advisability of the use of the cinema as a method of education in our schools; and can he say what decision he has arrived at?

The use of the cinema in schools of various types is, of course, under the continuous observation of His Majesty's inspectors of schools. Arrangements have recently been made to carry out a special survey of the subject in the course of the coming year, and I must await the results of that investigation before I am able to express any general conclusion on the matter.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the cinema is generally in use for this purpose?

Are American machines being tried as well as British-made machines in these experiments?

Differential Rating, Carmarthenshire (Grants)

asked the President of the Board of Education what steps have been taken to alter the differential rating system in Carmarthenshire; if the Minister is prepared to make a grant for the transition period; what the amount of this grant is; and what steps he proposes to take?

I understand that my hon. Friend is referring to differential rating for purposes of education. It is for the local education authority for Carmarthenshire to decide whether this should be altered in their area. I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health that he would have no power to make any addition, temporary or otherwise, to the amount of the grants under the Local Government Act, 1929, consequent upon the alteration of this differential rating; nor would any such alteration affect the amount of the grant payable by the Board of Education to the authority.

Is it not impossible to have reorganisation as long as you have this differential rating system?

I am afraid it is not for me to say, but for the local authorities.

Questions

Necessitous Areas

asked the Minister of Health whether he has now any new proposals to make to further assist the necessitous areas of the country?

I would refer the right hon. Member to my reply to his question on this subject of 27th November. Although no proposals for further financial assistance to the more heavily burdened areas have been made, the position of these areas is being closely watched.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the recent public appeal that is being made for assistance by the mayor and other public officials in the Merthyr Tydvil area?

asked the Minister of Health what has been the effect of the de-rating legislation in distressed areas, and if it has resulted in relieving the burden of local rates in these areas?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which was given to a question on the same subject by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Freeman) on 17th November.

asked the Minister of Health if he will institute an inquiry into the financial position of local authorities where the rates levied exceed 20s. in the £?

I am in constant touch with the financial position of local authorities, and do not think that any useful purpose would be served by such an inquiry.

Navy, Army, and Air Force Insurance Fund

asked the Minister of Health the amount of additional sickness and disablement benefits paid to readmitted members of the Navy, Army, and Air Force Insurance Fund during the last six months or the last convenient period, and the amount paid during the same period for dental benefit including dentures?

The amount of additional sickness and disablement benefits paid to readmitted members of the Navy, Army, and Air Force Insurance Fund during the six months ended 30th November, 1930, was £6,012 5s. 8d. The amount paid for dental benefit (including dentures) over the same period was £2,914 7s. 2d.

Does the right hon. Gentleman desire to correct any previous statements that he has made on this subject?

asked the Minister of Health the number of days lost in all the industries in Great Britain owing to sickness during each of the three years ended 30th September, 1930?

I can only give particulars with regard to persons insured under the National Health Insurance Acts and in respect of calendar years. The approximate number of days for which sickness and disablement benefits were paid under the National Health Insurance Acts in Great Britain during each of the years 1927, 1928 and 1929 is as follows:

Does not the Minister think that if we had open air schools in slum areas, it would prevent a great deal of this sickness, and therefore mean a saving to industry, and will he get on with it?

Public Health

Cheese (Tinfoil Wrapping)

asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to a special investigation, made by the medical officer of health to the Lambeth Borough Council, into the possibilities of tin poisoning from cheese wrapped in tinfoil, the analyst reporting that the result of his investigation indicated that such cheese as is so prepared in this country can be regarded as perfectly safe for human consumption; and whether he will take all steps in his power to relieve public anxiety on the matter?

I have received a communication from the Lambeth Borough Council enclosing a report in which the Medical Officer of Health makes the statement referred to. Some samples of cheese prepared in this country have been found to be unduly contaminated by the tinfoil in which they were wrapped, but I understand that the industry is aware of the importance of reducing the extent of the contamination to the lowest possible limit and is making efforts to achieve this end. In the meantime I am keeping the matter under observation, but I do not think it necessary at present to make any further statement.

Has my right hon. Friend's attention been called to the danger arising from this same commodity being used in relation to cats' meat on the Front Bench opposite?

Mental Hospitals (Chaplains)

asked the Minister of Health if he will give the names of the mental hospitals, county or borough, with inmates of 1,000 or over where only part-time chaplains are appointed; and what duties are involved in such appointments?

I regret that the information desired by my hon. Friend is not available. The duties involved in these appointments are prescribed by Section 277 of the Lunacy Act, 1890?

Will my right hon. Friend call for a report in relation to this question?

I am very reluctant to call for reports from local authorities. We are always doing it, and, unless there is a very good reason why we should, I should really prefer not to do it. If, however, my hon. Friend will give me his reasons, I will consider them.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that considerable concern, amounting to what is regarded as a scandal in certain areas, is engaging the minds of certain religious representatives, and will he, if I give him data, call for special reports of these particular institutions?

I will certainly consider any representations that my hon. Friend may make to me.

National Maternity Service

asked the Minister of Health whether it is intended to introduce legislation making provision for a national maternity service?

I am sending the Noble Lady a copy of a circular and memorandum which I have recently issued to local authorities on the subject of maternal mortality. As stated in the circular, the Government have decided to undertake negotiations with the various authorities concerned with a view to formulating a scheme on a national basis for the care of maternity. Such negotiations are a necessary preliminary to the introduction of legislation for this purpose.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not think he is a little late in doing this? The Committee had already reported on it, and he could have done it a year and a half ago.

I would remind the Noble Lady that the reports were published long before I took office.

Is not that all the more reason why the right hon. Gentleman should have acted at once?

asked the Minister of Health if, before any scheme for a national maternity service is formulated, he will confer with the midwives through the Incorporated Mid-wives' Institute and the Queen's Institute of District Nursing, as the respective bodies mainly representing and em- ploying them, as well as with bodies representing the medical profession and other interests concerned?

Why does the right hon. Gentleman say that he will only consider asking representative bodies, when he has already considered the other professions concerned and does not mention these people in the circular which he has just issued? Will he not undertake to consult the professional bodies concerned?

Is it not essential, in dealing with the subject of maternity, that the midwives' profession should be considered and included in the circular which is issued? After 18 months dealing with the subject, he makes no mention of any such consultation.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that the circular was addressed to local authorities, and not to bodies.

Why does it say that the right hon. Gentleman has consulted other professions, when he has not consulted the profession of mid-wives?

Small-Pox (Metropolitan Area)

asked the Minister of Health how many cases of small-pox have been notified in the Metropolitan area since the 1st December; whether the cases notified are of a mild or virulent type; and whether the origin of the fresh outbreak of this illness has been traced?

During the two weeks ended 13th December, 75 cases of small-pox were notified in the county of London. These figures are provisional. The cases notified were all of the mild type. As regards the last part of the question, there has been no fresh outbreak in London, the disease having been prevalent in the Metropolitan area for some considerable time.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of the cases notified were vaccinated, and how many not?

Mental Hospital, Carmarthen

asked the Minister of Health what steps are being taken by the committee of the mental hospital, Carmarthen, for receiving patients under the Mental Treatment Act?

The Board of Control are in communication with the Visiting Committee on this matter, and I will inform my hon. Friend of the result.

asked the Minister of Health if he is satisfied with the accommodation for the patients at the mental hospital, Carmarthen; is he aware that certain of the patients have to sleep on the floors of the dormitories; and, in view of the insufficiency of the staff for night duty, will he inquire into the matter?

The Commissioners of the Board of Control who recently visited this hospital drew attention to the need for additional accommodation. The Board of Control are making further inquiries into this matter and into the adequacy of the nursing staff, and I will communicate the result to my hon. Friend.

Calf Lymph

asked the Minister of Health what happens to the calves after the lymph has been extracted from the vesicles raised for the purpose of securing vaccine, and how the carcases of the animals are disposed of?

After the production of lymph, the calves used at the Government lymph establishment are killed and examined by a veterinary expert. The carcases are at the disposal of the person who supplied the calves, and those sold for food are subject to further examination by officers of the local sanitary authorities.

Certainly; if they were not, they would not be sold and exposed for public sale.

Imported Mutton (Caseous Lymphadenitis.)

asked the Minister of Health the number of carcases of mutton imported from South American countries and landed at the ports of London, Liverpool and Southampton for the months of September, October and November; and what percentage were found to be suffering from caseous lymphadenitis on examination at each of the ports?

I am obtaining this information, and will communicate it to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that considerable quantities of imported mutton and lamb from the Argentine Republic and Chili are infected with caseous lymphadenitis and are escaping inspection at the ports and reaching butchers' shops, and that in order to evade inspection quantities of legs, shoulders, sides, saddles and other parts, cut from diseased carcases, are being imported; and if he will take steps to prohibit the importation of mutton from these countries other than in carcase, and order a more rigid examination of all imports and insist that the work of cutting the glands is carried out by skilled butchers?

I am aware that caseous lymphadenitis is found in a certain proportion of carcases of mutton and lamb imported from the countries referred to. The normal practice is to make a preliminary examination at the port of 10 per cent. of each consignment of whole carcases, and to examine the remaining 90 per cent. either at the port or elsewhere if the result of the preliminary examination shows this to be desirable. I do not think it necessary to recommend any modification of this practice.

At a conference recently held between medical officers of the ports principally concerned and officers of my Department, it was decided that imports of mutton and lamb from South American countries should receive special attention, and that severed parts of carcases should in all cases be given complete examination. I am considering whether any further conditions should be laid down in connection with the importation of severed parts of carcases. I understand that the work of cutting the glands is at all ports entrusted to persons who have experience of the work, and I do not think it necessary to make any special recommendation on this point.

Is it right that this diseased meat should get into people's hands at all?

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that at certain ports it has been a practice of the inspectors to inspect only a Very small percentage of this meat, and that that percentage has been previously selected by other people?

If the hon. Member can give me cases like that, I shall be very glad to have them, but we try to get a fair sample of 10 per cent.

Is this disease found also in mutton and lamb from other parts of the world?

Yes, all the imported mutton and lamb is examined, but the trouble at the moment is particularly in the imports from South American countries.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the best solution is to buy British mutton?

Wandle Valley Hospital Scheme

asked the Minister of Health if he is now in a position to sanction the Wandle Valley hospital construction, Surrey?

I have directed a public inquiry to be held into the application in question. I shall not be in a position to give my decision on the applcation until I have considered the report on the inquiry, but there will be no avoidable delay.

Foodstuffs (Standards)

asked the Minister of Health when the committee which is to investigate the whole question of standards for foodstuffs, including cheese, will be set up; and if he can state the personnel?

I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a definite statement on this subject.

Poor Law

Education and Training (Schemes, Whitehaven)

asked the Minister of Health whether in view of the continuation of the old form of physical test work for able-bodied recipients of outdoor relief in the Whitehaven area, he can state the details of schemes being prepared for instituting educational courses and training in that area; whether he has given these schemes his sanction; and whether they are being linked up with similar training courses under the Employment Exchanges?

As regards the first and second questions, it is within my knowledge that the Cumberland Council have under consideration the best method of providing arrangements for education and training of suitable persons in receipt of public assistance but their final proposals have not been submitted to me. As regards the third question, I have indicated to the council that I should welcome co-operation in these matters between them and the Ministry of Labour and the method and extent of such co-operation is under discussion between representatives of the Ministry and the council.

Can the Minister state when he proposes, as he suggested some weeks ago, to introduce legislation to abolish this form of test?

No. I made no such promise. I did say that we had in preparation a new test order, which will be published within a few days, and in that order it will be made clear that stone-breaking is not in the list of tests.

Casual Wards

asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in many casual wards men are kept waiting outside for long periods exposed to the weather whilst awaiting admission; and whether he will take steps to see that shelter is provided?

The provision of shelters or waiting rooms at casual wards was one of the recommendations of the Departmental Committee of which my hon. Friend was a member. I have already sent a copy of the report of the Committee to every local authority responsible for the relief of the casual poor, and have urged them to adopt the Committee's recommendations. I shall continue to take every step possible to secure that this and the other recommendations of the Committee are carried out where necessary.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many cases shelters are already provided, but that they are inside the grounds, and the men are kept locked outside the grounds?

If there are cases of that kind, and my hon. Friend will let me have particulars of them, I will make inquiries without delay.

Relief (Christmas)

asked the Minister of Health whether he will sanction public assistance committees making grants at Christmas to persons who are in receipt of public assistance owing to their unemployment benefit having ceased, in view of the fact that he has sanctioned similar grants being made to ordinary cases?

The persons referred to by my hon. Friend are in exactly the same position as any other persons under the provision of the Public Assistance Order enabling special allowances to be made at Christmas.

Mental Patient's Property

asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the case of a lady who, on the 10th July, 1928, was transferred from Brighton Infirmary to Haywards Heath Asylum, and forcibly deprived of valuable belongings; and will he take steps to secure that in future the public assistance committees who are in charge of such property should immediately notify the Master in Lunacy of its value?

My attention has not previously been called to the case mentioned by my hon. Friend, but if he will send me further particulars I will make inquiries.

Housing

Bricks

asked the Minister of Health whether in view of the fact that foreign bricks imported into this country totalled in value in the year ending 31st October, 1930, £500,088, he will again urge local authorities building houses with the assistance of the subsidy to give preference to the British product with the object of relieving unemployment?

I issued a circular on this subject in December last and have no reason to suppose that local authorities are disregarding the recommendations I then made. I do not therefore see occasion for the issue of a further circular letter.

Seeing that such a large amount of money was spent on imported bricks during the past 12 months, would it not be useful to send out another circular to follow the one already sent?

I should imagine that the proportion of imported bricks now being used in this country is as low as it has ever been. It is not more than 5 per cent. of the total.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the life of a foreign brick is not the same as the life of an English brick?

Improvement Areas

asked the Minister of Health how many local authorities have declared areas within their control to be improvement areas, in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 of the Housing Act, 1930; which these authorities are; and how many persons of the working classes it is estimated will, in each case, be displaced by the operations projected?

I am aware that proposals for action under Section 7 of the Housing Act, 1930, are under consideration by a number of local authorities but none has yet been actually submitted to me.

Kensington

asked the Minister of Health how many houses have been built in North Kensington since the War by the London County Council, the borough council, and the public utility societies, respectively?

I regret that I cannot give separate figures for North Kensington. Three hundred and forty-nine houses have been built in the borough of Kensington by the borough council and 436 by public utility societies. The London County Council have not built any houses in the borough.

asked the Minister of Health how many people are living in the Norland Ward of Kensington at the rate of two or more per room; how many in the Brompton Ward live two or more per room; and what are the infant mortality rates of the two wards?

I regret that I have no information in regard to the first two parts of the question. As regards the last part, according to the annual report of the medical officer of health, the infant mortality rates in 1929 for the Norland Ward and the Brompton Ward of the borough of Kensington were 88 and 94, respectively.

Birmingham (Contracts)

asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the practice of the Birmingham Public Works and Town Planning Committee of placing contracts for house building in the hands of builders through private arrangement and without competitive quotations; and whether he will inquire into the matter before giving his sanction to a further project which he is now considering?

Chatham and Rochester

asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that no houses have been built in Chatham or Rochester during the last 12 months with State assistance, he will take action to secure adequate housing schemes for these localities?

The two authorities mentioned are among the authorities required by Section 25 of the Housing Act, 1930, to submit to me programmes of the work which they will undertake during the next five years. I will give further consideration to the question whether action on my part is required when I have received and considered their programmes.

Slum Clearance, York

asked the Minister of Health the number of areas scheduled by the York City Council under the Slum Clearance Act?

I have not yet been informed by the York City Council of their proposals for dealing with areas under the Housing Act, 1930.

Questions

Library, Bexley

asked the Minister of Health if he is now in a position to sanction the construction of the proposed Bexley, Kent, library extension?

An application from the Bexley Urban District Council for sanction to borrow money for the extension of the Welling public library was received in my Department two days ago, and will be decided as expeditiously as possible.

Male Servant Licence Duty

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total sum collected in taxes on men servants; and, in view of their effect on employment, if he will consider abolishing this tax in the next Budget?

The total amount of the Male Servant Licence Duty in the last financial year ended 31st March, 1930, was £142,317. In England and Wales this Duty is collected by the local authorities, and is retained by them; and, as I have explained on several previous occasions, I am afraid I could not undertake to introduce legislation which would deprive the local authorities of part of their revenue unless I were sure of their unanimous consent and that a demand would not be made on the Exchequer to replace the revenue surrendered.

Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the question of employment, especially of gardeners and part-time gardeners, who are very often not taken on on account of this tax?

I certainly cannot accept that proposition. I do not believe that anybody who can afford to keep a gardener cannot afford to pay 15s. a year.

If certain cases in London are brought to the right hon. Gentleman's notice, will he alter his mind?

Gold Reserves

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can say in what manner His Majesty's Treasury is represented at the negotiations between the British, American, and other financial authorities with the object of seeking an agreement on the use of gold reserves?

I am not aware what negotiations the hon. Member has in mind. If he is referring to the Committee of Inquiry instituted by the League of Nations, the members are independent experts and not Government representatives.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that conversations have been in progress between the presidents of the central banks, and has he been made aware of those conversations?

I am not aware of them, and, even if I had information, I think it would be very undesirable to make a statement.

Trade Facilities Act

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will ascertain and state the aggregate tonnage and the number of vessels which, having been built with the assistance of funds or guarantees pro- vided under the Trade Facilities Acts, are now managed by mortgagors on behalf of mortgagees as a result of default in respect of loans raised upon such vessels?

Agriculture

Sugar-Beet Industry

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can now make any statement as to the steps taken by the Government to facilitate a solution of the deadlock between the sugar-beet factories and the beet-growing farmers in respect to next season's prices; whether there has been any sequel to the factories' deputation which waited on him recently; and whether he is aware of the fact that if a settlement is postponed over Christmas the greater portion of next season's sugar-beet crop will be imperilled?

While not accepting any responsibility for the suspension of negotiations between the growers and the factories, I am not in a position to make any statement at the present time.

Having regard to the very considerable delay which has taken place in the arrangement of these contracts and to the fact that, if there is further delay, the shutting down of this industry will intensify the already desperate position of arable farming, will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to find some way of helping the industry?

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when a settlement is likely to be arrived at between the factories and the farmers?

Is there any chance of there being a settlement before the end of January, which is about the last date when it will be of any utility to the farmers?

So far as I can be of any assistance, I am doing the very best that I can.

Swine Fever Order (Stowmarket)

asked the Minister of Agriculture if it is intended to maintain in operation the Suffolk Swine Fever Infected Area Order of 1930 in the Stowmarket area?

The Suffolk Swine Fever Infected Area Order of 1930 was designed not only to control an outbreak of swine fever within the area, but to prevent infected pigs leaving that area for the surrounding counties. Although the number of outbreaks is declining the disease position within the county does not yet warrant the withdrawal of the Order.

Bovine Tuberculosis (Spahlinger Vaccine)

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether any steps are being taken by his Department to make the new Spahlinger anti-tubercle bovine vaccine available at the cheapest possible price to British farmers?

I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply I gave on Monday to a question by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hurd) of which I am sending him a copy.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take no steps to put at the disposal of farmers a product the results of which are so uncertain until its value has been proved?

As this is an imported product, will any tax be placed upon it in the interests of Protection?

I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that I shall not do what he anticipates, and, if he examines the reply which I gave on Monday, he will see everything fully set out there.

Turkeys (Prices)

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that, while Norfolk and Devon turkeys are being sold in London shops for 1s. 8d. per pound, selected (imported) turkeys are being sold for 1s. per pound; and whether he will insert proposals in the Marketing Bill with the object of levelling those prices and helping the British producer to compete with the foreigner at Christmas time?

The prices quoted by the hon. and gallant Member are approximately those ruling at the end of last week. I have no doubt that by this day week hon. Members will agree with me that English turkeys are well worth the extra money. If, however, there is an element of waste or inefficiency in the price-structure, the fact that poultry is included in the Marketing Bill, which I am to-day introducing, will place the remedy largely in the hands of producers themselves.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not at least give us the assurance that on his own table at Christmas time there will be a British turkey?

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that these cheap turkeys will gladden many poor people's tables this Christmas time?

Pulped Fruit and Jam

93 and 94.

asked the Minister of Agriculture (1) when he will introduce legislation amending the part of the Merchandise Marks Act relating to the amount of sulphur dioxide permissible in imported pulp fruit;

(2) if he will make an order to compel jam manufacturers to label their products to show whether they are made of preserved fruit?

The regulation of preservatives in foodstuffs is provided for under the Public Health Acts, under which it would be impossible to discriminate between imported and home products. I am, however, carefully considering whether, and in what way, steps can be taken to indicate to the consumer, that the jam he is purchasing is, or is not, made entirely from homegrown fruit.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is very important that this should be done as soon as possible before next season?

Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to protect the home fruit grower from the middleman in this country, who prevents British people from buying British fruit, as they should, by the swindling prices that are charged?

Questions

Fish Industry (Hull)

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can state the amount of fish landed at Hull during the 12 months ended 30th November last, and how these landings compare with the quantity of fish landed during the corresponding period last year?

The total quantity of fish landed by fishing vessels at Hull during the 12 months ended 30th November, 1930, was 4,158,000 cwts. as compared with 3,107,000 cwts. during the corresponding period for the previous year. The figures showing the quantity landed by other vessels are being prepared, and as soon as they are available I will forward them to my hon. and gallant Friend.

Do not those figures show that Hull is now the premier fishing port in the world?

Trade and Commerce

Commodities (Production and Distribution)

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to ascertain whether there is a shortage in this country of any of the goods required to satisfy the needs and comforts of the entire population, with a view to the unemployed workers being organised for the production of such goods; and will he consider how the system of distribution, particularly among the working classes of this country, can be improved so that it may keep pace with production?

His Majesty's Government will continue to make every effort, in connection with economic reorganisation, to promote the effective circulation of commodities. Certain questions bearing on the distributive system will fall within the scope of the Consumers' Council Bill, with which we hope to proceed early in the coming year.

Arising from that reply, should the results of the inquiries of the Economic Council and the Food Council show that there is not a shortage but an abundance of everything that is necessary for the comfort of the people of this country, will not the Government see that the way to attack the problem is by giving the people greater purchasing power and so enabling them to buy?

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I want to appeal to you if my supplementary question was not in perfect order in relation to the question that was on the Paper, and to ask why I did not get a reply?

The hon. Member's supplementary question was really only asking for an expression of opinion.

With all due respect to you, Sir, and, if the House will allow me, to the House, again I wish to submit to you that my supplementary was in true relation, not only to the question on the Paper, but to the reply that I got to that question and to the facts of the case, and why should I not get a supplementary replied to? Why should you come between me and—

On a further point of Order. May I ask whether the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) did not put a supplementary question as to whether, if certain facts were discovered, the Board of Trade would take certain action; and is not that a matter of fact, and not of opinion?

Felt Hats (Imports, Rhodesia)

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give the approximate values of imports into Rhodesia of felt hats from Italy, and similarly from the United Kingdom, during the last period of 12 months over which records are available?

The imports of felt hats into Rhodesia are not separately recorded in the trade returns of that country. During 1929, the total imports into Northern and Southern Rhodesia of hats and caps of all descriptions of Italian origin and of United Kingdom origin were valued at £19,979 and £50,617, respectively.

Will the right hon. Gentleman put that information at the disposal of manufacturers in the Stockport area, so that they may know that there is still an unfilled market for their manufactures?

I have not the least doubt that the manufacturers in that area will see this reply.

Cotton Industry

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can make any statement as to the progress of the consultations with the employers, merchants, finishers, etc., of the cotton industry?

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I met at Manchester on the 22nd and 23rd October representatives of every section of the cotton industry, including the operatives, and our discussions with the spinners continued on the 20th November. Informal conversations have continued with the merchants and finishers, and the Chief Industrial Adviser has met representatives of the manufacturers' associations in the principal districts. These associations have been requested to state their considered views on the desirability of changes in the organisation of their section of the trade in the light of the Cotton Report. I hope that, when these views have been collected, my right hon. Friend and I will meet the manufacturers again to discuss them early in the New Year.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while the employers in the cotton trade are considering these questions and this advice, they are pursuing a policy of relentless wage reduction, and that at the moment more than half the cotton operatives are under notice of a substantial reduction in wages?

I greatly regret the conditions in regard to wages in Lancashire, but, as my hon. Friend knows, that question falls within the purview of another Department; it does not relate directly to our work of reorganisation. It is my hope that, if we can accelerate this reorganisation, we shall render these reductions very largely avoidable.

Arising out of the original reply, and the elaborate record which shows complete futility in these matters, when will the Government admit that they have done nothing for the cotton trade?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the report, as far as the cotton operatives are concerned, is being pressed into operation, but that, as far as the employers are concerned, no reorganisation is taking place?

Business of the House

May I ask the Prime Minister what business he proposes to take on the re-assembly of the House after the Recess?

The Government have decided that, in view of the programme to be disposed of before Easter, it will be necessary to appropriate for Government business the five remaining Wednesdays (21st January, 28th January, 4th February, 11th February and 18th February), which, under the Standing Orders, would be devoted to Private Members' Motions: The business will, therefore, be:

Tuesday, 20th January: Motion taking private Members' Wednesdays; China Indemnity (Application) Bill, Second Reading; Education (Local Authorities) Bill (Lords), Second Reading; Metropolitan Police (Staff Superannuation and Police Fund) Bill, Second Reading; Colonial Naval Defence Bill (Lords), Second Reading.

Wednesday, 21st January: Education (School Attendance) Bill, completion of remaining stages.

Thursday, 22nd January: Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Bill, Second Reading.

Friday, 23rd January: Private Members' Bills.

On any day, should time permit, other Orders may be taken.

I think the time has hardly come yet for any criticism on the taking of private Members' time, but I should like to make an observation about the time allotted for the Trade Disputes Bill. One day has been put down. That will not be sufficient. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that, when I introduced a Bill on that subject in 1927, he asked me for four Parliamentary days, and I gave him three and a half. All I will say at the moment is that a little reciprocity at Christmas time would be appreciated.

I am always glad to accommodate the right hon. Gentleman. The only thing I should like to observe is that, when he introduced his Bill, he was beginning a revolution.

I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it will cut

out the rights of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) to bring in a Living Wage Bill?

I cannot charge my memory with what Bills are balloted for, but the announcement I have made does not affect any Bills. It is Resolutions and not Bills.

As the right hon. Gentleman has not given me an answer, I will approach him through the usual channels.

Friday is not affected by the Resolution and, therefore, remains as it is.

Are we to understand that the time in lieu of that taken by the Government yesterday, in spite of the statement of the Prime Minister, will not be available for the private Members who had put down Resolutions for yesterday?

May I draw the Noble Lady's attention to what I said. As a matter of fact, the way I put it adumbrated perfectly clearly the notice I have now given.

Ordered,

"That other business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[ The Prime Minister. ]

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, 259, Noes, 149.

Division No. 84.]

AYES.

[3.55 p.m.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

Chater, Daniel

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Bowen, J. W.

Cluse, W. S.

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John H.

Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

Broad, Francis Alfred

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Ammon, Charles George

Brockway, A. Fenner

Compton, Joseph

Angell, Norman.

Bromfield, William

Cove, William G.

Arnott, John

Bromley, J.

Cowan, D. M.

Aske, Sir Robert

Brooke, W.

Daggar, George

Attlee, Clement Richard

Brothers, M.

Dallas, George

Ayles, Walter

Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)

Dalton, Hugh

Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

Day, Harry

Barr, James

Burgess, F. G.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Batey, Joseph

Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)

Dudgeon, Major C. R.

Bellamy, Albert

Caine, Derwent Hall-

Dukes, C.

Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

Cameron, A. G.

Duncan, Charles

Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

Cape, Thomas

Ede, James Chuter

Benson, G.

Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

Edge, Sir William

Bentham, Dr. Ethel

Charleton, H. C.

Edmunds, J. E.

Egan, W. H.

Lowth, Thomas

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Elmley, Viscount

Lunn, William

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

Foot, Isaac

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Sanders, W. S.

Forgan, Dr. Robert

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

Sandham, E.

Freeman, Peter

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Sawyer, G. F.

Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

McElwee, A.

Scurr, John

Gibbins, Joseph

McEntee, V. L.

Sexton, James

Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

McKinlay, A.

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Gill, T. H.

MacLaren, Andrew

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Glassey, A. E.

Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Gossling, A. G.

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Sherwood, G. H.

Gould, F.

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Shield, George William

Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Granville, E.

McShane, John James

Shillaker, J. F.

Gray, Milner

Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

Short, Alfred

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Simmons, C. J.

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Mansfield, W.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

Marcus, M.

Sinkinson, George

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Markham, S. F.

Sitch, Charles H.

Groves, Thomas E.

Marley, J.

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Grundy, Thomas W.

Marshall, Fred

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Mathers, George

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)

Matters, L. W.

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

Maxton, James

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Hardie, George D.

Messer, Fred

Snell, Harry

Harris, Percy A.

Middleton, G.

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Mills, J. E.

Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

Haycock, A. W.

Milner, Major J.

Stamford, Thomas W.

Hayday, Arthur

Montague, Frederick

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Hayes, John Henry

Morley, Ralph

Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

Morris, Rhys Hopkins

Strauss, G. R.

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

Sullivan, J.

Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

Sutton, J. E.

Herriotts, J.

Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

Mort, D. L.

Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

Hoffman, P. C.

Moses, J. J. H.

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Hopkin, Daniel

Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)

Thurtle, Ernest

Horrabin, J. F.

Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

Tillett, Ben

Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

Muggeridge, H. T.

Tout, W. J.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

Townend, A. E.

Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

Noel Baker, P. J.

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

Vaughan, D. J.

Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

Oldfield, J. R.

Viant, S. P.

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

Walkden, A. G.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

Walker, J.

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Paling, Wilfrid

Wallace, H. W.

Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

Palmer, E. T.

Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor

Kelly, W. T.

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Kennedy, Thomas

Perry, S. F.

Wellock, Wilfred

Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

Peters, Dr. Sidney John

Welsh, James (Paisley)

Kinley, J.

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

West, F. R.

Kirkwood, D.

Phillips, Dr. Marion

Westwood, Joseph

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)

Picton-Turbervill, Edith

White, H. G.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Pole, Major D. G.

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Potts, John S.

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Law, A. (Rossendale)

Price, M. P.

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

Quibell, D. J. K.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Lawson, John James

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Rathbone, Eleanor

Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Leach, W.

Raynes, W. R.

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

Richards, R.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)

Lees, J.

Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

Lloyd. C. Ellis

Ritson, J.

Logan, David Gilbert

Romeril, H. G.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES. ——

Longbottom, A. W.

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. William Whiteley.

Longden, F.

Rothschild, J. de

Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

Rowson, Guy

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)

Albery, Irving James

Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)

Boyce, Leslie

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)

Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

Briscoe, Richard George

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

Astor, Viscountess

Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

Chapman, Sir S.

Atholl, Duchess of

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

Christie, J. A.

Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Clydesdale, Marquess of

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

Butler, R. A.

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Beaumont, M. W.

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

Berry, Sir George

Campbell, E. T.

Cohen, Major J. Brunel

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Castle Stewart, Earl of

Colville, Major D. J.

Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

Cranborne, Viscount

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Salmon, Major I.

Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

Hurd, Percy A.

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

Iveagh, Countess of

Savery, S. S.

Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

Knox, Sir Alfred

Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

Eden, Captain Anthony

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)

Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Everard, W. Lindsay

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Fielden, E. B.

Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Fison, F. G. Clavering

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Marjoribanks, Edward

Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Meller, R. J.

Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

Ganzoni, Sir John

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Tinne, J. A.

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

Mond, Hon. Henry

Train, J.

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

Turton, Robert Hugh

Gower, Sir Robert

Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Muirhead, A. J.

Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)

Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Warrender, Sir Victor

Gunston, Captain D. W.

O'Connor, T. J.

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Peake, Captain Osbert

Withers, Sir John James

Hammersley, S. S.

Penny, Sir George

Womersley, W. J.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Hartington, Marquess of

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

Ramsbotham, H.

Haslam, Henry C.

Reid, David D. (County Down)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES. ——

Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

Reynolds, Col. Sir James

Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain Margesson.

Heneage, Lieut.-Col Arthur P.

Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That Government Business be not interrupted To-morrow at Four or half-past Four of the clock, and that as soon as Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to Acts which shall have been agreed upon by both Houses, or at Four of the clock if the Royal Assent shall have been reported before that hour, Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put:

Provided that Mr. Speaker may suspend the Sitting pending the consideration in another place of a Message from this House, or until a Message to attend the Lords Commissioners is received."—[ The Prime Minister. ]

On the Motion which deals with to-morrow's Business, I have no objection at all to raise, but I want to ask the Prime Minister whether, supposing the Bill, which is now in another place, should come back to this House, it will be taken to-day, and, if so, at what time, or will it be taken tomorrow?

I should like very much for it to be taken to-day. A little will depend upon the hour it reaches us. I should like to take it after we have finished the work which we have undertaken to do to-day.

I do not think that it will interrupt Business, but if the question be left over, a more definite statement might be made. We can do it through the usual channels. My idea is to take it to-day, but not to interrupt the Business.

I think that that would be quite satisfactory to the House. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman will not take it later than Eleven o'clock?

Not later than that; round about that time.

Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered,

"That Government Business be not interrupted To-morrow at Four or half-past Four of the clock, and that as soon as Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to Acts which shall have been agreed by both Houses, or at Four of the clock if the Royal Assent shall have been reported before that hour, Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put:

Provided that Mr. Speaker may suspend the Sitting pending the consideration in another place of a Message from this House, or until a Message to attend the Lords Commissioners is received."

GREY SEAL PROTECTION BILL [Lords]

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 20th January, and to be printed. [Bill 81.]

Bills Presented

Trade Disputes and Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill,

"to amend the law relating to trade disputes and trade unions, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by the Attorney-General; supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Clynes, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. William Adamson, and the Lord Advocate; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 20th January, and to be printed. [Bill 77.]

Agricultural Marketing Bill,

"to enable schemes to be made for regulating the marketing of agricultural products; to confer powers upon boards and other bodies to be constituted in connection with, or acting for purposes connected with, such schemes; to establish agricultural marketing funds for the purpose of making loans thereout to the boards aforesaid; to encourage agricultural co-operation, research, and education; and to provide for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Dr. Addison; supported by Mr. William Adamson, the Attorney-General, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Attlee, and Mr. Johnston; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 20th January, and to be printed. [Bill 78.]

Education (Scotland) Bill,

"to make provision for maintenance allowances in respect of children between the ages of 14 and 15 for whom their parents are required to provide efficient education, and to amend the provisions of the Education (Scotland) Acts, 1872 to 1928, with regard to exemption from obligation to attend school," presented by Mr. William Adamson; supported by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Johnston; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 20th January, and to be printed. [Bill 79.]

Exportation of Horses Bill,

"to amend the law with respect to the exportation of horses," presented by Mr. Broad; supported by Brigadier-General Sir George Cockerill, Mr. Compton, Lord Fermoy, Mr. Haycock, Sir Robert Gower, Sir Robert Newman, and Mr. Mills; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, 22nd January, and to be printed. [Bill 80.]

Message from the Lords

That they have agreed to—

Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill.

Unemployment Insurance Bill.

Cunard (Insurance) Agreement Bill.

National Health Insurance (Prolongation of Insurance) Bill.

Public Works Facilities Scheme (Thorne and District Water) Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

Amendments to—

London County Council (Improvements) Bill [ Lords ], without Amendment.

Orders of the Day

Education (School Attendance) Bill

As amended, considered.

I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."

I formally make this Motion in order to enable the President of the Board of Education to make a statement as to how far he proposes to go with the Report stage to-night. I understand that you, Mr. Speaker, probably will feel unable to select the proposed new Clause—( Postponement of operation of Act )—which stands in the names of some of my hon. Friends and myself, with regard to non-provided schools, and I understand that the President of the Board of Education has a statement to make on that subject. Therefore, I formally move this Motion, in order to give him an opportunity of making a statement.

I suggest that to-day we should go down to the Amendment which stands in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) and others— in page 3, line 41, to leave out from the word "shall," to the end of the Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words

"not come into operation until an Act has been passed authorising expenditure out of public funds, upon such conditions as are necessary to meet the cost to be incurred by the managers of non-provided schools in meeting the requirements of the provisions of this Act, but that in no event shall this Act come into operation earlier than the first day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-two."

and that when we reach that I should move to adjourn the further Consideration of the Bill. I suggest this partly because I think that that would be about a reasonable distance to get today, and I also wish the House to stop there because I think it would be to the public advantage at this juncture not to have any discussion in this House on the question of voluntary schools, as I am just arranging for a conference of the major interests that are involved in the voluntary school question—the principal churches, the local authorities, and the teachers—to try to find a solution which will be satisfactory to the country. That being so, and as I am proposing to have that conference at a very early date in the year before the House meets again, I think that it will be more satisfactory to the House to discuss these propositions in the light of the results of the conference.

This has been sprung upon us rather suddenly, but I take this opportunity to say that the agreement of certain Members who work with me to certain tentative proposals put forward, which was conveyed to the right hon. Gentleman last night, was arrived at very largely in the hope of a settlement to-day, and I think that we ought to tell the right hon. Gentleman, in view of what he has just said, that that unqualified agreement does not now hold good.

I can only speak again with the leave of the House, but I should like to say that we have been led to suppose that the Government were anxious to get the Report stage before the adjournment. In some ways, I am sorry that further uncertainties should have led the Government to wish to carry matters over, but I agree that, in present circumstances, all things considered, that is the best thing we can do. I should like just to say this, however. If the remainder of the Report stage is taken after the adjournment, and if this very important question may not be any more settled than it is now, it may drive the Third Reading of the Bill to a somewhat late hour. We had previously undertaken to get through the Report stage and Third Reading in one day. I should like to say that if the debate takes a certain course on that occasion, it may be very difficult to get the Third Reading on the same day, and I am sure that the Government in that event—of course, we shall not be obstructive—will give due consideration to the matter.

There has been some consultation upon this matter, and, as the House knows, certain conversations have been proceeding. Those conversations cannot, of course, commit anyone except those who have been parties to the conversations. Manifestly, if we are to spend some time to-day in discussing a matter which must be referred to some of the interests outside this House for their consideration, we shall be covering the ground twice, and I think that those on these benches would wholly approve the line taken by the Minister in that matter, so that we may have an opportunity for considering with our friends outside the suggestions which have been made for the settlement of a very difficult problem.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Payment and recovery of maintenance allowances and repayment of sums overpaid.)

(1) Sums due by way of maintenance allowance under this Act shall be payable by a local education authority at such intervals not exceeding four weeks as may be determined by the local education authority, and any sums so due and payable may be recovered by the person entitled thereto summarily as a civil debt.

(2) If it is found at any time that a person has received from a local education authority by way of maintenance allowance under this Act any sum to which he was not entitled, that sum may, unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the local education authority that the sum was received by that person in good faith and without knowledge that he was not entitled thereto, be recovered by the authority summarily as a civil debt.—[ Sir C, Trevelyan. ]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This new Clause effects three things. First of all, it will simplify the procedure for claimants for maintenance grants, and the proceedings will be before a magistrate in a court of summary jurisdiction, and not, as previously arranged, in the county court. In the second place, it secures that payments shall be at least monthly for the claimant. Thirdly, it makes clear what, I think, was the case before—at any rate, it makes clear that the authority may recover amounts unduly paid to individuals. With regard to the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Uxbridge (Major Llewellin)—in line 2, after the word "weeks," to insert the words "and in such manner"—I have carefully considered whether it is worth while inserting it, and I very much doubt it I am assured that the words of the Amendment are unnecessary and at best redundant. I am told that it is possible that if these words are inserted it may lead to a restriction to the freedom of administrators to settle small points as they arise. I do not think that it is a matter of very great importance, but I am advised that it really is not worth while putting in these words.

I wish to thank the Minister for putting down this new Clause, which meets some of the criticisms which we made on the Committee stage. As to the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Major Llewellin), who, I regret, is not here at the moment, we do not attach very great importance to it, as long as we may have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman— and that, I think, he has already given—that it is clear that the local authority may make any arrangements for payment which they may think fit.

That is so.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision of vocational courses for children between ages of 14 and 15.)

All courses, 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 princiñpal Act as amended by this Act shall make reasonable provision for vocational instruction suited to the needs of children requiring such instruction, and may, for that purpose, 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 parents under Section one of this Act shall be limited to causing such children to attend these courses.—[ Mr. A. Somerville. ]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This new Clause represents a very important principle. We feel that the year 14-15 may be used simply for a repetition of the instruction already given and that the course of education in the schools may be open to the reproach which has been hurled at the present system, namely, that in the last two years of the course there is simply a repetition of previous instruction. We are very anxious, especially in the rural districts and in the industrial districts, that instruction shall be given to children between the ages of 14 and 15 which will help to fit them in a practical way for the work which they will have to do later in life. A Departmental Committee set up to deal with the question of the training of rural teachers under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) went into the matter very thoroughly and made a series of very valuable recommendations, the object of which was to provide the right type of teachers for rural areas, those who understood the country and the subjects necessary for life in the countryside. We require much more than book instruction to be given in those areas. I have asked on more than one occasion what steps have been taken to meet the recommendations of that committee, and so far I have not received a satisfactory answer. In fact, I have not received an answer at all.

We want to introduce into the Bill some safeguard or guarantee that in such areas, and also similarly in industrial areas, we shall have courses provided for the children that will be of real benefit to them and to the national life. In order that that may be done, we must have the proper type of teacher. The curricula for these courses should be thoroughly thought out, especially in the central schools. If you discuss the matter with head teachers of central schools, you will find that they lay the greatest stress on the necessity of a well-thought-out curriculum and the appointment of the proper type of teachers. I wish to lay the greatest stress on the necessity of a proper curriculum, proper educational facilities and the right type of teacher for these areas.

I beg to second the Motion.

I should like to draw the attention of the House to what this Clause entails. It does not seek in any way to get round the objectives of the Bill, but it seeks to make the best possible use, under the conditions laid down in the Bill, of the extra year at school. It is true that the postponement of the date on which this Bill is to come into operation does to some extent relieve the situation in regard to the anxiety lest suitable provision should not be available for making the best use of the additional year in the ordinary way. But those of us who are particularly connected with the rural parts of the country are gravely apprehensive, not only that the best use will not be made of this additional year, but that there will actually be, not so much a marking time, as a going back. One of the most anxious features of our educational system in the countryside is that the elder children, towards the end of their school time, have no proper teaching provision made for them, and the children get from the repetitive work and so forth a distaste rather than an inclination to continue their education, which we all agree ought to be continuous.

Everyone will admit, and the President of the Board of Education not the least, that when children of either sex reach the age of 14, and from 14 to 15, they begin instinctively to think definitely what they are about to do with their lives, or, at any rate, they begin to think in this way, and it is at that time that vocational training is of particular importance. If particular vocational training is to be made full use of, the teaching staff must be equipped for that most important duty, and it requires a careful selection of a type of teachers, who are, unfortunately, none too common either in this country or any other country. It requires teachers with a certain amount of vision and ability who, knowing a child's past career, can decide what it is most likely to be suited for. All would be well from a broad educational point of view if everybody could have an education which would enable them when the definite part of their education came to an end to pick and choose and select the particular course of life which commended itself to them. But facts are stubborn things, and we know that there are, especially in certain parts of the country, a limited number of careers in which the children will probably find their part in life. That is why the idea of vocational training has of late years come to the forefront.

We believe that there is going to be a great opportunity in the provision of the extra year at school. It is a year, following the early formative years, when the child is likely to begin to think a little for itself. Anyhow, the position becomes crystalised so that the teacher can get an idea as to the career for which the child is adapted. It is a year which can really be made of enormous importance to the child in enabling it to make a success of the life before it. I urge this Amendment upon the Minister because I think, properly handled, it will make full use of what may be a great opportunity for better equipping the children of the country as they pass through school and come upon, what is so often called, the labour market.

We are not now concerned with the arguments for and against the Bill, as such. We take it for granted that hon. Gentlemen opposite are moving this Clause, assuming that the Bill is to be carried, and that they want to make the very best of the last year, 14-15. The difference which lies between us now is as to whether the method which they are advancing through the medium of this new Clause is better than the method which we are proposing by way of a general raising of the school age without exemption. That, I think, is the point of difference between us. In order to determine this point, the standard of judgment must be an educational standard. I confess, after listening very carefully to the arguments in support of this proposal on the Committee stage and indeed again this afternoon, that I do not find myself able to appreciate entirely the educational argument in favour of this proposal.

I invite the House to examine what is happening in the educational world. Since the publication of the Hadow Report, it has become generally accepted that there shall be an age break for all children round about the age of 11, and that from round about that age, until the age of 14, if we do not alter the law, but until the age of 15 if we do alter the law, there shall be a change of education, for all children. It seems to me, and I think it is a proposition which will generally be accepted by hon. Members on this side of the House, that what is proposed in the Bill, that is to say, a general raising of the school age, without exemption, for all children, is a far more natural development along the lines of the Hadow reorganisation scheme than the proposal contained in the proposed new Clause.

The hon. Gentleman has twice used the word "exemption." I wish to point out that while that word may appear in other Amendments this Clause is not an exemption, but a substitution of method.

Shall I use the word "alternative"? May I show what our proposal involves? If we have the break at 11, as things are now without altering the law, we shall have something approaching three years of the post-primary course, and, if we alter the law by raising the school age, we shall have something approaching four years of post-primary course, and I think everybody will agree that educationally it is a far more sound proposition to have a four years' course than a three years' course. In a four years' course you can get a complete and well-rounded post-primary course of instruction. Moreover, it is an essential element in the proposal of reorganisation that we shall have regard not merely to the child who is academically-minded but also to the child who is more practically-minded. We are enjoined by the law as it now stands to provide practical and advanced instruction for the children. I assure hon. Members opposite that it is my right hon. Friend's full intention that when this re-organisation proceeds throughout the country due provision shall be made not only for the academically-minded child but for the practically-minded child also.

Our proposal is far better than the one advanced this afternoon by hon. Members opposite. What is the proposal that has been advanced this afternoon? There are two alternatives in it. The first is that we shall have regard to the particular vocation which the child is going to enter. I have never been able to accept the proposition that education for certain children because they belong to a locality shall be of a given nature, and that the education provided for them shall be purely vocational in its character. I know that the Clause says "reasonable provision," but it is very hard to define what is meant by reasonable. There are differences of opinion as to the interpretation of that word. Hon. Members opposite will agree with me that we have no right to assume that because a given number of children happen to be living in the countryside, automatically and inevitably they should be destined for agricultural work. There may be children there who ought not to be predetermined or predestined for agricultural work. Therefore, it seems to me that to give a bias in a vocational direction at the age of 14 is educationally unsound as well as possibly later socially unsound. Consequently, that alternative is one which I and my right hon. Friend, and those who sit on this side of the House would not be able to accept.

I leave hon. Members opposite to settle that matter themselves. The other alternative is the part-time continuation schools.

We all agree that the academically-minded children should not be debarred from having the right teaching. Would it be possible to arrange for them that they should pass to the secondary schools? Then there is the other course, that the children who are agriculturally-minded or industrially-minded should have a practical bias given to them by the right kind of teaching, the right curriculum. Our point is, that that provision is not made for them.

My hon. Friend takes a great interest in these educational questions. I should be strongly opposed to anything in the nature of providing a definitely vocational kind of education at too early an age. My hon. Friend puts another proposition to me which is very interesting, but which I cannot follow out this afternoon, as to what provision you will make once you have transferred your children from the primary school to the post-primary school, and at what age will you arrange for the transfer of the child who shows development along the practical or the academic side. That is a question on which there is dispute, and, where teachers disagree, it is very hard to decide.

That is exactly what I am pleading for, but in the operation of the proposed new Clause there is no elasticity whatever. You determine that the child shall be trained for a given occupation. That is the meaning of vocational training, and that is what I am appealing against. The other alternative is the continuation school alternative. I do not feel, although I have made a very earnest effort to understand what the case is for it, that a case has been made out for the continuation school, especially in its application to rural areas. What is the history of the matter? At the end of last year I think there were about 59 continuation schools up and down the country, but there was only one compulsory continuation school. The rest were on a voluntary basis. When we examine these 58 schools we find that, in the main, they are in areas where there is a very considerable population, and where there are individual firms ready to adopt the system. We cannot say that those conditions will be present in the rural areas. Therefore, we have to visualise the setting up of a continuation school system which means in the very nature of things a separate system.

You cannot have a school of any size in a rural area unless you bring the children from a considerable area to a common centre. Before that school will be useful, it must have a fairish population, because you cannot classify unless you have a substantial population. When you come to examine the staffing of that school you must realise that he continuation school system as it now stands only provides two alternatives—the system of 320 hours per year, that is, 40 weeks at the rate of eight hours per week, or in exceptional cases 280 hours per year of seven hours per week. You could not have your teachers fully occupied if they were working only seven hours per week. Your children, therefore, must be brought in in shifts in order to keep the staff fully occupied It seems to me that this proposal is one which, however strongly hon. Members opposite may desire to see it in operation, is in large measure inappropriate for rural areas.

I will not claim too much for my argument, but let me say that it is somewhat of a gamble as to whether you can make the continuation schools work smoothly and usefully in the rural areas. You may be able to work them and I daresay you could work them more successfully in the more populous areas, but I have grave doubts concerning the rural areas. The proposal that we have embodied in the Bill, of raising the school age for all children, of giving a full year's course, well considered according to the abilities and tendencies, endowments and tastes of the children, is a far better proposition educationally than the alternative in the new Clause. I have tried to meet the case put forward: I think it is a weak case, and on that account we must ask the House to reject It.

The Parliamentary Secretary has given us a very interesting and very fair speech. My criticism of his argument is that he talks as if this was a novel academic proposition to be decided according to educational theory. Those who support the proposed new Clause are anxious to encourage the development of present tendencies in senior education. Let us consider what those tendencies are. There is no good talking about vocational education from the point of view of what obscurantists think it may mean. Let us approach it from the point of view of what it actually does mean in schools up and down the country. What is the kind of vocational instruction which a very large section, indeed I think the majority, of the teaching profession are now anxious to give even to children between the ages of 13 and 14, and still more will they be anxious to give it to children between the age of 14 and 15. Let me take first purely the question of vocational instruction without going into the second part of the new Clause in regard to part-time education. If the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) dislikes the phrase "vocational instruction." She really does not. If she will con- sider for a moment she will admit that the reason why Plymouth, raised the school-leaving age so recently was that the dockyard entrance age is 15 and that the schools in Plymouth tend to work up to the dockyard examination, much too much so. That is vocational education. They are working deliberately for that examination, and the same thing is true in other dockyard towns. It is true of Portsmouth. I think the education in the elementary schools in the dockyard towns is overshadowed by the dockyard entrance age.

Our Clause says:

"shall make reasonable provision for vocational instruction suited to the needs of children requiring such instruction"—

If the Noble Lady will look at it with an unprejudiced mind—

—she will see that there is no dark, ulterior motive on our part. [ Interruption. ] If the Noble Lady will not interrupt—

It is not the Noble Lady; it is my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Yeovil (Major Davies).

It is no use thinking or suggesting that we have an ulterior motive, when we mean exactly what we say. Take the rural areas. There is one county—Rutland, which started central schools immediately after the War. I believe that in the central schools in Rutland a great attempt has been made to develop classes in hedging, ditching and such agricultural work. Certainly some of the best rural central schools that I save seen took this sort of line. I remember one school in Warwickshire where they made a very great point of fruit culture, and did very successful work. No one regards that -as reactionary; on the contrary, everyone agrees that the more practical you can make your rural bias the better. Prac- tical education does not cease to be educational because it becomes really practical in relation to the child's after life. There is a general idea that in public schools and secondary schools there is nothing vocational in the course before the age of 15 or 16. That is not true. There you have very definite vocational bias in education. It happens that the vocation which these pupils are going into are vocations which depend upon particular kinds of instruction which everyone recognises to be cultural in themselves. I remember that when I was at Eton, at a very early age, I was allowed to drop Greek and to take up German, which was very favourable to my vocation.

Certainly before I was 15. I did it on purely vocational grounds, because I was going in for the diplomatic service.

I confess that I did go on with Latin up to the age of 16, so that I cannot plead that as an excuse. In the same way, there are public secondary schools like the school at Sheffield which specialise in modern languages, with a definite vocational aim, because there is a demand for modern languages in the offices and businesses of Sheffield, but nobody thinks it is not a cultural school because modern languages are recognised as a cultural subject. I contend that you have to recognise the educational value of vocational instruction in other directions as well as in book work. Vocational instruction in book work may indeed be far more damaging to the child in practical life than practical vocational instruction. What frightens me is that a lot of people who talk a good deal about practical instruction are still anxious to prove that practical instruction, after all, is not so practical, and stops short of being vocational. In the country districts this means that it is far better to have a school garden and teach the children how to hoe potatoes and grow flowers from an educational point of view than it is to take the children out and put them to the much harder physical labour of thatching and hedging. That, I believe, to be thoroughly unsound.

In rural districts there is another element which, I often think, is the real problem of raising the school-leaving age. If the child is going on to the land, and we all wish that more children will stay on the land when they come out of school, the boy has to accustom himself to harder physical labour of a purely muscular kind than in any other walk of life. The older the boy becomes before he begins to accustom himself to this muscular exercise the more difficult it is for the boy. If, instead of giving the boy physical exercises and physical training in the school yard, and games, you give him the physical training which he will particularly need in work such as hedging and thatching, so much the better, and we need not be frightened by the bugbear of vocation. We are so anxious that there should be nothing vocational about our education, that while we intend the child to be a carpenter we will not allow him near any piece of machinery for fear it may be too practical for the work he will do afterwards. I have bored hon. Members several times on the subject of modern education in relation to modem machinery.

Every teacher will admit that one of the problems of practical instruction in the future is how to give the older child the practical instruction which he really wants, which is a practical instruction in understanding and handling mechanical power, whether it is electricity or internal combustion. This brings me to the question of continuation schools. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary, and disagree with some of my Friends on this side of the House, in the view that continuation schools in the shape of so many hours per week—the 1918 Act school—is not adapted to most rural areas. To some extent it may be, and you may be able to put a part-time class on to it in fruit culture, but, broadly speaking, it is not adapted to rural areas. But that is not because part-time education is not adapted to rural education. The kind of part-time education you want in rural areas is that represented by the Danish system—education during the winter on work which is to be done during the summer, not part-time education for so many hours per week. However, I do not stress that point, because it is a much bigger problem, and we have not yet begun to develop it.

In the towns the case is different, and this is why we have put down this Clause in a somewhat different form from the one which was moved during the Committee stage. The justification for the alternative of part-time continuation schools, which the Parliamentary Secretary cannot understand is this, that in the whole-time central schools you will find it difficult to meet the needs of practically-minded children. You will only be able to put a boy who wants to get an idea of internal combustion engines on to a carpenter's bench, and that is not the same thing. The ideal, of course, would be to have a workshop attached to every school, but that cannot be done, and the extent to which you can give a boy that kind of instruction will depend on the extent to which you can use the premises of any technical college. I believe that in the transitional period you will find it impossible to work in your curriculum as between the central school and the technical college sufficiently to keep every boy really occupied and interested the whole time. You will have to adopt the alternative of the continuation school.

There is no doubt that a boy or girl at Bolton will, generally speaking, get far more out of attendance at Messrs. Tootal, Lee and Broadhurst's continuation school than out of a senior school. You may say that it is only the transitional period, and that the central schools will provide this education. At the present time that will not be the case, and if you want to get flexibility you must get it in this way. Do not reject an Amendment of this kind because it might mean something terrible and reactionary. You cannot put any educational proposition on paper in legislative form which might not be interpreted in a most reactionary way. The whole Education Acts, if wrongly interpreted, would become a perfect charter of reaction. Take this Clause as intended to give flexibility. I believe it does represent the ideal of flexibility, whereas the Bill as it stands represents far too much an ideal of academic rigidity and uniformity.

The Noble Lord, when he gets on to a topic which is purely educational, is always interesting. He always lays down the right premises but invariably draws the wrong conclusions, and at no time has that been better illustrated than by the speech to which we have just listened. We learned the other night that the Noble Lord knew little Latin, and I gather that he knows less Greek.

I confess that it took me four attempts to get through the classics part of Little Go. I agree with the greater part of his premises; and they are the greatest condemnation of the Clause. The case for the Clause was completely given away by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) when he interrupted the Parliamentary Secretary. The Clause falls into two parts. The first is unnecessary, if one reads Section 20 of the original Act and, in addition to being unnecessary, it is thoroughly reactionary from the point of view of certain documents which the Noble Lord himself issued. We have again the idea of the Conservative party, that this is to be a distinct and separate year altogether in the child's school life.

I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. Of course, all of us would like to have put down this Clause in the form of children between the ages of 11 and 15, but I strongly suspect that such a Clause would have been out of order, and I put it in a form which I thought would be in order.

Only two days ago I exempted the Noble Lord from the rest of his party, and I thought that in putting it in the form I did I had excluded the Noble Lord. The Section of the principal Act says: children during the time they are in school. I prefer the words of the original Act because they cover the point much better than the first part of the Clause, and they envisage any raising of the school age to 15 as making a complete four years course between the ages of 11 and 15. The interruption of the hon. Member for Windsor showed a dangerous tendency. I object to the present organisation of education in this country because it takes the academically-minded child out of school at the age of 11 and tends to segregate children into academically and non-academically-minded children. This world is constituted of academically-minded and non-academically-minded beings who have to live together after school life. Their united work makes up the national life, and the greatest blemish on our school system is that it tends to segregate children into the academically and non-academically-minded scholars, and to provide separate schools for their training.

5.0 p.m.

I should very much regret to see carried out the idea of the hon. Member for Windsor that you should take the academically - minded child out of the school at 14 and leave behind in a single school all the children except those who are academically minded. I think the Noble Lord was quite right when he said that vocational training for professions has always been regarded as quite sound. University training down to quite modern times was vocational training for the lawyer, the parson, and the politician and a very few other people. In modern times that has been altered. I see no objection to vocational training being given to the children if it is given in accordance with the terms of Section 20 of the Act:

"Nor primarily. I will not say "nor even at all," because I think every citizen, irrespective of his walk in life, ought to know how to use the ordinary tools of the gardener and the carpenter. I put it no higher than that people should be taught to have that purely physical aptitude, women as well as men. I feel that this is precisely where the Noble Lord went wrong, in proceeding from his premises to the very lamentable conclusion to which he came. Surely the first use of the school garden is as a practical way of demonstrating some of the great truths of science, and giving to the child whom we call practical-minded an opportunity fur pursuing his own scientific investigation? One does not test the result of school gardening teaching first by the crops that are secured, but by the way in which the children get a sound training in scientific pursuits and in drawing deductions from their own experiments.

You spoil some of the crops usually, in showing the children that certain processes ought to be carried out in one way and not in other ways. What I am saying about the Noble Lord's argument in regard to gardening also applies to his argument about children being taught to understand mechanical power. I believe that children ought to have an understanding of machines, but I very much doubt if it is wise to allow them to handle mechanical power before the age of 15. This is a small point, but it shows the way the Noble Lord's mind is moving.

Some of us understand a good many things that we do not handle. Some of us even understand money. Some of my hon. Friends here are great experts, when it comes to understanding money. In the second part of the new Clause, I think the case is even weaker. Day continuation schools were laid down in the Act with the idea of making them compulsory until the children were 18 and as an alternative to compulsory full-time instruction up to 16 years of age. Those are the alternatives in the Fisher Act, and they still remain in it. Hon. Members have, it is true, missed out the Sub-section, of that Act which makes it compulsory. I go further than the Noble Lord as to the impossibility of carrying out the day continuation school scheme in the country; I say it is impossible to carry it out in the small town. The education committee of which I am a member seriously contemplated the possibility of establishing day continuation schools in Surrey. We found that the country lawyer with one office boy could not arrange times in the office so as to allow the boy to be off duty for the necessary number of hours. The person in the small villa with one servant-girl similarly could not make those arrangements. I venture to say that not merely in the country, but in many of the small towns in the country, perhaps everywhere, except places in which industry is highly organised on a big scale, that kind of school would be impossible. I notice one thing that the hon. Member for Windsor proposes to do, and that is to fine a child if he does not attend school. He has included by reference Section 78 of the original Act, which imposes a fine of 5s. on the young person if he does not attend the school. This just shows the danger of legislation by reference. I cannot think that the hon. Member intended that.

I hope the House will reject the Clause, because the existing law is strong enough to do all that ought to be done, and does it in fact in better words and in better ways. The second part of the new Clause would carry out the idea of the continuation schools, but would probably postpone the operation of them in areas where they could be established, because of the bad name they would acquire if they were in the form provided in the Clause.

The late President of the Board of Education the right hon. Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) quoted Plymouth. I am remanded of the man we call our expert in Plymouth, a man who has had more to do with the raising of the school age in Plymouth than any single person. He is a member of our party, although he is above all parties and all prejudices when it comes to the question of education. He says that it has been his experience, and the experience of a great many educationists, that vocational training is almost dangerous if it is carried too far. I was horrified to hear the late President of the Board of Education say that he ought to have made the new Clause read "from 11 to 15.' Those of us who believe in the Hadow Report are working up to the point where children from 11 to 15 get a general education, and after that when they go into industry they can have vocational part-time education, if you believe in that. That is all very well. Let us have that, but up to 15 the children should have a good general education.

So far as industry is concerned, there was an expert, I think it was Mr. Vickers, one of the members of Vickers Maxims Limited, who came before a board dealing with this subject and said that so far as his firm were concerned they would rather have the child enter their works, highly technical works, with a high general education than vocational training. Those of us who have children of our own know that children very often do not begin to work until 13 or 14, and they do not know at 15 what they want to be. If we are going to specialise, and tell them that they must go into this or that, it seems to me that we are interfering almost in a dangerous way. Many people do not realise that we have to place our children into quite a different world from what the old people had to face. We work eight hours, and have eight hours' play and eight hours' rest. We have to consider this matter not only from the point of view of industry but with our minds on the general life of the child, and the more we can give them tastes the better it will be. Many people who are against modern education say: "The children are learning nothing; why should they learn to paint and sew and cook?" and the rest of it. It is absolutely essential that a nation which is going to work eight hours a day, and probably less later on, should have tastes. I believe that a general education gives children time to develop tastes.

I hear agricultural members talking about children in the agricultural districts, and saying that they should have special training for agriculture. I should think those children needed a general education up to 15 more than any other children in the country. That is my experience. I believe that the only way of keeping people on the land is by the development of their tastes and interests. Many children now want to go off the land because they do not understand it. The kind of people who will want to work on the land are those who see beauty in all sorts of things, and not those who were simply brought up as agricultural workers. I really cannot understand that point of view. It does not satisfy progressively-minded people. We have been hearing about Denmark; I wish we could imitate the Danish system of agricultural education. [ Interruption. ] Yes, and you would have to get the Danish system of agriculture and we might get protection with it.

Will the Noble Lady please confine herself to the question? There is another Clause dealing with agriculture later on, and we cannot have two debates on the same subject.

I am sorry. Others who went before me spoke on the subject, and as they have not been called to order I thought I might go on with it. It will be a little hampering to the Bill to put these Clauses in. We ought to go strictly on the lines of the Hadow Report. I hope that hon. Members opposite will not think that any section of the House wants to divide up education into parts. If we could get class bias out of education, it would be a good thing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] We know which side of the House talks about class.

I hope that the Government will not accept this Clause. Much as I dislike voting against my party, I have to do it, because of our experience at Plymouth, where we have had practical illustrations. I always regret that we did not have more light on education when we were passing the original Act of 1918.

I would like to congratulate the Noble Lady on her speech. We all ought to recognise the courage with which she has stood up for the children, even against her own party, especially as we know she is a loyal party woman. It is easy for an independent-minded person like myself to take an independent line. I am not sure that we are not fighting largely about words on this new Clause. Although the Noble Lord took a lot of trouble to support the words "vocational education," he spent a great part of his speech in showing that he did not mean vocational education. It would be obviously mischievous to put into an Act of Parliament a word that might be liable to misrepresentation. I think we are all agreed upon what must be done by regulations. I am rather glad to have an opportunity of bringing the House back to the Hadow Report. The very foundation of that report was that in raising the age to 15 and making a break at 11, there should be, first, a national system of education, and two branches, a branch to the right and a branch to the left, to which all children should go—on the one hand, to the right, the grammar school, and on the other hand, to the left, the modern school—according to the capacity and ability and tendency of the child. That is what we are aiming at in vocational education.

I am speaking with a good deal of authority when I say that modern tendencies are all against narrowing education and against making it vocational. Industry and the methods of production move so quickly that the very first thing necessary is to recognise this fact. Anyone in touch with unemployment knows that industry changes ro rapidly, that a young man or woman brought up in a special trade, a young man or woman who becomes an expert in that trade, finds himself or herself left high and dry because of changes in methods in the industry. We see the same tendencies in agriculture. The man who can drive a plough and pair of horses may not be able to manage a Ford tractor. The modern agricultural labourer, who is always a very clever and adaptable person, will find it necessary in future to have a very much wider training. One of the strongest cases for this Bill is that the agriculturist now requires a very much broader education and very much wider opportunities of study.

We want more flexibility in education. We have to convince people that the extra year at school does not mean an extra year of merely literary education—more books, more grammars, more geographies. We want a wider conception of education. That was the basis of the Hadow Report. The Minister of Education ought to give a lead to the whole country when the Bill comes into force by showing that the passing of the Bill does not mean running on the old lines, but does mean a broader and wider conception of education.

I cannot support the Second Reading of this proposed new Clause. I feel that if the Bill is to go through, it must be on the basis that it is raising the general education of the people up to the age of 15. That is the great justification for it. The words of Section 20 of the Act of 1921 are quite wide enough to meet any reasonable arrangements that the Minister may make for including in the curriculum of the elementary schools practical instruction suitable to the ages and abilities and requirements of the children. I feel that specialisation ought to come as late as possible, certainly not before 15 years of age. I am very sorry that the Noble Lord who was Minister of Education in the last Government is not in his place, because I want to refer to something concerning himself. A little time ago I read with some trepidation and interest a book called "Education at the Cross Roads," which he published. I was much interested to see in that book that his great point was to put off all specialisation to the very last possible date. So much so that he objected to the present university system of taking certificates from the schools so as to get the under-graduates off from the first year of general education at the university. I was, therefore, much surprised to hear the Noble Lord argue practically for specialisation in the case of children before the age of 15. I think that would be a bad thing, and I cannot support this new Clause.

I have listened to the debate with very mixed feelings, because while it has shown a considerable agreement on principle, it has shown also a very considerable disagreement with regard to methods. I am not accustomed to agree with the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris), but I am ready to admit that I think, with him, that on this occasion it is very largely a question of words. I agree that the words "vocational training" are not pleasant sounding words from the point of view that we all have, but no one has yet discovered what words will express our idea. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has referred to Section 20 of the Education Act. His experience may have been different from mine, and if so he is lucky. For the country as a whole Section 20 is, practically speaking, a dead letter. What we are seeking to do in this new Clause is to provide that, even if it is a dead letter so far as children from 11 to 14 years of age are concerned, it shall not be a dead letter so far as those from 14 to 15 years of age are concerned. Although the hon. Member did not do me the honour of exempting me from the general condemnation of Members on this side of the House, I join with him in deploring any suggestion that the year from 14 to 15 is a separate year, apart from the rest of the school life.

Our hope is that if some such Clause as this is carried and we can enforce this special education on children from 14 to 15, it will also get to the children from 11 to 14. The Parliamentary Secretary cannot accept the position that because certain children are born in a certain walk in life, they are certain to follow that walk of life. As he put the case I agreed with him. But, loth though we may be, we have to accept the position that a very large proportion of these children will in fact follow the family occupation. We have been arguing from the particular to the general instead of from the general to the particular. We say "One class, or one child in that class, may possibly become a member of a learned profession; therefore let us give them all an education which will fit them in that direction," instead of saying "Most of the children will have to live a certain life; let us give them an education that will teach them the best of that life, and if there are any children who have a different bent, let us develop that to the full." What we both want to do is to give every child of every class a chance to follow its own bent and to develop its own abilities to the full. Our only difference is as to the method. We believe that you should base your system on the general and average child and make exceptions.

I exempt from all my remarks the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor).

What I have stated is the general opinion on this side of the House. Hon. Members opposite say "No, you are arguing from the best, and you let the others drag behind." That is where we quarrel. I think that the hon. Member for South Shields and myself would like to see a school where all the children are mixed together and every one developed to the full. But that is not in sight yet. What we have to tackle is the problem immediately before us. The Noble Lady the Member for Sutton said that she wanted the people on the land to realise the beauty of things, the beauties and the possibilities of the life they have to live. But at the present moment, in the country, children are getting the vocational education of a second-rate clerk. That is happening in the village schools all over the country. Our argument is that what is being provided now is not a general and broad elucation, but a second-rate and moderate clerical education. It is not the teachers' fault; it is the fault of the situation.

The hon. Member is now getting far away from the narrow question that is before the House.

I am afraid that I was led away, not by others, but by my own feelings. My point is that we have to ensure that the extra year is to be of real value to the children. We believe that unless some such Clause as this is inserted in the Bill, the children will be kept in a narrow clerical groove and will not be fitted for life. An hon. Member opposite shakes his head, and he may go on shaking it, but I know that what I say is the fact in a great many schools in the country areas.

I had the honour of being a member of a Committee, over which the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young) presided, which considered this subject. We had a large mass of evidence brought before us with regard to children from the age of 11 onwards. The evidence from all parts of the country was that the children from 11 to 15 would benefit by a further extension of education if the curriculum was made ready for them.

The hon. Member will not think me egotistical if I say that I believe the evidence of my own eyes rather than the evidence of a Departmental Committee. The hon. Member in fact gave his own case away in his last sentence, in which he used the words "if the curriculum is made ready for them." We believe that without some such provision as is embodied in the new cause the curriculum will not be made ready. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is your fault!"] It does not matter whose fault it is. The important thing is, what is to happen to the children? Apportion the blame afterwards, but educate them first. I repeat that unless some such Clause as this is inserted in the Bill the curriculum will not be ready for the children. They will receive a specialized education, not on broad lines, but on narrow and bad lines, unfitting them to make the best of their lives.

I should like to make clear to the House the grounds on which we support this proposed new Clause and in doing so I hope to be able to remove some misconceptions indicated by certain of the speeches which we have heard during this discussion. I want, first of all, to make clear that in proposing this new Clause we are not to be taken at all as favouring a premature decision as to the child's occupation in after-life. I do not interpret the word "vocational" in that sense. What I want to see is practical instruction of a kind which will appeal to the child who is not very good at his books and who is beginning to grow restive in school because he has not sufficient outlet for his practical sense. The growing boy is a very practical person, and, at about this age, he is beginning to cast longing eyes beyond the school door and unless we provide for him inside the school doors, or at any rate inside the school-grounds, something which will give him scope for the exercise of his creative and practical ability, we may give him a distaste for school which may prejudice his whole career.

Hon. Members opposite, I think, have ignored the importance of the factor of environment in connection with the teaching of children. Anybody who has studied education, even in the small way that I have, realises what stress is being placed to-day on teaching children, through the medium of the environment in which they live. To arouse the child's interest must be the foundation of any real education. You cannot do anything with children unless you have their interest, but once you have aroused their interest, then they begin to follow you, then they want to learn, then they ask questions. Intellectual progress becomes possible from the moment you arouse their interest, but I do not believe that it is possible before you do so. The reason why educationists lay so much stress on environment is because, if you teach the child on subjects connected with the child's environment, you are able to relate the teaching in the school to the child's own experience. The child is able to see for himself that what is written in a book is true because it is something of which he has had personal experience, and the teaching which he receives in the school throws a new light on features of his own environment. I have not the time to do so, but I could give the House instances of the importance of this form of teaching.

Does not the Noble Lady really mean to suggest that the child should rather be brought out of his environment? I take it that she does not mean keeping the children down in their own environment, but rather showing them the vision of a better environment.

If the Noble Lady had allowed me to proceed I was going to deal with that point. What I mean by teaching through environment is teaching the child, for instance, that certain things will grow in the soil in the area in which he lives while other things will grow only in certain other soils—

But the Noble Lady does not suggest that the child should be taught with the idea that he is always going to stay on the land?

I think I have already made it plain that I would be no party to any proposal for deciding prematurely what the occupation of the child is to be, and I am not going to say that because a child is the son of an agricultural labourer, he, too, must become an agricultural labourer. I do not mean to suggest that for one moment.

As the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) honoured me by showing a little interest in what I was saying I was trying to make my position quite clear to her—perhaps rather to the exclusion of other Members of the House. As I say, I do not believe that because a child is the son of an agricultural labourer it necessarily means that he is to turn into an agricultural labourer. I do not regard vocational instruction in that way at all, but I look upon it as a means by which, possibly, the spark of interest may be lit in thé minds of boys or girls who previously have not shown great interest in their books, and by which they may be led on gradually to a stage at which they will turn back to their books with fresh interest. That has been found to happen in many cases in the central schools. There are cases where the rather stupid backward child after a course of practical training suddenly finds that there is something which he can do, and something which he desires to know, and he gets new confidence and often comes back with interest to a subject in which he had not been doing at all well previously. I do not want to see these classes limited to rural subjects. I would like to see instruction given in other subjects including subjects for girls. My aim is to see that interest aroused which is the beginning of all progress in the education of a child.

I also think it is a good thing for children, wherever they are situated, to be interested in their environment, to know something of the industries of the district in which they live, to realise the importance of those industries on which the prosperity of their own district depends, and all that those industries mean to the locality. I do not say that there is not an advantage also in giving them some actual practical instruction in such things for instance as hedging and ditching and in relating the teaching in the school to practical work. For instance if you teach horticulture or agriculture it is a good thing to have experimental plots in which practical instruction can be given about the growing of certain plants and vegetables or crops. This seems to us to be a very valuable part of education because it will mean really awakening the child's interest but it is not in any way meant to be a premature decision as to the child's future occupation. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) says that he does not want to see a separation between the bookish and the non-bookish child but you cannot help that, in adolescence. You can educate all children together in the infant and the junior classes, but psychologists who know more about this matter than I do will tell the hon. Member that when the adolescent stage has been reached differences in type begin to show themselves which did not show themselves at earlier stages and you cannot help separating the children into different classes.

It is not fair to the child who is clever at its books, any more than it is fair to the child who is clever with his hands not to have that separation. You cannot help having a differentiation between children in regard to certain subjects. You can keep them together for things like class singing or physical instruction but you cannot help separating them for certain subjects.

It depends on how many children of a particular type you have in the area. If you have enough children to fill a secondary school is it not better to have a secondary school of a size which can easily be managed rather than an enormous central school—

I think this debate is being widened far too much. The question before the House is the provision of vocational courses for children between 14 and 15, but the Noble Lady is covering the whole field of education.

I am sorry if I have gone too far, but I have only followed the lead of the hon. Member for South Shields and others. However, that is all that I wish to say about vocational training, but there is another important principle which is involved in the proposed new Clause. Many people realise the disadvantage of the sudden break between school and industry. The child is apt to be upset when he leaves the environment of the school and goes out into the very different atmosphere of industry. The raising of the school age does not get over that difficulty because that break will be just as bad at 15 as at 14. It may be said, of course, that the child will have the advantage of having got one more year at school, of being one year older and therefore better able to take care of himself. That is true, but, on the other hand, it can be argued that every year he stays in school will make the break seem all the greater when it comes. That is a difficulty which can be got over by part-time classes better than in any other way, because the part-time class enables the child to get into industry, while the influence of the school is retained in the child's life for a year or longer.

There is another very strong point in favour of part-time classes as opposed to whole-time instruction. I think most of us agree that one of the best things which any school can do for the pupil is to send him away wanting more instruction. Education does not end with the leaving of school, whether at the age of 14 or the age of 18, but goes on all through life, and the best thing that any school can do for us is to teach us how to learn throughout life. One of the greatest things, therefore, that a school can do is to send the pupil away wanting more, and that is exactly what part-time education can do. It does not give the children too much and therefore they are ready to ask for more. That is what hon. Members will find at Rugby, where there is a compulsory system of part-time classes. There the children so enjoy the one day which they spend in the classes—

I must draw the Noble Lady's attention to the fact that she is going far beyond what she is entitled to discuss upon this new Clause. The only thing before the House at the moment is whether or not children between the ages of 14 and 15 are to have vocational training.

With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I submit that the second part of the new Clause deals with part-time classes for children between 14 and 15 and that is what I am discussing. I do not wish however to detain the House longer than is necessary to point out that at Rugby there is this remarkable feature—that children between 14 and 16 who have been attending the day part-time classes, come back and demand evening classes on two or three nights of the week. To such an extent is this the case that the education authority cannot provide the necessary accommodation. I do not believe that that situation exists in any other part of the country and it is a tremendous advertisement for the part-time system. We do not in this new Clause ask for the complete substitution of the part-time system in any area such as suggested. We merely ask that for children who are not of the bookish type and whose parents are perhaps anxious that they should be earning something, there should be this alternative; that they should be able to combine earning with learning and to have the benefit of that part-time system which has been shown to be very beneficial to the children concerned in many areas of this country.

I am sorry to have to disagree with the Noble Lady in her support of the new Clause. The age at which children leave school ought not to be 15 but 16, and had that proposal been part of the Measure I should be quite content if the year between 15 and 16 were spent in some directly vocational occupation. But until the House in its wisdom has decided to improve the education system and made it an enlightened system I cannot assent to any proposal of this kind. I, for one, will not try to mould the present system in such a way as to harass the education authorities and put a strain upon the system under which it may break down. Local education authorities, Universities and other bodies concerned with the training of teachers have to realise that there is something radically wrong with the whole system and no amendment of the kind proposed here is going to alter the situation. We want to evolve an education system which will allow for the greatest amount of experiment and I should be unwilling to agree to any stereotyped form of words in a Bill of this kind.

As far as I can gather the opinion of educationists and the general opinion of the country is not yet ripe for any such change as I have indicated. I believe that if you had such words as these in the Bill, some authorities would quite definitely bring in a policy of pre-determining the child's future career and we ought to guard against that possibility. There is a great deal of practical instruction going on in every school and in every part of the country and in certain rural areas the practical instruction given is by no means in tune with the environment of the child, or calculated to enable the child to appreciate that environment, being confined to "the three R's" rather badly taught by untrained or unqualified teachers. That is a system with which this party has no sympathy. The fact remains that no educational body with any wisdom, I should imagine, would want words put into the Bill which might conceivably, under pressure from people who knew nothing about education and far less about what goes on inside the average school in this country, be read as meaning that the child between 14 and 15 was to have its future career determined for it, in so far as the school could do so. It is because I want the greatest amount of freedom of choice in the matter of subjects, and the greatest amount of elasticity in the school curriculum in this very vital year by which we are intending to extend the school age, only too late, that I very much hope that no such addition will be made to the Bill.

In view of the discussion and the fact that particular attention has been directed to the curriculum in the last year, I beg leave to withdraw the Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 1.—(Raising of compulsory school age and provision of maintenance allowances.)

I beg to move, in page 1, line 20, at the end, to insert the words:

There has been an alteration of the second part to this extent, that while the parent should have the right of determining the kind of instruction that his child should have from 14 to 15 years of age, the local authority should have a definite say in the provision of this instruction, but in cases where the local authority does not provide instruction, the parent can arrange for it. I think that is an improvement on the original Amendment. The House might well pay attention to the experience gained in other countries in this respect, because we are not the only country to have education from 14 to 15. Denmark has always been held up to us as an agricultural country, and the hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) mentioned, I think, the question of the West Jutland school system. Under that system the attendance at school for children in Denmark can be interrupted from May to November, thus giving the children the chance of learning practical instruction in agriculture.

I said that if we had the same agricultural system here as they have in Denmark, we might consider their system of education. The system of agriculture in Denmark is very progressive, and if we could get that here, I should be willing to follow their example perhaps, but I do not think I should agree unless we had some more progressive system here.

What we want to do is to get the best education for our children, and if the West Jutland system has been found useful, I beg to commend it to the notice of this House. Let us take the case of the United States of America, where they have far fewer attendances than we have. Under this Bill the children will be forced to attend on 200 days, and it is with a view to interrupting those 200 days that I move this Amendment. In the United States they have a system of exemptions in nearly all the States, and the average attendance is about 140 days. If you add together the two parts of my Amendment you will see that the total number of possible exemptions comes to 60 days, which would not be entirely used in every case.

Now let us take the case of Virginia, and I see we have an expert here to tell us about that. The minimum attendance required in Virginia is only 28 weeks, as compared with our 40 weeks. A child may be excused at 14, after completing his elementary school course, for necessary work during certain seasons of the year. I submit that the system adumbrated by this Amendment is superior to that which exists at any rate in Virginia, but naturally every State in the United States, which is very much an agricultural country, has to take its own local conditions into view. I have mentioned two countries, but there are many others in this world, and they all, naturally, have different systems of education, but without exception they recognise the need for some special treatment of agriculture. The more agricul- tural is the State, the longer is the period of exemption, and where there are no powers to interrupt, the education is so arranged generally that the children can be out in the best season of the year, which is the summer.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I would specially call the attention of the Minister of Education to the fact that this applies only to county areas and for a very short period of time. The Amendment can be divided into two parts. The first part permits the attendance at school for children between 14 and 15 to be interrupted for a period of 21 days only, and the purpose of that interruption in their school life is to enable them to take part in the seasonal occupations which are essential on the farms.

The House may not be fully aware to what extent it is essential that there should be this additional labour—and I am quite prepared to admit that it is additional labour—in agriculture at certain periods of the year. At the present time, admittedly, these children are available during harvest operations. An English harvest, according to the weather, has a duration of four, five, and this year six weeks, but that is not the only nor is it the main seasonal occupation for which these young people are required. They are available for that period at present, but in the arable counties of England, immediately following the ordinary corn harvest, is the potato harvest, which has to be carried on between the ripening of the potato and the coming in of the first of the winter frosts, and that period is sometimes not more than two or three weeks. During that time the agriculturist has to comb the whole of the district for any possible additional labour.

The labour of these young people between 14 and 15 is the most useful and valuable labour. It is an operation that can be done by young persons far better than it can be done by persons of mature age, and I would suggest to any hon. Member of this House who has attained a mature age to see how unpleasant picking potatoes would be to him. It is on behalf of agriculture upon that point that I appeal to the Minister to give us some concession, but that is not the only occu- pation for which young persons are required. There is that of planting potatoes, which, as I said during the Committee stage of the Bill, has to be done within a period of two or three weeks; and another seasonal occupation which the young person can do far better than any adult person is that of singling sugar beet.

6.0 p.m.

I appeal to the Minister to grant this Amendment in the interests of the agricultural industry as a whole. It is certainly in the interests of the agricultural worker and of the child. There was some criticism levelled at me for what I said during the Committee stage of the Bill, when I said that the wages of children employed in these seasonal occupations between the ages of 14 and 15 amounted to 4s. and 5s. a day. I was attacked outside this House as to whether that statement was true. I said then, as I say now, that I give no figure and talk on no subject in this House which I do not fully understand, and I myself at that time was paying that wage for these young people at that occupation. We have had many debates upon the effect of this Bill upon agriculture, but up to the present the Minister of Education has given no concession whatever. In the first place, we did not want the Bill at all, and, secondly, we applied that the rural areas should not come within its scope. Now we only ask for a very small thing, and that is for this period of only 21 days during which the school life may be interrupted. I hope that, at this late stage of the Bill, the Minister of Education will give us this concession. The second part of the Amendment gives permission to a parent, who wishes his child to receive instruction for 40 days in the year in agriculture, or otherwise, to remove the child from the school, unless the school is carrying out this instruction. This part of our Amendment is entirely for the benefit of the child. There is no available instruction in agriculture in the village schools, and no method by which any child above the age of 14 can receive any other education than he has been receiving between 13 and 14. The child in rural areas will, in all probability, come in after life to agricultural labour, and, I hope, eventually to a smallholding, and later to a small farm. It is essential that that child should learn the particular technical knowledge that agriculture requires.

It is only in youth, for instance, that a boy can be taught to understand the management of horses. The youth will take to- a horse and love a horse, but if you keep him at school until a later period, he will come to have an affection for the motor-bicycle, and he will prefer to motor-cycle to the town rather than look after a horse. I want to protect that boy, when he has the love of horses, by giving him the particular technical instruction that will help him to keep his interest. I ask the Minister to realise that rural areas are different from towns, where there are opportunities for further practical education. Rural areas have not that opportunity, and if this Bill passes as it is, the children in those areas will be kept doing the same lessons as before. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in the interests of the child and of education, to accept this very small request.

This is a question which we discussed at considerable length in Committee. The first part of the Amendment, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) quite frankly says, is designed to enable the labour of the children to be utilised. There is no dispute about that. I do not think that it is the general wish of the House that in this particular industry the boys and girls should be withdrawn for industrial purposes. We all know that it would be very convenient for farmers to have the labour of many of these children, and they think it very hard that they cannot get it at an earlier age, but there is really no reason for the provision of cheap labour for farmers any more than for any other kind of employer, and I do not think that the general sense of the House would agree to make the exception that the Amendment provides. The hon. Gentleman represented the latter part of the Amendment as having some industrial or educational value, because it would enable boys to go out into the fields in order to learn their life's job. I have not much belief in that. A lad in the country learns his job by the fact that he is living there. In the countryside the children grow up learning a great deal more about the industry in which they are going to work than do the children in the towns. The children in the towns do not know much about the industry in which they are going to work until they get inside the factories, whereas the children who are living on the land are always picking up a great part of the knowledge which will serve them when they go into their life's work.

I agree with the hon. Member that there is not sufficient practical instruction in the schools yet, but it is coming very much more than he is apt to admit. There are a great many schools where very effective practical instruction is being carried on in the country districts, some remarkable schools as I have seen. The way out is not to tell the parents that they can take the children away if a school is not satisfactory, but to tell the parents to look after the local education authority, and to see that the members of the authority, who are farmers and landlords, as a rule, in agricultural districts, do their duty in giving that practical instruction which they are being encouraged in every possible way to give by the Board of Education, whether the head of the Board comes from the other side of the House or from this side. That is the way to remedy the want of practical instruction; it is not to drive the children out into the fields for a number of days in the year where they would not get much effective training.

I support the Amendment, because the right hon. Gentleman in his handling of it, and the Parliamentary Secretary in his handling of a similar Amendment in the Committee stage, have tended to fall into an error which is so common among specialists of all Departments—the error of confusing the end and the means. To the ordinary man like myself, who is not a specialist in any department, education is the means by which a child may grow up to be a worthy citizen and member of society, but to the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary, education is an end in itself, even though the child may learn nothing at school which is likely to be the least use to it in after life. I think I have heard the Minister deprecate the education which he received at school. I should not hesitate to do the same in my case, for I say without hesitation that I never learned a single thing at school which has been of the least use to me in after life. Everything that I have learned which has been of use to me was learned either before I went to school or after I left school. To be able to read Virgil and Horace at sight, and the ability to read the New Testament in the original Greek may be a moral satisfaction to a certain type of mentality, but to me it has been a source of neither pleasure nor profit. I only regret those years of my life which I spent in absorbing the classics, and am sorry that I did not spend them in learning modern languages, of which I should be appreciating the benefit now.

Simultaneously with this Measure we have had a Measure upstairs dealing with agriculture, and, unless we are careful, we shall bring these two Measures into direct conflict. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), speaking on the Second Reading of the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill, worked for a long time, in a very satisfied manner, upon smallholdings, and was received with enthusiasm upon the other side of the House. He said that the smallholdings which had been the greatest success were those where the husband and wife worked together. Either he, or another hon. Member on the benches below the Gangway, also said that it entirely depended upon the wife whether a smallholding was a success or not, and that in the smallholdings which had been a success, the wife was as good a man as her husband. We scarcely ever have an agricultural debate in this House without the fact being commented on that Denmark sends us anything from £30,000,000 to £40,000,000 worth of agricultural produce a year. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs dilated on the fact that in France, which is a land of peasant proprietors, equivalent to our smallholders, they had succeeded in maintaining something like 30 per cent. of the entire population of the country on the land, a thing, he said, which we should strive to do in this country. In Denmark, I have seen children helping their fathers and mothers in the fields early in the morning and late in the afternoon—

And night, too, after they have left school, and that is the reason, no doubt, why we are importing this large amount of agricultural produce, which hon. Members opposite will not agree to keep out or to submit to a tariff. In France, exemptions are freely given for children who wish to do any work, or whose parents wish them to help them, either by looking after the children at home or by working on the small farm. If we develop smallholdings in this country on anything like the scale which will grow the agricultural produce which we now import from Denmark, such exemptions will be needed. There are times in the life of the farmer's wife when agricultural work is not good for her, and at that period of her life, if one or two of her children could stay at home and could get exemption from school in order to give her a hand, it might make all the difference to her future health and happiness. It may be said that it would not be good for the children. That is possibly true, but it would do far less harm for them to help to carry a pail of milk than for a pregnant woman to handle it.

Another reason why I strongly support the Amendment is that in circumstances such as those, it is necessary that help should be forthcoming for the household of a smallholding, which cannot afford to employ paid help, and the only help they can possibly get is the children. It may be said that that is cheap labour, and I am inclined to agree. It is cheap; and unless we are prepared to countenance cheap labour of that kind we may say good-bye once for all, to the dream of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs of a land of prosperous smallholdings and a populous countryside.

The hon. and gallant Member has been very candid with us in telling us that he got no benefit from education. If we follow out that argument to its logical conclusion there is no need for education for anybody. He says that he has got on very well without it.

No, I did not say that I had done very well. I said it had handicapped me.

Did not the President of the Board of Education himself say a short time ago that he was educated at Harrow School and that it had done him no good at all?

It is for the hon. Member to deal with the Minister of Education. I am dealing with the opponents of this Measure. I wish to point out that this is the first time I have heard a general condemnation of the Education Bill from the Conservative benches. In my view this Amendment is being put forward not for educational reasons but for economic reasons. The desire is to get cheap labour from children—[ Interruption. ] The hon. and gallant Member himself said that one form of work which children are called upon to do, that is, picking potatoes, would be very hard work for adults, and that most adults would fight shy of it. If it is hard work for adults, at least it must be admitted that it would be very hard work for children.

I ask the hon. Member to imagine some adults having to stoop down all day picking potatoes, and he must then realise that it would not be so difficult for a child, somewhere about half the size, to stoop down. It is almost impossible work for adults.

If the hon. Member is speaking of men between 50 and 60 years of age I should be able to agree with him, but nobody is going to tell me that a child can do that hard work equally well with a grown person of normal age. Hon. Members opposite are farmers but I have also seen farming life, and have looked into this question, and I say that picking potatoes is hard work. When I see children doing it I think it is very hard on them, especially in the conditions under which they have to work. It may be a sodden, wet day, and the child is sometimes ill-clad on account of the economic conditions of its parents, and badly fed. It is wet through as it goes plodding over the soil picking the potatoes. It may be hard work for adults, but it is better for adults to do it. I wish hon. Members opposite would get away from the economic factor and deal with this question from the educational point of view.

Surely the whole object of education is to fit a child for its future economic life, whatever that may be.

I agree, but there must be a point up to which the child shall get school learning. There will be plenty of time later on to do potato picking and all that kind of thing. Why spoil the early part of the child's life by work of that kind? If we admit that we must allow exemptions in agriculture, where are we to stop? How could we avoid granting the same facilities in other industries? Everybody would come forward making the same sort of case for his industry, saying that his particular industry required that the child must get into the industry and know what it is. For those reasons we must resist this Amendment. The child must have a chance of attending school up to the age of 15 instead of being driven into the fields because of the economic needs of the home. This Amendment applies to county areas, but in the industrial centre where I live children go into the fields at holiday times to seek for potato-picking work and the like, and if we accepted this Amendment these industrial centres would claim the same rights for their children to go into the fields. [ Interruption. ] It may be said that those children would not be allowed to do it, but they would have the same rights as any other children. Once we take this step there would be no stopping things, because everybody would claim exemptions. I hope that on this side, at least, we shall fight strenuously to resist all Amendments of this kind, and not allow the Bill to be impaired in this way.

I am afraid this Amendment has not received careful consideration by hon. Gentlemen opposite, who do not seem to have any idea at all of the agricultural side of education. They do not realise that in this country there are a very large number of very small villages, and on the outlying farms of those villages it is quite impossible to get additional labour at certain seasons of the year. This is not a question of cheap labour. Hon. Members opposite are entirely wrong in thinking that it is. In towns there is a mass of labour from which an employer can make a selection, and if he selects child labour he is definitely selecting cheap labour, but in these small villages, of which there are so many in my constituency, at haymaking time and at certain other times of the year it is not a question of getting cheap labour but a case of not being able to get any labour at all.

That is where we differ from hon. Gentlemen opposite, who do not even pretend—at least, I hope they do not pretend—to understand anything at all about the agricultural industry or those who work in it. Let them go to any child of 14 who lives in the country and ask him whether he would not rather help his father and mother at haymaking than go to school. They would very soon find out that any child, apart from any question of pay, would infinitely prefer to go haymaking than to stay in school. [HON. MEMBERS: "Of course he would."] This is a matter of pure common sense, and every hon. Member opposite who understands agriculture knows that what I am saying is true. When my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward) said that not very much was learned at school, I ventured to interject that even the Minister of Education himself had admitted that in spite of the fact that he had been to the best school in England—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] he learned nothing while he was there. Personally, I think it was not in the best of taste for the Minister of Education to run down the education which he had received at a school in this country; but however that may be, he certainly admitted that he himself had learned nothing during the time he was at school; and I gather from the way he is dealing with the Amendment that the statement he made as to what he learned at that time was true.

Referring to the powers of the local education authorities in this matter, the Minister said those bodies were chiefly composed of farmers and squires. I can inform him from my own knowledge that there are no better education authorities than those which are controlled by farmers and squires. In most cases they are by far the most progressive autho- rities. From the agricultural point of view, they understand conditions far better than any authorities dominated by members of his own party opposite. Speaking for my own county of Leicestershire, which is one of the most progressive in this matter, I can say that there we are making very great efforts to deal with the subject referred to in the second part of the Amendment. As a representative of that county I am anxious to see other parts of the country brought up to the standard which is being adopted in my own county. There are a large number of agricultural Members in the House, and we are entitled to a certain amount of reasoned consideration, and I say that neither in Committee nor on the Report stage now has any reasoned consideration been given to this very important and practical subject, and I very much hope that my hon. Friends who have brought the Amendment before the House will press it to a Division.

I wish to add a few words to the speeches which have been made already on behalf of this Amendment. I was surprised to hear the Minister of Education speaking of this as an industrial Amendment. If he will forgive me saying so, to use such a word is to create a mirage of misunderstanding, because there are very real differences between this agricultural work and industrial work. In the first place, this is open air work, and therefore it is healthy work. As giving an interlude of a few days in the child's life at school it would be valuable from the point of view of the child's health; and I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) that it is heavy work. One cannot say that of haymaking.

Does the Noble Lady say that I said that picking potatoes on a sodden wet day is not heavy work?

You cannot say that it is heavy physical work. It may be tiring to the back, particularly to a grown-up person, but I do not believe it is as tiring for a child as for an adult, because a child does not have to stoop so far. In reply to what the hon. Member said about the child possibly having to do this work on a wet day, I have had to take a hand in framing by-laws applying to children in rural areas, and we laid it down that if the child had not got a mackintosh when it was a wet day, the employer must provide it with one, and also see that the child's boots were good. It must be remembered, also, that country children are accustomed to be out a good deal in the wet, and if they are properly shod and properly clad I do not think they suffer.

It is healthy work; it is different from work in a factory. There is another point, which has been put by my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Everard); this is not a case of trying to obtain cheap labour when more expensive labour is available. The point is that very often there is no extra labour available at all. Hon. Members who live in towns, and we queues of unemployed outside the Employment Exchanges, do not realise that. Farmers very often find that unemployed men in neighbouring towns will not come to work on the farms. Perhaps they may engage a man, and then he will not turn up; or they will go to the Employment Exchange and find that no one will take on the work. It is a common thing to find that there is a difficulty in getting labour for seasonal occupations, in spite of unemployment in a neighbouring town. I do not say that is so everywhere, but I say that position of affairs does exist. The crop is there, and has to be garnered when the favourable opportunity occurs, or it may be lost, and if it be lost a great part of the wealth of the district is lost.

This question of seasonal occupations stands in an entirely different category from industrial work such as the Minister referred to, and that is why, if the Minister were ready to listen to this question at all, he would realise that to accept this Amendment would not mean opening the floodgates to let the waters rush in. Ever since we have had a national system of education provision has been made by Statute for exemptions for seasonal occupations. In Scotland a Clause in an Act of Parliament specially allows the exemption of children for operations connected with husbandry; and in the United States and Canada, where the school age has been raised, there are express regulations governing exemption for the necessary purposes of husbandry and for household duties. Denmark has been built up on family labour. The hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), I think, rather overlooked that fact. It is a fact that Denmark, which is our great agricultural competitor, is a nation of smallholders, and of smallholders who have insisted, ever since the foundation of their educational system, that their children from 10 years of age upwards must be exempted on so many days in the year in order to help them in the operation of their holdings.

I say to the right hon. Gentleman, as I have said before, that it is an absolute mockery for the Government to talk about putting smallholders in large numbers on the land and spending a great deal of money in setting them up, If they are not to be allowed to use their children for these operations on a few days only in the year below the age of 15. It is an absolute mockery to ask these men to make their holdings pay, under the great difficulties which smallholders anyhow have to face, if they are to be deprived of the labour of their children. I do not think that the rural areas of this country have realised what it is that the Minister is proposing to do. He is proposing to do away with the existing powers of exemption for these purposes, and I venture to say that, when the people in the rural areas of this country do realise it, the Minister will be very much astonished at the outcry that will be raised. I do not think that his Bill is at all popular, anyhow, in the rural areas, but, when they realise what it means, I think he will be very much surprised at the amount of feeling that will be displayed. Therefore, we propose to divide the House on this Amendment.

This debate has brought about an astonishing exhibition. Almost from the beginning it has ranged round the question of the occupation of children in the agricultural areas, and we have witnessed from the other side of the House the most strenuous attempts that it has been possible to make to obtain the labour of children for agricultural work. At one point and another during the proceedings on this Bill there have been continual attempts to compel the labour of children for agricultural purposes.

It is very interesting to have heard from the Noble Lady who has just addressed the House that farmers find it impossible to persuade men from the Employment Exchanges to take on these jobs. The men will not have it. The Noble Lady says the work is too hard—

I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I said nothing of the kind. The men may consider it too hard.

I did not mean to pay that the Noble Lady said it was too hard; that was my own comment on the Noble Lady's statement—that the labour is evidently too hard. The Noble Lady admits that the men think it is too hard, and so she pleads for the employment of boys—and girls, I suppose. It is a very interesting exhibition. I could tell the Noble Lady and hon. Gentlemen opposite pf plenty of schools in agricultural areas where there are children who are rather over 14 years of age, and who, if there is a shortage of labour on the land, might easily be impressed into the service. For instance, I could suggest that the boys of Repton School might help the Derbyshire farmers, and that school is on the edge of Leicestershire as well. They are good, hefty lads; they are good for a hundred runs at cricket. Why not bring them into the agricultural areas to help the farmers, and see whether they would take kindly to this agricultural labour? After all, it is only for 21 days. Surely, that would not be a loss to them, because these are schools where, as was said by an hon. Member opposite, they get very little real value for the time that they spend there, and, if that is the case, they would be far better in the fields assisting in this marvellous economic work of helping this country to keep its agricultural head above water.

I quite agree with the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Everard) that Members on this side do not understand the point of view of those on the other side of the House. I do not think that either side understands the other thoroughly on this matter. I have gathered, of course, that hon. Members on the other side of the House are very largely concerned with the acquisition at an early age of the expert knowledge required in agricultural pursuits. They believe that children at an early age should study and learn the expert method of topping turnips. You must learn at an early age how to grapple with the festive Brussels sprout, with 14 degrees of frost upon his head. It is an entertaining study. You must begin early to understand the intricacies, of grasping the Brussels sprout in the proper way; if you do not treat him properly, he will object. You will not get the proper result from the Brussels sprout if you do not begin at an early age to learn how to deal with him in a proper manner. [ Interruption. ] The whole thing needs doing scientifically. An hon. Gentleman opposite has said that he learned more after he left school than while he was there. If that is the case with these working-class children, there is plenty of time for them to acquire the essential delicate touch that the topping of the turnip requires of the cutting of spring cabbage or autumn greens. It really does require some degree of training, and I agree with those hon. Gentlemen who seem to think it is absolutely essential that, if this agricultural system of ours is to be saved, it must be saved by the children of 14 to 15.

I have no delusions about smallholding—none whatever. I should imagine, from what I have seen of smallholdings in agricultural work, that the life is a dog's life. It means work morning, noon and night, from sunrise to sunset. We have heard a great deal about the French peasant. There was once a great man who sprang from the French peasant life. He was an artist; his name was Jean François Millet. He painted some pictures—French pictures. One of them is, perhaps, the most reproduced picture in the world—"The Angelus." In this painting he pictures the class to which he belonged himself. He painted his French peasants at the hour of the Angelus. It is night, and they are still at work—

—and they began there is the morning. The sun is further down than six o'clock in that picture. There is another picture that he painted—the picture called "The Gleaners." It represents a type of life dating from the time of Boaz and Ruth. It is a picture of prematurely bent women, with gnarled fingers and bent backs, who had spent their lives in French peasant farming. Millet also painted another picture, which portrays perhaps the most terrible condemnation of any system that has ever been portrayed in the realm of art. I refer to "The Man with the Hoe." That was the result of peasant proprietorship and smallholdings. I am under no delusions about it.

We are told that we should release our children for this work. If we can only get our potatoes at the price that has to be paid in the pain and suffering of the agricultural labourer—[ Interruption. ] Yes; there is as much consumption in agricultural villages as there is in Glasgow; there is as much illness there as there is in Glasgow; there is as much mental deficiency there as there is in Glasgow or Manchester. It is no use telling me, with these figures before us, that this life is a blessed thing to which we might turn for relief from an otherwise drab and tired world. I hope that the President of the Board of Education will stick to his guns, and will not give way one iota on this matter. I hope sincerely that this Amendment will not be accepted, and that, so far as this party, at least, is concerned, we shall have nothing to do with a scheme which forces children on to the land at an earlier age than that at which we have been accustomed to see them there.

I should not have attempted to take part in this debate but for the very interesting speech to which we have just listened. Perhaps the first remark that I address to the House might be to ask the hon. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker, whether he proposes to support the further stages of the Bill which his Government is presenting with the object of extending the smallholdings movement in this country? We have probably heard this evening the greatest condemnation that could be passed on that Bill, from a Member of the party which has brought it in. I am extremely interested to notice also that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has come into the House, because I know the interest he has in family farms, an interest which has been translated into action by the effect that he has had upon the Government in the Measure that they are introducing. When we hear such a condemnation of the smallholdings movement as we have heard this evening, we on this side of the House desire to make it clear that we do not regard this Amendment as being bound up with the condemnation which has been passed by the hon. Member himself. The point that I wish to make in relation to his remarks is that the hon. Member—

I should like to point out that the Bill to which the hon. Member is referring, namely the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill, is only one of a series dealing with the whole agricultural problem.

Might I be permitted to point out that the kernel of that Bill, or, if I may use the hon. Member's own phraseology, the heart of the Brussels sprout, is the principle of the family farm, and the whole principle of the family farm is that the family should be allowed to farm. The hon. Member has attacked the very principle of the Bill which his own party is introducing, and I noticed that he was supported by applause from Members of his own party. If that be the first principle of the first of their agricultural Bills, we can only look forward to a complete deadlock in their agricultural programme if it is going to receive that sort of support from their own Members. I am tempted to believe that it is because hon. Members think so very little of the actual realities of the agricultural problem that they talk as they do about agriculture.

One thing that struck me particularly in the speech of the hon. Member was his ridicule of the science of the agricultural worker's work. We on this side of the House have always maintained that the work of the agricultural worker is the most skilled in the country, although it is the least well rewarded. The hon. Member, in glib phrases, has derided, not only the science of the agricultural worker, but the dignity of the Brussels sprout. There is absolutely no doubt that these matters, which may seem ludicrous to us this evening in this House of Commons when we are discussing details of husbandry, are, in fact, the very details which the great painter of whom the hon. Member was speaking mastered in his infancy. These are the details and technique of his craft, and we are asking that the agricultural worker should have the opportunity in his youth of understanding the technique of his work, so that he may, perhaps, be able to interpret his own work in exactly the same way as the great painter to whom the hon. Member himself referred.

There are other parts of agricultual husbandry, and other parts of the realm of farming, to which the hon. Member did not refer. For instance, there is the care of animals, which I should have thought was a thing to which children should become accustomed from their earliest days. Can the hon. Member say that there is anything derogatory in beginning to understand, say, the care of horses at an early age? Perhaps he would like to rise in his place and make another observation about the derogatoriness of relationship of any sort with agriculture, with farming or with animals, in the early days of a child. I will willingly give way to the hon. Member if he wishes to rise to develop his theme on that point. We maintain, with regard to that point, that the earlier children understand the details of their future life the better.

I do not propose to spend much time in discussing the economic aspect, because I wish to draw the attention of the House to the second part of this Amendment. But before I go on to that, I want to refer to the question why the unemployed in the towns do not go into the country to take the work that is there. It is not necessarily for the reasons given, but because, unfortunately, at present industrial labour regards the fact of going on to the land as something derogatory, and that is something that we have to quell if we are going to cure unemployment. There is no doubt, whether it is because the social services in the countryside are not as developed as they are in the towns or whether for other reasons, such as that there is not Unemployment Insurance, the workers in

the towns do not care to go to work in the fields. I think that accounts for the shortage of labour on the farms at certain times of the year which has been referred to.

It is on the second part of the Amendment that our case has still to be developed, and that is the opportunity for the parent to demand specialised training for his child in handicrafts or in rural economy. The reproach that I have heard levelled at agriculturists of all parties by workers and farmers in the present depression is not an economic one. They say, "Our education in the political economy of our craft is not what it should be." I have had that said to me by many a farmer. They say, "We cannot understand the reasons of the depression, because you did not give us a chance in the past to have proper technical education, or proper education in agricultural economy to understand our present difficulties. If you had, we could weather it." They are looking forward to the time when the children of the agricultural workers will not only have the education that they get at present but will have other chances for these vocational classes which the second part of the Amendment recommends. That is an ideal which combines the wisdom of the education of the world with the wisdom of the education of books, and the right hon. Gentleman has completely left out that ideal in this Bill. It is from this side that you can expect constructive proposals for the future of agricultural education, whereas all the obstruction to agricultural education is coming from the benches opposite. Our ideal is a much finer one, to combine the practical education of the world with the education that you can get from books. When the right hon. Baronet thinks over the subject, he will regret that there is so great a lacuna in the Bill.

Question put, "That these words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 151; Noes, 262.

Division No. 85.]

AYES.

[6.49 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)

Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

Boothby, R. J. G.

Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover)

Balniel, Lord

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.

Atholl, Duchess of

Beaumont, M. W.

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Atkinson, C.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

Boyce, Leslie

Bracken, B.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Ramsbotham, H.

Briscoe, Richard George

Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

Rathbone, Eleanor

Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Remer, John R.

Buckingham, Sir H.

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)

Butler, R. A.

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

Butt, Sir Alfred

Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

Campbell, E. T.

Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

Salmon, Major I.

Carver, Major W. H.

Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Heneage, Lieut.-Col Arthur P.

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)

Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Skelton, A. N.

Chamberlain Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Chapman, Sir S.

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

Christie, J. A.

Hurd, Percy A.

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Clydesdale, Marquess of

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Smithers, Waldron

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

Kindersley, Major G. M.

Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

Colman, N. C. D.

Knox, Sir Alfred

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Colville, Major D. J.

Lamb, Sir J. O.

Spender-Clay, Colonel H

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Sueter Rear-Admiral M. F.

Cranborne, Viscount

Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey. Gainsbro)

Little, Dr. E. Graham

Thomson, Sir F.

Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Llewellin, Major J. J.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

Lockwood, Captain J. H.

Train, J.

Dawson, Sir Philip

Lymington, Viscount

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Duckworth, G. A. V.

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Turton, Robert Hugh

Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

Marjoribanks, Edward

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Eden, Captain Anthony

Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)

Muirhead, A. J.

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Everard, W. Lindsay

Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

Wayland, Sir William A.

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Wells, Sydney R.

Fielden, E. B.

Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Womersley, W. J.

Galbraith, J. F. W.

O'Connor, T. J.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Ganzoni, Sir John

O'Neill, Sir H.

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Penny, Sir George

TELLERS FOR THE AYES. ——

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Captain Margesson and Sir Victor Warrender.

Gower, Sir Robert

Peters, Dr. Sidney John

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Power, Sir John Cecil

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Caine, Derwent Hall-

Gill, T. H.

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Cameron, A. G.

Glassey, A. E.

Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

Cape, Thomas

Gossling, A. G.

Alpass, J. H.

Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

Gould, F.

Ammon, Charles George

Charleton, H. C.

Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

Angell, Norman

Chater, Daniel

Gray, Milner

Arnott, John

Church, Major A. G.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

Aske, Sir Robert

Cluse, W. S.

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Attlee, Clement Richard

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

Ayles, Walter

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Compton, Joseph

Groves, Thomas E.

Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

Cove, William G.

Grundy, Thomas W.

Barnes, Alfred John

Cowan, D. M.

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Barr, James

Daggar, George

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Batey, Joseph

Dallas, George

Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)

Bellamy, Albert

Dalton, Hugh

Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

Hardie, George D.

Benson, G.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Harris, Percy A.

Bentham, Dr. Ethel

Day, Harry

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Birkett, W. Norman

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Haycock, A. W.

Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

Dudgeon, Major C. R.

Hayday, Arthur

Bowen, J. W.

Dukes, C.

Hayes, John Henry

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Ede, James Chuter

Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

Broad, Francis Alfred

Edmunds, J. E.

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

Bromfield, William

Egan, W. H.

Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

Bromley, J.

Elmley, Viscount

Herriotts, J.

Brooke, W.

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer)

Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

Brothers, M.

Forgan, Dr. Robert

Hoffman, P. C.

Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

Freeman, Peter

Hopkin, Daniel

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Gardner, B. W. (West Ham. Upton)

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

Horrabin, J. F.

Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Buchanan, G.

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

Johnston, Thomas

Burgess, F. G.

Gibbins, Joseph

Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)

Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

Morris, Rhys Hopkins

Sitch, Charles H.

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Morrison Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Mort, D. L.

Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Moses, J. J. H.

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Kelly, W. T.

Muggeridge, H. T.

Snell, Harry

Kennedy, Thomas

Nathan, Major H. L.

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

Naylor, T. E.

Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

Kirkwood, D.

Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

Sorensen, R.

Knight, Holford

Noel Baker, P. J.

Stamford, Thomas W.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Oldfield, J. R.

Strauss, G. R.

Law, A. (Rossendale)

Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

Sullivan, J.

Lawrence, Susan

Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

Paling, Wilfrid

Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Palmer, E. T.

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Leach, W.

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Tillett, Ben

Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

Perry, S. F.

Tinker, John Joseph

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Tout, W. J.

Lees, J.

Phillips, Dr. Marion

Townend, A. E.

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Picton-Turbervill, Edith

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lloyd, C. Ellis

Pole, Major D. G.

Vaughan, D. J.

Logan, David Gilbert

Potts, John S.

Viant, S. P.

Longbottom, A. W.

Price, M. P.

Walkden, A. G.

Longden, F.

Quibell, D. J. K.

Walker, J.

Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

Raynes, W. R.

Wallace, H. W.

Lowth, Thomas

Richards, R.

Wallhead, Richard C.

Lunn, William

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Watkins, F. C.

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Wellock, Wilfred

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Ritson, J.

welsh, James (Paisley)

McElwee, A.

Romeril, H. G.

West, F. R.

McEntee, V. L.

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Westwood, Joseph

McKinlay, A.

Rowson, Guy

White, H. G.

MacLaren, Andrew

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Sanders, W. S.

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

Sandham, E.

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Mansfield, W.

Sawyer, G. F.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Marcus, M.

Scurr, John

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Markham, S. F.

Sexton, James

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Marley, J.

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Marshall, Fred

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Mathers, George

Sherwood, G. H.

Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)

Maxton, James

Shield, George William

Wise, E. F.

Messer, Fred

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

Middleton, G.

Shillaker, J. F.

Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

Mills, J. E.

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Milner, Major J.

Simmons, C. J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES. ——

Montague, Frederick

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Thurtle.

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

Morley, Ralph

Sinkinson, George

I beg to move, in page 1, line 20, at the end, to insert the words:

As far as I can see, there is no power in the Bill of exemption of even an individual child, who is not actually ill, deaf, blind, epileptic or defective. This Amendment is put forward with the view of giving power to the local education authority to consider, not classes of children, but individual cases, where it is not in the interest of the child that education should go forward on ordinary lines. My suggestion is that there is a considerable number of abnormal, neurotic and temperamental children who are better not put through the ordinary mill of education after the age of 14, and that it should be open to the education authority to investigate such cases, and, if they feel that the case is proved, exempt the child from further attendance on such lines as they think right. It seems to me an extraordinary idea that 5,000,000 children must all necessarily, without any exception, be suitable for another year's training. The present state of the law gives that authority power to exempt, but that is now done away with.

I have been waiting carefully to see what sort of ground was put forward during the Committee stage for doing this and, as far as I could see, the ground put forward was this. The children of the wealthier classes are educated up to the age of 15 and over and, therefore, it is necessary that every child should be subjected to the same process. That seems to me similar to this argument: The children of the wealthier classes have an egg for tea. It is no doubt a good thing for children to have eggs for their tea, and, therefore, every child must have an egg for its tea. It may well be that a doctor would say that certain children would be better off if they did not have an egg every day. Although it might be better for most children, yet for 1 per cent. of children it might not be good to have eggs every day for their tea. That is a most unscientific sort of argument. There ought to be some power for the local authority in proper cases. I do not put forward the idea of exemption for work, I have for always been opposed to it and have not voted for it, but, where cases of character, health or temperament come into play, there ought to be some such power. If the Minister does not like this particular Amendment, he might safeguard the position by saying that it shall be done with the leave of the Minister. There ought to be some way out, and, for that reason, I am moving this Amendment.

I beg to second the Amendment.

It is a strange state of affairs to have an Education Bill, which makes no provision for exemptions. We have had in this House up to now very little justification by the Ministers upon the Bench opposite for their attitude towards exemption. The system of exemption has been carried out in all those countries where the system of education is parallel to our own and to that which we are about to have. There is a system of exemption in Canada and in the United States which works well and is not taken undue advantage of. It is only when you get to an educationally backward country like Norway, where there are very few school hours in the week, that you find the educational authorities have agreed with the Parliamentary Secretary for the Board of Education. Here in England the point of view is stronger. We have at present some five local authorities with by-laws making it compulsory to attend school up to the age of 15. Now all those five local authorities have included a system of exemptions in their provisions for raising the school age.

I see the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) in his seat, and I am reminded that the local education authorities in his area have a system of exemption and that last year 469 children were exempted out of the total of 800 of that age. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to suggest that, when this system of education has worked so efficiently in Carnarvon Boroughs, it should be done away with for the rest of England? In other areas, such as Cornwall, there have not been so many exemptions. I hope that, when the Parliamentary Secretary makes his speech on this Amendment, he will give us, in greater detail than we have had before, the history of the system of exemption in those local areas where it is at present in force and tell us why he is going against a recognised and successful practice. He must not lose sight of the question of the rural areas. The President of the Board of Education admitted that in the rural areas he has not yet sufficient schemes for reorganisation to ensure that the children between 14 and 15 will receive adequate instruction when the Act comes into force in September, 1932. It will be most advisable that, in such cases, children, who do not receive adequate instruction in the school, should for good reasons be allowed exemption at the discretion of the local authority. The great advantage of this Amendment is that it is purely discretionary on the local authority, and they will be able to use their judgment in the light of circumstances, which many Members will not have at their disposal.

The hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment bemoaned the fact that there is not going to be in this new Bill, when it becomes an Act of Parliament, any substantial power to grant exemptions, and he is very anxious that a power of exemption should be provided. I need not argue the general question why we object to exemptions in regard to children who are entering employment, but he did raise another class concerning whom he is very much preoccupied, namely, the delicate child, the child who is neurotic or who has some physical ailment. I am advised that, in regard to children of this sort, it is obvious that they could submit their disability as a reasonable excuse and that excuse would naturally be fortified by the possession of a medical certificate. Moreover, if a child were in possession of such a certificate, it stands to reason that in that case an authority would hesitate a good deal in regard to prosecution. He will agree with me that that is a very sound proposition. If I leave outside those who are entering industry and say, in regard to the new class of whom he has spoken, that they are covered in this way, then I have covered the whole field of exemptions.

I turn for a moment to look at the implications of the Amendment before us. My first objection to it is that it is drafted very loosely and vaguely indeed. I know there are local authorities who doubtless would be very careful and circumspect in the way they granted exemptions, but, as the Amendment is drafted here, it is so vague that a local authority, who cared to take the point of view of those most opposed to the principle of this Bill, could quite easily within its terms grant wholesale exemptions. Let us look at its terms. They are to be granted "for such time," which is very vague, "and upon such conditions," which is equally vague, and "after adequate inquiry," which may be anything or nothing and not necessarily a formal inquiry. Lastly, the exemption can be granted so long as, in the opinion of the local education authority, it is in the interests of the child.

Look at those four very vague conditions. It will be clear that an authority, which takes a very hostile view concerning the school or, to put it more charitably, takes the view that the interests of agriculture would be better served by granting exemptions on a fairly widespread scale, could easily do it under this Amendment without violating the Act in the slightest degree. Let us look at another implication of it. Assuming that a local authority grants exemptions to a few children or a number of children, there is nothing to prevent them giving exemptions for a period and then the child having to come back to school and later get another exemption and subsequently a further one. Is that educationally desirable? Speaking as an old teacher, I confess that a situation such as that pervading schools on any substantial scale would terrify me. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is bound to ruin the moral of any class in the charge of any teacher.

May I answer that? Of course, my idea is that the numbers of these exemptions would be very small. Would it not be possible to put in a safeguard that it shall be subject to the leave of the Minister?

If I were quite sure that all the members of the local education authorities were as broad-minded as the hon. Member, I might be prepared to leave it to them, but that is not the case. With regard to the in-and-out provision, it is important that we should know what is in the minds of hon. Members who are supporting it. I notice the Noble Lord said the other night:

"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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1930; col. 622, Vol. 246.]

The point is that exemption may be given to the child for such time and under such conditions by a local authority as may be justified in their view. The child goes in for some form of employment and at the expiration of that time returns to school. Is that the view of the hon. Gentleman? I have argued against it on educational grounds, I hope completely. It is not the view of the Noble Lord, because he contemplates that, once an exemption is given, it shall be final. Really, therefore, I submit that the terminology of this Amendment is far too vague, and that educationally it is unjustifiable. Lastly, there is this point, which is perhaps the same point I put before, but put in another way. I really should feel a little apprehensive lest the reasonable idea which the hon. Gentleman has in his mind might not be realised in practice and that local education authorities, who are—I do not want to use unkind terms—from my point of view somewhat reactionary in their outlook, might use it on a wholesale scale and destroy the efficacy of this Bill from our point of view. For these reasons, I must oppose it.

I regard the refusal of the Parliamentary Secretary to consider this Amendment with less regret than I regard the way in which it was done, because he has tried to have it both ways with reference to the local education authorities. We say that the Bill is a bad Bill because local education authorities will use the expenditure under the Bill to cramp re-organisation. "Nonsense" said the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary, "you must trust your local education authority to carry out educational development." Now, when we ask for power of exemption, they say that you cannot trust the local education authorities with anything so broad as that. You cannot have it both ways. Either local education authorities are bodies who are, in the main, in favour of education, desiring to do their best to carry out the provisions which Parliament lay down, and to give the children the best education possible, or they are not. If they are not, then our submission that this Bill is wrong and out of place is a sound one. If they are, surely this provision which we wish to insert is not too big a thing to concede.

The Parliamentary Secretary, who has been throughout very fair and very broad-minded in dealing with our Amendments, has asked us what we mean by this Amendments? This is our answer. We do not believe that it is right or that it can be right for every single child of a certain class in this country to get into a groove and have exactly the same sort of education in exactly the same sort of school with exactly the same age of entry. We believe that there are certain exceptions, and that those exceptions will be injured if they are forced into a groove. This Amendment is to provide a way out for those exceptions. There is no way out under the Bill. We have tried several ways and they have all proved unacceptable to the Government. They will not have the parents' judgment, or the magistrates' judgment, or the Board of Education judgment, and now the last thing we wish to do is to give power to the local education authorities to act in the interests of the children. I cannot speak for my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers), but I am prepared to vary this Amendment in any way the Government desire if we can only get some power to deal with the exceptions to the golden rule, if we can get an admission from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that they are not always absolutely rigidly right, that the children of this country are not to be placed in a definite groove in regard to which there can be no alteration, and something in order to make provision for the various cases which we say cannot be justified by this Bill.

Hon. Members opposite have, at various times, said that this Bill is the charter of the normal child. Let us then, when giving the charter to the normal child—I do not believe that it is—at least make provision for the abnormal child and for the exceptional case. If the hon. Member does not like this Amendment—he says that it is too broad—let him tell us what he will accept in order to make provision for the child who differs from the rule that he has laid down. No hon. Members opposite, even under a most hide-bound system of education, can say that every child should be educated in exactly the same way. In fact I have heard hon. Members opposite plead, in language which I cannot hope to rival, for fluidity in education and for an absence of rigidity. If they cannot support us on this Amendment let them show us how to get what we desire. While doing our best for the average child, let us have a chance of getting away from the groove which the hon. Member has created and from the rigid and immovable line so as to make provision in the interests of the abnormal child.

I can appreciate the difficulties and dangers which were outlined by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, if certain local authorities interpret the Amendment which is under discussion in the manner that he suggested. We have made it clear, in introducing this Amendment that we do not wish to give them a loophole for the reasons which were suggested by the Parliamentary Secretary. He did not tell us in any part of his speech how he intended to deal with the exceptional cases which require special treatment. For instance he did not mention the case which has often probably been brought to his notice, namely, the child with sick parents. It is obvious that in a family where a child is perhaps an only child there must be occasions when the mother is incapacitated and the child has to remain at home. It may be for a short period or for a long period. I do not know whether that case is met under existing regulations by the words "any favourable excuse" or "some reasonable excuse." If it is not, this Amendment would meet it.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Beaumont) spoke about a charter for the abnormal child. The abnormal child, as well as the normal child, already has a charter under existing Acts of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman has, like myself, no doubt served on an education committee, but I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) has not served on an education committee or else he would know that members of education committees have constantly been asked to give exemptions. We give exemptions in every case when reasonable cause can be shown. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chippenham mentioned the case of the mother who is sick. In such cases the education committee is ready, and, in fact, sometimes too ready, to give exemption to the child. In my constituency the other day the education committee gave exemption to a child of 11 years of age, in order that the child could look after the entire family whilst the mother was lying on a bed of sickness upstairs. An enlightened education committee endeavours to meet this point by providing nursing mothers to go and help in such cases.

I will not pursue this matter, because I know I should be out of order. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers) has put the case in a nutshell in condemning his own Amendment. When a child is ill it is given exemption, and no decent education authority would ever think of overriding a doctor's certificate. If a child wants a hard boiled egg or a soft boiled egg, as the hon. Member described it, the child can have it in any way in which the doctor prescribes. The existing Acts of Parliament enable us to do this sort of thing, and we have been doing it for years.

I will now take the abnormal child. If the hon. Member for Aylesbury has served on an education committee and there was a progressive spirit in that education committee, he must know that we have been providing for the abnormal child for years. In the authority with which I am familiar, the danger has been that they have been catering for the abnormal child and the too clever child to such an extent that they have been forgetting the 80 per cent. of normal children, and this Bill, which is going to become an Act of Parliament, will remedy that state of things. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) was good enough to try and rope in the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, and he gave away his case by stating that the Carnarvon education committee had given 55 per cent. of exemptions. That is the sort of thing we want to try and prevent, for it is that, as was so ably stated by the Parliamentary Secretary, which tends to destroy the whole moral, not simply of a class but of a school. We want to take away the power of a reactionary authority like Carnarvon which gives 55 per cent. of exemptions. We want to give reasonable exemptions. The hon. Member for Cambridge University dwells in the Olympian heights of an unenlightened constituency and cannot be expected to know the position, and therefore he should allow somebody who does know to tell him what is the position.

As my ignorance and inexperience has been attacked in this matter, I should like to state that I have made careful inquiries into the position. I understand that in the Schedule, Sub-section (3) of Section 46 of the Act giving the exemption to which the hon. Member refers, is repealed, and therefore the whole point of this case against us falls to the ground.

Exemptions are given in sufficiently reasonable quantities under the present Act.

I venture to suggest that we shall operate this Measure when it becomes an Act in a spirit of commonsense and that reasonable exemptions will be given, but the unreasonable demand of reactionary education authorities who want to create cheap docile labour will be refused. For this reason I hope that the House will reject the Amendment.

I think that a good many hon. Members not only on these benches but in other parts of the House must have listened with amazement to the hon. Member who has just spoken. We have had several days in Committee on the Bill, we had the Second Reading debate and we have had weeks in which to study the Bill, and yet an hon. Member on the Government side, who tells us that he is a member of an educational authority, has not realised that this Bill takes away from the local education authorities the entire power of exemption for any reason.

It is no good the hon. Member shaking his head. It does. He may talk about the local education authorities administering the power with common sense, but the fact is that they will have to administer in accordance with the terms of the Act. I derive a certain measure of comfort from the speech of the hon. Member because it is perfectly clear that he desires the power of exemption to be retained to a moderate degree. We have never asked that the power of exemption should be given as it has been exercised in certain parts of the country, but we have asked for something much more modest. We are simply saying that where the local education authorities feel that it is in the interests of a child, after due inquiry, that the exemption shall be granted. I only hope that the hon. Member will be good enough to make his views clear to the Minister. Possibly he may discover others of his colleagues who believe that the Bill still retains to the local authorities some power of exemption. If so, and if they, along with the hon. Gentleman, would make representations to the Minister it is possible that some shred of power of exemption, to which the local education authorities attach great importance, may be left.

Passing to the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, I am relieved to know that he and the President of the Board of Education recognise that it will be to the interests of the defective or delicate child not to have to remain in school for the additional year where no special provision is made for them. Hon. Members know what a very great problem confronts us in the case of the mentally defective child, particularly in rural areas where there are many of these children. We have been told in a most valuable report that more than half of the educatable mentally defective children are in the elementary schools, and the Committee believe that many other mentally defective children are there who have not yet been ascertained. Therefore, we are glad to know that it will be possible for them to be relieved from school attendance on a doctor's certificate. Anyone who has ever seen a mentally defective senior child sitting in an infant class in an elementary school, where it has not been possible to make special provision for that child, must feel that it is both demoralising and disheartening to the child and not good for the other children, who are apt to misunderstand the position. We are glad that on a medical certificate the mentally defective child may be exempted.

But in rural areas where children live some distance from a doctor and the parents do not care or cannot afford to incur the expense of a medical certificate, it may well be that a particular child may be detained in school longer than is advisable for its own interests. It would be a much simpler procedure and more acceptable to the parents if it were possible to give the power of exemption for a reason of that kind.

If that could be done, that would relieve the parents of the expense. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary had that in mind, although he did not mention it. He did mention the doctor's certificate. Sometimes there are delays in getting certificates of that kind when parents live far away from a doctor. That is one type of child we had in mind when we put forward our Amendment, and I am glad to know that the Minister has that case in mind. There is another type of child, the girl of 14 whose mother is ill and who cannot get up to attend to the young children. In a previous debate I tried to put the case for such a child staying at home. In a later Amendment I think I detect an indication that my words were not altogether without effect. I should be glad if the President of the Board of Education would tell me if I am right in believing that his Amendment in the middle of page 385:

These cases do not bring us to the end of the cases in which we find that exemption might well be desirable in the interests of the child. Take the case of the boy of 14 of the restless, vigorous, practical type. He is not good at his books, he is being taught in a small rural school by a young woman teacher or by a woman who, whether young or old, may well find him a handful; a school in which there is no practical instruction, where there are perhaps no other boys of his own age with whom he can consort, and where there is very little opportunity for games or anything that will develop or give scope to the growing energies of a boy of that kind. Let us assume, as will probably be the case, that he is the son of poor parents and that he has been offered a good job, something that means a start in life, not a blind alley occupation, but something that will give him a chance of getting on. The majority of the members of education committees would feel that in the interests of that child it was best to let him go. It would probably give him a new interest in life and would make him feel that he was doing something, that he was no longer sitting still, kicking his heels or feeling that he was getting too big for the children about him. He wants to be a man; he feels that he wants to do something, and all the more credit to him. I cannot say how much I admire the desire that exists in the mind of many boys about that age to be doing something to help. It is a fine spirit and one that we ought to encourage, not with a desire to exploit the child, but to let him feel that it is a fine thing to make his way in the world. To let a boy of that type go would be a very good thing for him. It would always be open to the local education authority to make it a condition of exemption that that child should attend part-time classes. We feel strongly that there is that type of boy up and down the country, especially in rural areas, whose all-round necessity would best be served by letting him go, but unless the Minister accepts the amendment or something in the same terms it is absolutely impossible for that boy to be exempted in the future.

The Parliamentary Secretary criticised the wording of the Clause. I was rather surprised to hear his criticism, because he must remember that except in the last words of the Clause it tallies with the wording of the present Act. It only differs from the wording of the Clause which gives power to exemption to local authorities, in two respects. The first respect is this, that at the present time the local education authorities may not only exempt individual children for such reasons as they think fit, after due inquiry, but they may also exempt children employed in any specific occupation, which may cover a group of children engaged in one occupation. The wording of the Amendment is on all fours with the wording of the Act, except that it applies to individual children only, not to groups of children in occupations. The second way in which we depart from the wording of the existing Act is at the end. The wording of the Act is:

If the objects of the Amendment were those upon which the Noble Lady founded herself in her concluding remarks I should feel quite unable to support it. Those arguments seemed to me, with all respect, to be ill-founded. The hon. Member for East Hull (Mr. Muff) made what was in fact the speech in favour of the Amendment. The hon. Member apparently has not recognised the fact that in the Bill now under consideration, as it would stand if this Amendment were not passed, the limiting factors upon the exercise of the local education authority's discretion would be sickness or any other unavoidable cause. There is no discretion there, no opportunity for the exercise of good sense or bad sense, sympathy or ill-will, but merely judgment as to the position on the facts. Is the child sick? Is the cause unavoidable? If the answer be "no," there is no discretion with the education authority.

During the course of these debates, when listening to those who are supporting this Bill, my natural and keen sympathy for this reform has been somewhat antagonised; and for this reason. Some educationists are very like a Harley Street specialist. If you go to a specialist in Harley Street and say that you have a pain in your heart, and ask him to examine you and tell you what is the matter, he will spend probably half-an-hour in sounding your heart, giving you his opinion about it and prescribing a remedy, but he is apt to forget all the rest of your body and may in that case be overlooking the real weak spot and the cause of all the trouble. That seems to me to be the case of some educationists. They are apt to look at this reform from the point of view of the schoolmaster and the disorganisation of classes and forget all about the child, the human being, with whom we are dealing and for whose benefit this Bill is brought forward. If the argument of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) were adopted it would follow that an education authority would have the right to grant wholesale exemptions. That would not be a legitimate power to put into the hands of education authorities because there are some backward local authorities—

I thought I made it quite clear that exemptions are only to be given in the interests of the child, and we are quite prepared to accept words from the President of the Board of Education which will meet our views.

I am sorry if on one of the few occasions when the Noble Lady and I find ourselves in the same Lobby we should disagree on any point which brought us into the same Lobby. In regard to her remarks about a restless boy, may I say that I regard restless boys not as individuals but as a class. There are very few boys who are not restless.

I must point out that I spoke of a restless boy who was being taught by a woman teacher, perhaps in a rural school.

I do not want to make any point except to say this, that if it is a matter of wholesale exemptions I should find it impossible to support the Amendment. But the wording of the Amendment seems to me appropriate for its purpose. It refers to individual children, to an inquiry into the position of the individual child, and leaves it to the local authority to prescribe, having regard to the situation of that individual child, the time and conditions of exemption. I am really moved to support the Amendment by representations which have been made by considerable numbers of working class women in my own constituency which is completely working class, and because of my own experience of boys about to leave school or having just left school. It is difficult to find decent jobs for boys which are not blind alley occupations. I have had a number of cases of first class jobs being offered, either because the father of the boy has been keen enough to look for the job or just by chance a job turns up which every hon. Member of this House, including the President of the Board and the Parliamentary Secretary, would agree were just the kind of jobs for which these boys were well qualified. I have not been able to get them into these jobs because the local authority has been unable to grant the necessary exemption for three months, or two months, or one month, or a week before the day when the boy was due to leave school. That is harmful to the individual and also to the whole spirit underlying educational administration, which depends upon the general good will and sympathy of the population as a whole.

It is amazing how much good will there is on the part of the population of this country towards the educational system. We want to encourage that good will, not diminish it. It is for this class of case that the Amendment will legislate and I shall support it with that limited objective in view. But if the President of the Board considers that the Amendment should be limited, that there should be safeguards against abuse, I am sure the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers) would accept any suggestion to preface the Amendment by words such as these: The real effective power to decide the conditions upon which local authorities might act would in that case be vested in the President of the Board of Education. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept this proposal, with such amendment as he might think proper.

I want to put one point to the President of the Board of Education which he may have overlooked, and which is rattier a good reason for asking that there should be some power of exemption granted here. The hon. and gallant Member for Bethnal Green North-East (Major Nathan) has been speaking about children getting exceptionally good jobs, or having an opportunity to get them, who have been unable to accept because the local authority did not give them exemption. The case I want to put is that of a boy between the ages of 14 and 15 who may get an opportunity of work which the boy and his parents think will be of great advantage to him in after life, and it may be work which he can take notwithstanding his having to attend school. As the Bill stands now the child may have to attend school and owing to the temptation of a particularly good job being offered he might be at work on Sundays, in the early mornings before school hours, and in many ways which will be dangerous to his health if not altogether bad for him. Under the Bill there is no power given to a local authority to make by-laws restricting the work of children during these hours between the ages of 14 and 15. I suggest that as the by-law restricting the employment of children does not apply to those between the ages of 14 and 15 that the abolition of exemption should not be carried to this extreme without any exceptions whatever. That is an argument which I think should be considered by the right hon. Gentleman. If he wants to narrow down the words of the Amendment there should at least be some possibility of exemption being granted in appropriate cases.

The Parliamentary Secretary based his opposition to the Amendment on the ground that the case of the delicate child would be dealt with by doctor's certificate. A doctor's certificate was never intended to bring about or justify exemption from school attendance, except during a short period of ill-health, and I very much doubt whether the kind of case to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred would be held by the courts to come within the powers of the local education authorities; they would not be able to exempt the kind of case referred to by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers). I ask the Government to accept the Amendment in the interests of the children. We shall not grumble if the right hon. Gentleman, thinking that the wording is liable to lead to abuses, causes it to be cut down in another place. I do not like the clumsy method of making it:

I want to say a few words on this Amendment from a somewhat different point of view to that of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan). I hope the President will resist this Amendment because it cuts right at the root of this reform. If once you begin to give exemptions it is difficult to say where the line must be drawn. You can make out a good case for having exemptions at the age of 13, or indeed at the age of 12 in certain circumstances; and if you are going to allow them at all you should not confine them to the age of 14 but deal with the question of exemptions in a general way. We are introducing what we believe is a great reform which will be of immense benefit to thousands of children in this country in the years to come. We believe that an extra year's education, with opportunities for mental development which otherwise they would not have, will place them in a far better position to make the most of life and give them the best chance in whatever position they may occupy. To deprive a certain number of these children of this priceless opportunity is a very serious matter. It may help certain families for the time being in particular circumstances, but looked at from the point of view of the children 20 and 30 and 40 years on it is a very serious thing indeed.

8.0 p.m.

I agree that this is not a popular Bill; no Education Bill is ever popular, and one can always find any number of constituents who will come forward and ask for concessions which might cut at the root of the Bill. If we believe that the raising of the school age from 14 to 15 is for the good of the nation as a whole and for the good of the children, we have to face any temporary unpopularity there may be, and take a wide and far view of the future of the children. I hope the President of the Board of Education will say that he is unable to accept this Amendment in any form.

I fancy that the hon. Member who has just spoken could not have been in the House when this Amendment was moved, because he has absolutely missed the point of it, and more especially of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers), who said distinctly that he wishes no exemptions for business purposes or in order that the child can get a job, but only where children are delicate, or mentally deficient, or for reasons of that sort. I was very pleased indeed to hear the sympathetic way in which the Parliamentary Secretary accepted the view-point of my hon. Friend. I agree with him that the House has already decided that there shall be no general exemptions. I want many exemptions, but my hon. Friend the Member for the Cambridge Universities does not. The Parliamentary Secretary was right in making the observation that the Amendment is too broad for this particular purpose. Therefore, I might ask whether the Parliamentary Secretary or the President of the Board of Education could accept an Amendment to the proposed Amendment as follows: another place, as has been suggested, accept this Amendment and put into it any such words as will suit the case.

We cannot now go back on the whole Bill and ask for a general exemption, but we can well ask for an exemption which, according to the Bill as it reads at the present, is not permissible in any circumstances. That is what we particularly grumble about. Not even on the initiative of the local authorities themselves can any child be exempted. The Bill does not say anywhere that a child can be exempted on a medical certificate. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell me if that is so. This is the reason that we are very insistent upon this Amendment. I shall be very pleased to hear that the Parliamentary Secretary or the President of the Board of Education is willing to meet us.

I think the point which has just been raised is quite unnecessary. It is met under Section 49 of the Education Act, 1921, where it says:

"Any of the following reasons shall be a reasonable excuse for the purpose of this Act and the bylaws made thereunder, namely:

That the child has been prevented from attending school by sickness or any unavoidable cause."

Surely that is the very point that I referred to? That is not the power to give exemption at all. It is only intended to apply where proceedings are taken against the parent on the ground of the child not having attended school without reasonable excuse. That is the actual definition of the words.

The intervention of the right hon. Gentleman sufficiently proves that he sees the necessity of accepting this Amendment. We are afraid that the Bill creates a cast-iron position. The power of exemption does not exist. I regret the assumption on the part of some speakers that all education

authorities are what are called "laggard authorities." As a matter of fact, the number of "laggard authorities" is not large and the number is diminishing.

It depends upon the definition of "laggard." Nothing could be more encouraging in recent years than the number of enlightened men and women who are members of these authorities, and who devote themselves wholeheartedly to the cause of education. They ought to be encouraged. Judged by things which have been said on both sides of the House, there ought to be wholesale exemptions from school. One hon. Member said that he learned nothing in school since he was 17. The hon. Member for East Hull (Mr. Muff) also said that he learned nothing in school. I think both are wrong. They learned a great deal without realising it. What happened was that one or two subjects were taught them that they did not appreciate, and they thought they were better without them. The Amendment puts trust in the local education authorities, and the more you trust those authorities the better your system will become.

There is a technical point in regard to the schools to which I ought to refer. It is said that if you have exemptions, you decimate the classes and injure the teaching. As a matter of fact, when the exemptions take place, the class is rendered smaller, and the teaching can become more individual. That position can be used by the good teachers, or by any teacher, as a means of improving the teaching. I should think, from what the right hon. Gentleman says, that he is in favour of giving this power to the authorities, and I ask him to accept the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 106; Noes, 240.

Division No. 86]

AYES.

[8.10 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Butler, R. A.

Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Atholl, Duchess of

Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

Campbell, E. T.

Atkinson, C.

Bracken, B.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Balniel, Lord

Braithwaite, Major A. N.

Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)

Beaumont, M. W.

Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd'., Hexham)

Chapman, Sir S.

Berry, Sir George

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

Christie, J. A.

Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

Buckingham, Sir H.

Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

Colville, Major D. J.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Skelton, A. N.

Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Dawson, Sir Philip

Llewellin, Major J. J.

Smithers, Waldron

Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

Lockwood, Captain J. H.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Eden, Captain Anthony

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Morris, Rhys Hopkins

Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.

Everard, W. Lindsay

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

Turton, Robert Hugh

Ganzoni, Sir John

Nathan, Major H. L.

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Nelson, Sir Frank

Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)

Warrender, Sir Victor

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Gritten, W. G. Howard

O'Connor, T. J.

Wayland, Sir William A.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Wells, Sydney R.

Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

Penny, Sir George

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Withers, Sir John James

Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

Ramsbotham, H.

Womersley, W. J.

Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

Remer, John R.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

Reynolds, Col. Sir James

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES. ——

Hurd, Percy A.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Captain Margesson and Major the

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Marquess of Titchfield.

Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Law, A. (Rossendale)

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Egan, W. H.

Lawrence, Susan

Alpass, J. H.

Elmley, Viscount

Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

Ammon, Charles George

Foot, Isaac

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Angell, Norman

Forgan, Dr. Robert

Leach, W.

Arnott, John

Freeman, Peter

Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

Aske, Sir Robert

Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

Attlee, Clement Richard

Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

Lees, J.

Ayles, Walter

Gibbins, Joseph

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

Lloyd, C. Ellis

Barnes, Alfred John

Gill, T. H.

Logan, David Gilbert

Barr, James

Gillett, George M.

Longbottom, A. W.

Batey, Joseph

Glassey, A. E.

Longden, F.

Bellamy, Albert

Gossling, A. G.

Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

Gould, F.

Lowth, Thomas

Benson, G.

Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

Lunn, William

Bentham, Dr. Ethel

Gray, Milner

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Birkett, W. Norman

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Bowen, J. W.

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

McElwee, A.

Broad, Francis Alfred

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

McKinlay, A.

Bromfield, William

Groves, Thomas E.

MacLaren, Andrew

Bromley, J.

Grundy, Thomas W.

Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

Brooke, W.

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Brothers, M.

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)

Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)

Mansfield, W.

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

Marcus, M.

Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

Hardie, George D.

Markham S. F.

Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

Harris, Percy A.

Marley, J.

Buchanan, G.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Marshall, Fred

Burgess, F. G.

Haycock, A. W.

Mathers, George

Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

Maxton, James

Calne, Derwent Hall-

Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

Messer, Fred

Cameron, A. G.

Herriotts, J.

Middleton, G.

Cape, Thomas

Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

Mills, J. E.

Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

Hoffman, P. C.

Milner, Major J.

Charleton, H. C.

Hopkin, Daniel

Montague, Frederick

Chater, Daniel

Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Church, Major A. G.

Isaacs, George

Morley, Ralph

Cluse, W. S.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Johnston, Thomas

Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

Mort, D. L.

Compton, Joseph

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

Moses, J. J. H.

Cove, William G.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)

Daggar, George

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Muff, G.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Muggeridge, H. T.

Day, Harry

Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

Naylor, T. E.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Kelly, W. T.

Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

Dudgeon, Major C. R.

Kennedy, Thomas

Noel Baker, P. J.

Dukes, C.

Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

Ede, James Chuter

Kirkwood, D.

Oldfield, J. R.

Edge, Sir William

Knight, Holford

Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

Edmunds, J. E.

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Palmer, E. T.

Sherwood, G. H.

Vaughan, D. J.

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Shield, George William

Viant, S. P.

Perry, S. F.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Walkden, A. G.

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Shillaker, J. F.

Walker, J.

Phillips, Dr. Marion

Simmons, C. J.

Wallhead, Richard C.

Picton-Turbervill, Edith

Sinkinson, George

Watkins, F. C.

Pole, Major D. G.

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

Potts, John S.

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Wellock, Wilfred

Price, M. P.

Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

Welsh, James (Paisley)

Pybus, Percy John

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

West, F. R.

Quibell, D. J. K.

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Westwood, Joseph

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

White, H. G.

Raynes, W. R.

Snell, Harry

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Richards, R.

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

Sorensen, R.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Stamford, Thomas W.

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Ritson, J.

Strauss, G. R.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Romeril, H. G.

Sullivan, J.

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Rowson, Guy

Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Wise, E. F.

Sanders, W. S.

Thurtle, Ernest

Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

Sawyer, G. F.

Tillett, Ben

Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

Scurr, John

Tinker, John Joseph

Sexton, James

Tout, W. J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES. ——

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Townend, A. E.

Mr. Paling and Mr. Hayes.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, after the word "Board," to insert the words: blank and aching void, and is left wondering how the story is going to end. What has happened between May and October of this year to influence the Minister in omitting this passage? No longer is there any suggestion that there should be, as it were, a probationary period for this new principle of granting maintenance allowances to parents who are compelled to keep their children at school. Hence my Amendment. We on this side maintain that the omission of a date upon which the administration of maintenance allowances should be reviewed, or, if necessary, revised, is of all the omissions and alterations to which this unfortunate Bill in its chequered career has been subject, one of the most deplorable.

What is the principle which governs the maintenance allowance under this Bill? The argument has been advanced from hon. Members opposite that they are given as compensation for loss of wages. Surely it is rather futile and fatuous to pursue that line of argument now that you are laying it down by Statute that no one shall earn wages until the age of 15 years? You cannot mean something which by law you cannot maintain. This is the price paid to the parents for the control of their children during the last year that they are at school; the State, as it were, is purchasing the child from the parents, a course which to a Tory like myself seems positively barbaric. The only alternative is that this is a sop, a douceur, given to parents for five years, during which period it is hoped that they will have accustomed themselves to the altered circumstances under the new scheme. I prefer the latter interpretation, and I have no doubt that hon. Members opposite do the same. But if we do accept that explanation, there is no more logic in giving maintenance allowance to parents whose children are between the ages of 14 and 15 than in giving it to parents whose children are between 13 and 14 or at any other period of the school age.

Unless you safeguard yourselves by some such provision as is suggested in the Amendment, you will have the principle of maintenance allowances running riot over the whole field of education. On this side of the House our original contention was that the grant of maintenance allowances should be at the discretion of the local authorities. That may have been a good or a bad suggestion. At any rate it was defeated and we need no longer consider it but now we have a second suggestion. Although we regard maintenance grants as highly illogical on the ground which the Government advocates and in the manner in which it is proposed to administer them, yet circumstanced as we are we are prepared to agree that they should operate for five years during which the parents may become accustomed to the new education system. We implore the Government not to go back upon the original and perfectly sound suggestion that the form and amount of these maintenance grants should be regarded as provisional and subject to revision after five years. It is sometimes said that second thoughts are best and I would remind the Minister that his second thoughts were the same as his first thoughts in this matter. It was only when he came to think the third time that he fell from grace. If there be any merit in even numbers, I ask him now to think a fourth time and to reintroduce in the third edition the passage which was in the first and second editions of this magnum opus. I do not want to enlarge upon the subject but I urge on the Minister the expediency and necessity of inserting some saving clause of this nature.

I beg to second the Amendment.

To my mind these allowances are a mere sop to the parents. It is quite clear that the ordinary child between 14 and 15 would be earning more than 5s. a week if he went to work as at present, instead of remaining at school for the extra period. If the Bill is to be the success which the Minister anticipates, then parents, who, next to the children, are the people most concerned, will by that time have appreciated the fact that it is compulsory for their children to remain at school for the extra year. Therefore if the Bill is a success, then at the end of five years there will be no necessity for the State to continue the payment of this large annual sum. No doubt that view was in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman when he introduced his first and second Education Bills. At any rate in those Bills he had a merely provisional arrangement and we are asking him to introduce a similar provisional arrangement in the present case. This Bill differs in one or two particulars from its predecessors. There is in this Bill—though we hope the matter will be rectified before we resume these discussions in January—no provision for better schools, though there is a provision for greater sops to the parents out of the money which, no doubt, has been placed at the disposal of the right hon. Gentleman. I would much sooner see this money spent on the better education of the children and on inculcating in the minds of the parents the fact that when they are getting a benefit from the State they should not demand or expect payment from the State at the same time.

It is quite clear that there is no limit on the period during which maintenance allowances may be paid. If it be enacted later on that no child under 15 years shall go to work, then, quite clearly, the children between 14 and 15 will not be in any different position as compared with children between 13 and 14 or between 12 and 13 in this respect, and there seems no reason why this allowance should be confined to children of that particular age. Personally, I should like to see these allowances deleted but, as we cannot do that, I think it only right that they should be confined to the period originally proposed by the Minister. I shall be interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman's explanation as to why this period was inserted in Bills No. 1 and No. 2 but has not been found necessary in Bill No. 3.

The burden of the speeches which we have just heard is that I have been very inconsistent. I always think that lectures on consistency do not come very well from an Opposition which has been trying hard for over a fortnight to make me inconsistent in all sorts of respects. However I do not think that this particular accusation can very well be sustained because what was said in the previous Bill was that the form and amount of these maintenance grants might be provisional. It was not proposed that the maintenance grants should be abolished at the end of five years but that is the proposal which is now before us. The issue between us is simple. Maintenance grants appear to us, rightly or wrongly, to be a social need. On the other side, rightly or wrongly, they are regarded as a sop or as an extravagance. The House has decided that on the ground of poverty and economic stress we are justified in giving these grants. The reasons for not stopping them at the end of five years is this. If it be true to-day that poverty justifies them, then, however much things may have improved in five years' time, poverty will be just as bad to those who are poor five years hence as it is now, and if it is justifiable now to have maintenance grants it will be justifiable five years hence.

We have heard hon. Members opposite talking about the evil of maintaining the children of the working-class for a year longer at school—

The hon. Member's Amendment proposes that maintenance grants must come to an end in five years. Because you could not beat us on the main principle of the thing, you are trying to stop it operating in five years from now. We are not asking for what you have already had, namely, full maintenance up to 21 years of age. All that we are asking for, in order to get for our children the best opportunity for higher education, is that their parent's position should be met by grants of public money from the State. We have been very moderate. I am sick and tired of the modesty of our leaders. Instead of asking for what we ought to have, we are always apologising for what we get. For 40 years I have been connected with the Socialist and Labour movement, and have stood on platforms all over the country advocating the principle of State maintenance, of education from the elementary school to the university as a national charge, but the very Members of this House who believe in maintaining battleships, armies and navies to blow people's brains out object to paying 5s. a week to try to develop the brains that the children of the working-classes of the country have got.

We are not asking for any favours. We are only demanding long delayed rights, and this is one of them, the right to a better chance, the right to give our children something like equality of opportunity with yours. You go to the universities by natural right; the only time we go to the universities is to deliver the milk and the meat there. You would try to put a limit on the maintenance allowances, but you ought to be thankful that we are so modest in our requests. Five years from now we shall not be so modest. We shall ask for more than you have been able to concede to us up to now. [An HON. MEMBER: "You are done in!"] You will be done up before we have finished with you. The real fight has not started yet. You have been winning your Pyrrhic victories in another place, but they are only temporary, and the time will come when we will fight you on the main issue, and that is the right of the people of this country to govern themselves without your condescension.

You always oppose the extension of educational opportunities. Your history is one long record of the opposition of your class to the education of mine. To anything which would make it easier for the children of the working people to get education you have been hostile, until public opinion has compelled you to submit. Now you are playing your old game of delaying. You cannot defeat, so you will delay. We have been delayed too long. We do not want a mere stairway up to the university or to higher educa- tional opportunities; we want a great broad way, where all the people will have the chance of enjoying the best education that they can get, and it surprises me to find hon. Members of this House, who have had all the advantages of education and culture and all the chances that human life can give them, opposing every attempt to give the ordinary people equal chances with themselves. What are they afraid of? Are they afraid of the son of the dock labourer being as good a man as the son of the brother of a duke? Are they afraid that our daughters will be equal to theirs in all the qualities that make for decent citizenship? They must be afraid of something, or they would not always be opposing these better opportunities being given. I call them foolish. They could not be anything else but silly.

We say that this reform has been too long delayed, and it ought not to be opposed by those who have had all the opportunities that these gentlemen have had. We say it is a shame on their part. They always display their meanest spirit when education is before this House. All the things that they have had, they tell us we must not have, and they erect a barrier against them, but one day they will have to give an account of their stewardship in this connection. We are sick and tired of these apologies for the existing order. They always say, "The present system is all right; it was good enough for my father and my grandfather, and it is good enough for me, but you must not have the chances that we have had."

We are fed up, but we are going to carry on until we can have an equal chance. We are out for better education for the children of this country, and the people who want it most are the children of the working classes. You have plenty of advantages already. You have education to begin with, and all the advantages of human life, and because we ask for a slight modicum of your chances, you turn round and insult us every time you open your mouth. We shall not swallow your insults much longer, and when the fight does begin, as it is on the verge of doing, we shall meet you in the gate.

The speech to which we have just listened is a very good instance of the sort of opinion which carries these Measures through. The hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) has supported the Bill as it stands on the ground that the children of his class have as much right to a free road to the university as have the children of our class, and I agree with him; but would it surprise him to know that there is not a provision in this Bill which brings any child of the working classes one step nearer the university? There is no road from the central or senior school, after the age of 14, up to the university. None is provided, and none can be provided. There are plenty of proposals, which I have taken my part in promoting, for the transfer of children at the age of 13, instead of at the age of 11, from central schools to secondary schools, and thereby getting a free road to the university, but keeping the child on at a senior or central school is not going to bring him one step nearer to the university. Does the hon. Member for Silvertown know that?

You will get "Yes" or "No." I will arrange to meet you at any place you like in Great Britain to discuss it with you.

May I, with all respect, and great as is the liberty always given to the hon. Member for Silvertown, submit that he should not be allowed to challenge us in that way without our having an opportunity for replying?

I am not going to be misrepresented. I am discussing this Bill, which deals with a certain part of educational development and not the general question of university education.

I am within the recollection of the House when I state that the hon. Member's whole argument was based on the free road to the university, and I want to remind him that there is a country which does have a completely free road to the university, with free education throughout, in every grade of school. That is the United States of America, and the principle on which the United States of America bases its educational system—

With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you interrupted me just at the moment when I was about to say that the principle of that country was free education but no maintenance allowances. We in this country have never said that. We have said that we would give maintenance allowances in addition to free education to any scholar whom a local education authority might consider needed it. That principle is not in question in this debate. What is in question is a new principle introduced by the right hon. Gentleman, that a family whose income is within certain limits shall have a legal and indefeasible right to 5s. a week, provided that he has a child between 14 and 15. That is the principle about which we are talking, and nothing else. The local authorities may give maintenance allowances to these children so far as the Education Acts are concerned, as much as they please. We are not arguing that, whatever our opinions may be. This Bill says that the mere fact of having a child between 14 and 15 who is obliged to attend school confers a legal right upon the parent to 5s. from the State, provided his income falls within certain limits. That principle is, we believe, absolutely fatal to education.

You cannot really convince the people of this country that education is a good thing if you have not only to give the child free education, but to tell the parent that, because he suffers the great disadvantage of having to keep his child at school free, the State will give him 5s. in addition. You cannot possibly, on that basis, convince a parent that education is a good thing. On the contrary, you will convince the parent that education is a bad thing, a thing to be suffered. The parent wants to feel—it may be very materialistic—that education advances the material as well as the spiritual prospects of the child, and, if a payment has to be made, no parent will really believe it. We have fought this issue out on the Committee stage, and we have been beaten. We come now on the Report stage not only to fight the battle again, but to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should return, in spite of all he has said, to his first thoughts on this subject. He says, "All I said before was that the form and amount of the maintenance allowance would be reconsidered after five years." That is so, but in the Bill as it stood then, the local authorities had no duty to pay the maintenance allowance, except so far as the Board of Edcation might by regulation tell them to do so, and the Board had therefore the power to reduce the amount of the maintenance allowance.

They have no such power under this Bill. The maintenance allowance is fixed by the Bill as 5s., but the right hon. Gentleman has power by regulation to vary the income limit within which the parent is to be entitled to that 5s. He cannot reduce the amount of 5s. Therefore, he has tied his hands in this Bill in a way that he never did in his previous proposals. In fact, we all know that the hon. Gentleman's only argument against this Amendment is that it is as much as his political life is worth to accept it. That is the only argument that has been brought forward. In other words, the back benchers of the Labour party are determined that this Bill shall establish the principle that, quite apart from education, a man is entitled as a right to a payment out of the pockets of the taxpayers in respect of his child—

That is the principle which hon. Members on the back benches are anxious to assert, and thank Heaven we can always rely on getting it from the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) in honest and clear phrases, and not wrapped up in a lot of flapdoodle as it comes from the hon. Member for Silvertown.

Let us have it quite clear. That is the issue between us. Hon. Members opposite say that a man who has a child is entitled to a payment out of the pockets of the taxpayers for that child from the cradle until the age when the child begins to earn wages, and at very frequent intervals after that. That is the principle of hon. Members opposite. Our principle is that no man, rich or poor, has any right to any payment out of the coffers of the State, except for services directly rendered.

I anticipated that interruption. It may be true that many of us might have a good deal to give back. Very well, we must give it back. If there is anything in the conditions under which we enjoy an income which conflicts with that principle, we must give it up. The point before us is whether we are to give to a new class of citizen a right to receive something for nothing from the State. That is what you are asking—something for no moral worth and no general utility to the community. I agree that any man who has a child is doing a service to the community, but you are asking something for nothing here—

Surely the Noble Lord does not suggest that another year's education is not benefiting the nation?

If free education is such a boon, why should you pay the parent for allowing the child to receive it? You are paying the parent for no service to the State.

The Noble Lord is rather widening the discussion. We are discussing the question of limiting the maintenance allowance to five years.

I am sorry that I went a little too far. Having been beaten on this principle in Committee, we say that there may be a case for urging that you are raising the school-leaving age prematurely, when parents are not ready for it, and when they do not really value the benefits received. You must, therefore, tide them over this short period; you must provide them with a douceur, a sweetener for this period when they are adapting themselves to this new piece of legislation. That was what was in the right hon. Gentleman's mind originally, and it is the hope of every educationist that, as years go on, this idea of a maintenance allowance as a right will fall away, and that parents will be just as glad to keep their children at school beyond 14 or 15 without a maintenance allowance as they are now glad to keep their children at school before 14 without it. That is the hope of every real educationist; and I say that if the Government are determined to bring in this wrong principle of a maintenance allowance they should confine it to a brief period, to the stage of transition. If you refuse to do that and insist on this thing as a principle for its own sake, a principle which we consider to be utterly damnable, then we will fight you. [ Interruption. ] Yes, we will fight you to the last minute; but at least we will fight you with some better weapons than the weapons with which you fight us, because the only weapons with which you fight seem to be the belief that in the cause of politics it is always allowable to break the Ninth Commandment.

I do not believe the hon. Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) has been doing himself full justice. I do not believe he is so narrow, so sordid or so sinister as he would make himself out to be. He has entirely forgotten a great existing factor in our present education system, and that is that some of the most important educational institutions in this country are bounty-fed, are endowment-fed. If the history of our universities were traced back, we should disclose the fact that great benefactors who lived in other centuries founded them as institutions to give education cheaply to the more or less rich, to the aristocracy, who have always enjoyed that great privilege. The Noble Lord forgets also the factor of the ordinary scholarship. The very object of a scholarship is to give maintenance and means to the scholar.

Well, I have grand-children who have gained scholarships, and I know that it has been a great relief to their parents, and I am very proud of them. I will not say to the Noble Lord, you have been belittling yourself—I do not want to say that—but I really believe that in your heart of hearts and in your brain of brains you want a highly educated and cultured race.

Why, when you have had the benefit of endowed schools, and endowed universities, with all their glorious traditions and their great culture, besides the gift of your birth—because, you know, you might have been born a docker; it is a circumstance over which you had no control—why, in those circumstances, when we are considering our children, do you always advance the most sinister arguments?

Well, good luck! That is the advantage of a university education. The rich appreciate the advantages of cheap schooling and cheap universities—

I will take that as a challenge. Some day or other we will have that out with the educational authorities and the Treasury.

I want the House to appreciate the fact that we are merely asking for this maintenance allowance in cases where the parents are not able to support the extension of a year in the child's school age. They will not receive this benefit unless they are very poor. After all, have some sporting instincts! Give us a chance! Give us some sense of fair play! We are asking for the right of the mother and father to give the child a fair and square chance. I feel your sympathy with us. They are very powerful sentiments which you have been expressing in the interests of the child. I feel all along that you have as much sympathy with our children as you have always had for the oyster.

"'I weep for you,' the Walrus said,

'I deeply sympathise;'

With sobs and tears he sorted out

Those of the largest size,

Holding his pocket handkerchief

Before his streaming eyes."

I think you have not done your side justice. You ought to help us! I do not envy your class. I have no grudge against them. I am proud of your universities, I am proud of all the great work of your universities, I am proud of the great educational institutions of this country. We are asking only for a mere morsel from the rich man's table. We are asking that our children shall have a square deal from you. I am not going to say you are not as patriotic and as good a Britisher as I am, and because I feel that you are I want you to help our side. Give us a square deal in this matter. Do not spoil the ship for "a ha'porth of tar." Why, with your great wealth, be so mean as to begrudge an honest effort in the interests of our children?

I should not have intervened in this debate but for some remarks which fell from the Noble Lord. He speaks on this subject at a great disadvantage, if he will pardon my saying so. It is very difficult for one who has never lived among the working class to know what the desire for education really means. As is the case with many other Scotsmen, I am one of a large family. The Noble Lord said, to use his own words, that the parent was always looking to the material advantage so far as the child was concerned. The history of the working class generally in Scotland is this, that prior to 1872 families would sacrifice themselves in order to get (1) education—

The Noble Lord seems to think that it is on the side of his argument, but it is not, because if they had been considering their own material advantages the parents would not have sacrificed themselves in the way they did. They had to do without very many things which they would have enjoyed had the boy who was getting an education been bringing money into the house.

If it is the child that is referred to, I can put a still stronger argument. The Noble Lord seems to neglect altogether the natural and divine right of a child that is born into this world. That is the right of access to the accumulated knowledge that we know as education. That is what is meant by placing the child in the midst. I can remember the days when we saw families sacrificing every kind of what might be called even simple luxuries, in order to pay that one member of the family might become a school teacher or something else. I cannot find, from the whole of the argument to which I have listened, where the Noble Lord wishes to get, unless his object is simply to retain for his class alone a sort of divine right to all that is called education, while those who are less fortunate in birth are to be subjected to all the conditions which were placed upon the working classes by his class in the past.

The rights of a working-man's, child on an educational basis must be considered entirely apart from the accident of his or her birth. The right of that child to the accumulated knowledge of the world is a divine right, and if an enlightened citizen, man or woman, of this country claims to be a great patriot, the evidence of that patriotism would be that they would strive in every way to give to every child, no matter where it was born, the right to the greatest possible educational value, knowing that, the greater the educational value that we can produce in our population, the greater is going to be the nation, the greater is going to be the service and the greater is going to be the result of that service. In the Noble Lord's speech to-night we have just a throw-back—it is evidently in the blood—to those days when the lord of the manor, or the man in the big house, determined when the working-man's child should receive even the alphabet. There is one place in Scotland still where the landlord has even the right, and claims it and acts upon it, to tell those who live upon his land in his houses— [ Interruption ].

I think the Noble Lord is justified in looking at me, because I called him to order for widening the debate.

I did not think that I was widening it; I was simply giving an illustration that still exists.

I must point out to the hon. Member, as I pointed out to the Noble Lord, that he is departing from the Amendment, which deals merely with the question of allowing these grants to continue for five years.

It is a pity that the illustration cannot be given, because it goes right to the heart of the argument. It is the spirit behind all that has been said to-night on the other side that gives me the feeling that they are still jealous of the ability of the working-class child whenever it gets an opportunity. Whenever it gets an opportunity, it can take its place anywhere with the other classes, but the Noble Lord is quite prepared to deny that right, because he says that the parents should be responsible for the education of the child so far as payment is concerned.

The poverty of the home is going to determine whether the working man's child is going to have access to higher education or not.

The working classes, despite the power held by the upper classes in the past to deny us education, despite all that they have done against us in denying us access to those things to which we claim a divine right, have produced their equals, no matter from what university they came, and I hope that the vote on this Amendment will be a most definite one so far as elementary education is concerned.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 112; Noes, 249.

Division No. 87.]

AYES.

[9.12 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Ganzoni, Sir John

Remer, John R.

Albery, Irving James

Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

Reynolds, Col. Sir James

Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)

Atholl, Duchess of

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

Atkinson, C.

Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Beaumont, M. W.

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

Berry, Sir George

Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.

Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

Skelton, A. N.

Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

Heneage, Lieut.-Col Arthur P.

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Bracken, B.

Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Braithwaite, Major A. N.

Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

Smithers, Waldron

Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Buckingham, Sir H.

Hurd, Percy A.

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

Campbell, E. T.

Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.

Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Tinne, J. A.

Chapman, Sir S.

Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Christie, J. A.

Llewellin, Major J. J.

Turton, Robert Hugh

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Lockwood, Captain J. H.

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Cohen, Major J. Brunei

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

Warrender, Sir Victor

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

Wayland, Sir William A.

Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

Mond, Hon. Henry

Wells, Sydney R.

Dawson, Sir Philip

Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Withers, Sir John James

Eden, Captain Anthony

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Womersley, W. J.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

O'Connor, T. J.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)

Penny, Sir George

Everard, W. Lindsay

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES ——

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Power, Sir John Cecil

Major the Marquess of Titchfield

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

and Captain Wallace.

Galbraith, J. F. W.

Rawson, Sir Cooper

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Daggar, George

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

Alpass, J. H.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Herriotts, J.

Ammon, Charles George

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth)

Angell, Norman

Dudgeon, Major C. R.

Hoffman, P. C.

Arnott, John

Dukes, C.

Hopkin, Daniel

Aske, Sir Robert

Duncan, Charles

Horrabin, J. F.

Attlee, Clement Richard

Ede, James Chuter

Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

Ayles, Walter

Edge, Sir William

Isaacs, George

Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Edmunds, J. E.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Johnston, Thomas

Barnes, Alfred John

Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Barr, James

Egan, W. H.

Jones. J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

Batey, Joseph

Elmley, Viscount

Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)

Bellamy, Albert

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

Foot, Isaac

Jones. T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Benson, G.

Forgan, Dr. Robert

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Bentham, Dr. Ethel

Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

Birkett, W. Norman

Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

Gibbins, Joseph

Kelly, W. T.

Bowen, J. W.

Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

Kennedy, Thomas

Broad, Francis Alfred

Gill, T. H.

Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

Bromfield, William

Gillett, George M.

Kirkwood, D.

Bromley, J.

Glassey, A. E.

Knight, Holford

Brooke, W.

Gossling, A. G.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Brothers, M.

Gould, F.

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

Law, A. (Rossendale)

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Gray, Milner

Lawrence, Susan

Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Burgess, F. G.

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

Leach, W.

Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

Cameron, A. G.

Grundy, Thomas W.

Lees, J.

Cape, Thomas

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Lloyd, C. Ellis

Charleton, H. C.

Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)

Logan, David Gilbert

Chater, Daniel

Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

Longbottom, A. W.

Cluse, W. S.

Hardie, George D.

Longden, F.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Harris, Percy A.

Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

Cocks Frederick Seymour

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Lowth, Thomas

Compton, Joseph

Haycock, A. W.

Lunn, William

Cove, William G.

Hayes, John Henry

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

Perry, S. F.

Sorensen, R.

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Stamford, Thomas W.

McElwee, A.

Phillips, Dr. Marion

Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

McKinlay, A.

Picton-Turbervill, Edith

Strauss, G. R.

MacLaren, Andrew

Pole, Major D. G.

Sullivan, J.

Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

Potts, John S.

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Price, M. P.

Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Pybus, Percy John

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow),

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Quibell, D. J. K.

Thurtle, Ernest

Mansfield, W.

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

Tillett, Ben

Marcus, M.

Rathbone, Eleanor

Tinker, John Joseph

Markham, S. F.

Raynes, W. R.

Tout, W. J.

Marley, J.

Richards, R.

Townend A. E.

Marshall, Fred

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Mathers, George

Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

Vaughan, D. J.

Messer, Fred

Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Viant, S. P.

Middleton, G.

Ritson, J.

Walkden, A. G.

Mills, J. E.

Romeril, H. G.

Walker, J.

Milner, Major J.

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Wallhead, Richard C.

Montague, Frederick

Rowson, Guy

Watkins, F. C.

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Sanders, W. S.

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

Morley, Ralph

Sandham, E.

Wellock, Wilfred

Morris, Rhys Hopkins

Sawyer, G. F.

West, F. R.

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

Scurr, John

Westwood, Joseph

Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

Sexton, James

White, H. G.

Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Mort, D. L.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

Moses, J. J. H.

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)

Sherwood, G. H.

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Muff, G.

Shield, George William

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Muggeridge, H. T.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Nathan, Major H. L.

Shillaker, J. F.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Naylor, T. E.

Simmons, C. J.

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

Sinkinson, George

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Noel Baker, P. J.

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)

Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

Wise, E. F.

Oldfield, J. R.

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

Oliver, P. U. (Man., Blackley)

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

Snell, Harry

TELLERS FOR THE NOES. ——

Palmer, E. T.

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Paling.

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

I beg to move, in page 2, line 8, after the word "week," to insert the words:

"or in the case mentioned in paragraph ( c ) of the proviso to this Sub-section at the rate defined in that paragraph."

We have now got out of the range of contentious principles, and we come to a series of Amendments which deal with particular points of drafting, although of some substance. We want to get through them as quickly as possible, and we shall be as businesslike as we can. [ Interruption. ] That is not a very courteous return. I hope the Government will meet us in an accommodating spirit. A child at a secondary school will, as the Bill stands, receive a far higher maintenance allowance between 14 and 15 than he receives either before 14 or after 16, and the object of the Amendment is to say that no child shall suffer by reason of being at a secondary school rather than at a central or a senior school, but that, if he is receiving before the age of 14 a maintenance allowance which, if continued for a further year, would at least bring the total payment to his parent up to the £13 to which the elementary school child will be entitled, the authority for higher education which is paying these maintenance allowances shall be quit of responsibility if it pays at that rate, a rate which must not be less than 1s. 8d. a week for three years, which is equal to 5s. a week for one year. I think that sum is right. I hope the right hon. Baronet will accept this as a real attempt to get over a serious administrative difficulty.

I do not think I can accept the Amendment. The Noble Lord complains that there will be a difference between what a child in a secondary school receives during the year between 14 and 15 and what he receives before and after that year. I think he bases that on an average of what the children receive, but he does not take into consideration that the average arises from the fact that a smaller grant is paid in the early years and a higher one, even above the 5s., in the later years. There is no reason to suppose that there will not be 5s. or more paid in subsequent years. Therefore, there is no disaster in paying 5s., and there is no such enormous margin even if the maintenance grant drops from 5s. to something less between 15 and 16. It may be illogical, but it is not disastrous. I do not see why we should not leave it to the local authorities to adjust every grant to the new situation, under which it will know that all children between the ages of 14 and 15 will be getting this maintenance grant under the Bill. There is nothing to prevent their adjusting the grant to meet that situation, and if it is the case that the grant in later years is less than it should be, there is no reason why they should not adjust it by bringing it on and paying more in subsequent years. I think it is better to leave it to the local authorities, and not to make any ingenious arrangement as suggested in the Amendment.

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has quite understood the point of the Amendment. The object is really to let well alone. What we want left alone is the secondary school, whose development has been one of the best features of the last 30 years. I may remind the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) and the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) that the system of secondary schools was established by a Conservative Government. What happens under the Bill? To every school £6 5s. in maintenance grant is given. The average grant in a secondary school is £6 5s. a year, and 5s. grant is £13 a year. Under the Bill, at the age of 14, in the secondary schools, the maintenance grant suddenly rises from an average of £6 15s. to £13, and then at 15, when the youth stays on at school, as he usually does, the grant goes back' again to £6 15s.

Why cannot you let it alone, and cut out the secondary schools? I ask that on grounds of economy and on educational grounds. These are limes when the most drastic and severe economy is necessary, and when next a penny that is not absolutely necessary should be spent. Here is an unnecessary expense. Neither the secondary schools nor the parents of the children are asking for it. They are quite satisfied with the present arrangement, and why thrust upon them, without asking, this very large expenditure? I put that consideration to the right hon. Gentleman. Is this to be a step in the redistribution of wealth, which is really the redistribution of poverty? It is perfectly true, as the late Lord Balfour said, that you cannot make the poor richer by making the rich poorer.

I press this Amendment on educational grounds. You introduce by this means the dole spirit into the secondary schools. The spirit in those schools now is a free and independent one. The teaching is good, and the pupils are trained in the right spirit. The educational influence involved by giving this dole to the secondary schools changes their character. We urge upon the Minister not to do a grave educational damage by refusing to exempt the secondary schools from the action of the Bill. On grounds of economy and educational grounds I urge him to accept the Amendment.

The hon. Member who has just spoken is, I think, under a certain amount of misapprehension. I do not speak with any knowledge of what goes on in the county with which he is associated, but I know that almost universally in the secondary schools in London a maintenance allowance is given to children whose parents have less than the amount stated in the Bill. If you were to exempt secondary schools, as suggested, you would be putting children attending secondary schools in a very much worse position than at present.

I am referring to the hon. Member's speech, and not to that of the right hon. Gentleman. I am quite able to look after myself. He must not put himself in the position of a schoolmaster and lecture us all. I repeat what I said in answer to the speech of the hon. Member.

Amendment negatived.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, at the end, to insert the words: An Amendment, not exactly in the same words but with the same intent, was proposed during the Committee stage, and on that occasion the Parliamentary Secretary asked us to withdraw the Amendment in order that he might consider the matter before the Report stage. The Government have not put down an Amendment on the subject, but I hope none the less they may be able to accept the Amendment which I now move. It is intended to get rid of another of the anomalies which are inherent in practically every Measure where public money is spent in this way, especially where you have, as under this Bill, a fixed allowance. In this case, it is 5s., with a prescribed income limit. The case which I am trying to meet is the case of a man whose total income is just on the borderline of the prescribed limit. Let us take the case of a man with, we will assume, an income of 70s. a week. That man will receive an allowance of 5s. for his child. Income varies from time to time and it is very likely and, in fact, probable that his income before the year is out may be 72s. The result of that is that he loses his 5s. allowance, and though through good work or good luck he has had an increase in his wage, he finds he is 3s. poorer afterwards because of it.

That is one of the anomalies which will occur in a very large number of cases, and it is one which, quite obviously, ought to be met. I do not know whether this legislation is intended to meet a social need or to give what other people call a sop, but, whichever it is, it will create grievances. We all know that when you attempt to give away public money, you create almost inevitably a large number of grievances, and we hear a good deal more, perhaps fortunately, about grievances than we do of gratitude. The way in which I am trying to get over border-line cases is by saying that in the case of a man whose income exceeds the prescribed limit by not more than 5s., he shall be entitled to receive a maintenance allowance at such rate, being less than 5s., as the local education authority may determine. It might have been better, perhaps, to have put a Schedule into the Bill, and to have said that for every increase of 1s. in income there should be a decrease of 1s. in the allowance, but I think that in a matter of this kind it is better to leave the whole thing to the good sense of the educational authorities, as I leave this to the good sense of the Government, and hope that they will agree to accept the Amendment.

I have carefully considered the complaint which the hon. Member has brought against the arrangement under the Bill. It is quite true that it seems to be rather inconsistent that a man with a smaller income should suffer more than the man with a larger income. There are always a number of borderline cases of that kind in every arrangement of this sort; there are bound to be. It is exceedingly important to have the system as simple and as clear as possible, otherwise uncertainties and delays are inevitable. From the point of view of local authorities, any arrangement of this sort will greatly increase border-line cases, and a number of minute inquiries will be necessary. From the point of view of parents, I am bound to say, also, that I think the amount of uncertainty arising from an arrangement of this sort would cause more irritation than is likely to be caused by the inconsistency which the hon. Gentleman is trying to remedy. It is noteworthy that no local authorities under any systems of maintenance grants which exist at present have found sliding scales to be necessary as is now being suggested. I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman will not find it necessary to press the Amendment.

It is very unusual for any hon. Member below the Gangway to support any hon. Member above the Gangway, but perhaps I may pay a compliment which has not yet been paid, and say that I really think the right hon. Gentleman has not appreciated the main point of this Amendment. The injustice of the position, as it appeals to me, is to say that you shall have a flat rate of maintenance allowance, and that a parent with 70s. a week shall get 5s. and a parent with 70s. 6d. a week shall get nothing at all. No conceivable case of reasoning can survive an absurd result of that kind. The right hon. Gentleman says that local authorities do not have a sliding scale. The fact of the matter is, that local authorities, having complete discretion in regard to maintenance allowances, have complete liberty to vary them according to the financial circumstances of the case. The moment you impose a legal right and a legal flat rate, you take away all discretion from the local authority, and produce a system which is as unfair as it is extravagant.

Amendment negatived.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, at the end, to insert the words:

Under the present proposal, the operative whose wage varies from week to week, or the man and his wife who may be working, as they work in the textile trades, and whose wages therefore vary, may for one week or a series of weeks be over the prescribed limit, and for another week or series of weeks be under the prescribed limit. My Amendment seeks to allow these people to make one declaration which will give them the maintenance allowance for a specific period of not less than three months and not more than four months, as may be required by the local authority. If the wage of one of these men goes up, he will not be wondering all the time whether he shall go and see the local authority and tell them that his wage has gone up, or whether he may be fined £25 or be sent to prison for three months.

From the point of view of the local authority, I think that the case is no less strong. They have given a grant upon an application, the proof of which they have tested, for three months or four months, and for that period no further examination is necessary. If that is not done, the local authority will have to bear these doubtful cases in mind the whole of the time. They will most probably need to have a schedule of doubtful cases. They must have a schedule of people who have more or less a fixed wage, and another schedule of people whose wages alter from week to week and month to month. I suggest that, from the administrative point of view of the local authority, it is far better that a definite time should be put in, and with that brief explanation I hope that the Minister may be able to accept this Amendment.

I beg to second the Amendment.

It occurs to me that people, and particularly people in country districts, where they are a little shy of forms, may be rather troubled as to what are their precise rights. But if the local authority is in a position to make a grant for a fixed period, it will put away from the minds of a great many ordinary people a source of real anxiety, desiring, as I am sure they will desire, to fulfil their obligations under the Act in exchange for the right which the Act will give them.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Amendment made reference to what he understood to be an undertaking by my right hon. Friend on the last occasion. To avoid any misunderstanding at all, I think that, perhaps, I had better read a short passage from what my right hon. Friend did say:

Obviously, that would involve the local authorities in the task of dealing with tens of thousands of renewals of applications in order to catch a few whom he fears may pass through undetected. That would involve very heavy administrative work. It would mean that the forms would have to be renewed at least three times and possibly four times a year. The experience of local authorities is, I believe, something like this—they fix maintenance allowances for the children and, as a general rule, they fix them for 12 months. I think the experience of the local education authorities ought to be adequate to enable them to deal with the exceptional cases such as the hon. and gallant Member apprehends may occur. For these reasons, I hope that the House will reject the Amendment.

I appreciate the steps which the Parliamentary Secretary has taken to try to come to some agreement with my hon. and gallant Friend and myself upon this matter. When it was discussed in the Committee on the previous occasion opinion was expressed not only by those of us who proposed the original Amendment but by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) and an hon. Member from the Government side that some such Amendment would be advantageous, not because the desire was to catch a few people, as the Parliamentary Secretary suggests, but because we did not want to catch the unsuspecting man who was a weekly wage-earner, and suddenly found that his wages had gone up to an amount which disqualified him for benefit, and that he ought to have made some extra return that he did not make. That was why we wanted to get a definite period fixed. It is still a period of four months. We moved the Amendment with the idea of giving a period of one month's grace—not less than three months and not more than four months. Our idea in moving the Amendment was to give these people a sense of security that when once they have made their return for the four months, they should have their maintenance allowance and should not be proceeded against under the penal Clauses during the time the four months was running. It seemed good to us to limit the period to four months because it was obvious that under the Amendment we might be incurring a greater charge upon the Exchequer, seeing that a man might have a rise in wages which he would not have to declare within a period of four months under the terms of the Amendment.

Quite a large number of persons employed in industry will not know from day to day that their three-monthly average has so topped the average as to disqualify them for the new benefit. That is why we pressed the Amendment on the Minister on the previous occasion and why we have pressed it to-night. In the agricultural industry the wages of the agricultural labourer remain pretty well the same throughout the year, and probably under the minimum, but that is not the case with regard to a good proportion of the industrial population where they are working on piece-work, and whose rates of wages, hours of work and overtime may vary. Although our Amendment would give the local authorities more work, and the Parliamentary Secretary was right in saying that that would probably be the effect, it would not be very strenuous work. It would only mean comparing the new returns with the preceding returns, and if it was the same, no action would be taken.

I had hoped that it might be possible for the Government to accept the Amendment, because it would give a sense of security during the four months after a man had made his original return. I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary has completely answered our point as regards the man with a varying rate of wage. The cases are not quite so few as he tried to make out. If you leave the matter as it stands at present it will be very difficult for these particular people to know that their three-monthly average, if they have suddenly extra piecework and overtime, has gone up beyond the prescribed limits. Therefore, they might be let in possibly for some criminal proceedings under the penal Clauses. I had hoped that it might be possible to accept our Amendment or some form of words to safeguard these people. I realise that the Minister's undertaking did not go any further than he has pointed out. I hope that he will reconsider the words and insert them in another place.

In Committee I supported the hon. and gallant Members who have moved the Amendment, because I think it is a very substantial point. I see the difficulty of the Parliamentary Secretary when he says that it is inconvenient to put the local education authorities to the necessity of revising applications every three months or every four months. That all adds to the difficulty of administering the Act. I would call attention to the form of the claim in which the man is made to say:

"I understand that if while I am in receipt of the allowance hereby claimed my income from any source [‡or that of my wife (or husband) living with me] increases at any time so that the prescribed limit§ applicable in my case is exceeded, it will be my duty to inform the local education authority of the fact immediately.…"

It might be very simple to say to the man that if at any time he is lucky euough to have a bonus, or be working overtime, he must conform with the requirements of the local education authority. One can understand their difficulties; it will be a constant worry to a very large body of workers, especially in unskilled trades. Common sense might say that probably the local authority would turn a blind eye on these cases, but there are always mischief-makers about. It seems to me that some alteration should be made in the form of claim. The Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out that in the case of scholarships and exhibitions at central or secondary schools the money is given for one year. If that was in this Bill all difficulties would disappear, but, as it is, the obligation is on the man, directly his income is beyond the prescribed limit, to inform the local authority so that he may be deprived of this maintenance allowance. I am not worried about the parent and the risks he may take, but I am much concerned about the child, and it would be most unfortunate if the child was deprived of this maintenance allowance by any omission on the part of the parent. This is an important point and should not be brushed aside. Unless it is amended it will lead to many difficulties, and I am inclined on the whole to support the Amendment.

I am very disappointed with the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary: I wish he was not so tempting. He always seems to put into his speeches a lot of odds and ends from his advisers which do not bear any relation to his argument. He ended his speech by saying that local authorities were usually accustomed to fix allowances for 12 months, and that they should be trusted. But the Bill forbids them to fix maintenance allowances, that is where all the trouble arises. Let me remind the House where we stand. We have a man with variable earnings. He puts in an application on an average of three months, and week after week he has to consider if times get better at what point his increased earnings bring his three monthly average above the prescribed limit. There are many rich men and many of the middle classes whose idea of average is that of the schoolgirl, who said "it is something that is not there." In this Bill it is the poor man who has to make this calculation, and then make his right to a maintenance allowance depend upon it. You really should provide him with some security, some period during which he will be certain of this maintenance allowance. I wish we could leave local authorities free to fix it for 12 months on the basis of the wages for the preceding 12 months. It would be much fairer and much less bother to local education authorities.

10.0 p.m.

I do not understand on what basis the Parliamentary Secretary got the idea that there would be only a few of these cases. Surely that is not so. Take the docks; there are weeks when the dockers will earn good money and many weeks when they will earn very little. The proper way is to take a period of a year. That would give a man a fair chance, it would simplify administration and prevent any of those anomalies occurring which have been mentioned during the discussion. I disagree with the Parliamentary Secretary. I am sure there will be many hundreds and thousands of these cases, and unless the Government come to some conclusion on the matter they will find themselves involved in all kinds of controversy. We must find some practical solution, and I hope the President of the Board of Education will reconsider this point because it is one of substance and affects many thousands of people.

I think the President of the Board of Education must be impressed by the criticisms which have been addressed to him in support of this Amendment. I am not overwhelmed by the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary that it will mean great departmental difficulties. This House is the master, and it is for the Departments to solve problems in accordance with the will of the House. I suggest that whatever may be the tale of the Division Lobby the strong arguments which have been put forward in support of the Amendment have not been answered from the Treasury Bench.

I have listened to the whole of this debate and I think there is a good deal in the argument which has been advanced. I am prepared to consider this point again and shall be prepared to consider an alteration in another place.

Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman agrees in principle and will seek words?

In that case I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 31, to leave out the words "attends school as a boarder or."

This is a small point but it is one of some importance. At the present moment the Bill excludes from the right to maintenance allowance any parent whose child is a boarder at any school, no matter what the parent's income may be. In rural areas we shall probably see a development of the system in Scotland, an increasing number of secondary schools taking in boarders cheap, and it seems wholly unjust to rule out from maintenance allowance a parent simply because the child happens to be in a boarding school irrespective of what the parent may pay towards the cost.

This Amendment is not desirable. In the case of a boarder one of two things will occur; either the parent will be paying for the whole of the board, in which case he will certainly be rich enough to be outside the category of those who will receive maintenance grants, or if he is a poor parent, he will not be paying the whole of the board or anything like it. Therefore, he will be getting something: that is worth a good deal more than the maintenance grant.

It is not very likely. There cannot be very many in that category and a good deal of careful investigation would be required to ascertain exactly how much they are all paying. Generally speaking, the comparatively poor person pays a small fee and in almost all circumstances would be getting more from the institution than the amount of the grant.

I was not very much impressed by the right hon. Gentleman's argument. If we cut out these words, we incur no additional charge for all parents; but only for the poor parent. To meet the Minister's last point is very simple, and could be done by putting in further words as a consequential Amendment on the lines that, where a poor person was paying more than 5s. per week towards the child being boarded in the institution, he or she would be entitled to the maintenance allowance. I see no reason why the parents who come within the means limit of the Bill, and who are putting themselves out to give their children a better class of education at the boarding school, should not have the same advantage as the parent who does not make the sacrifice. I had hoped that the Minister would see fit to accept this Amendment, even by putting in the concluding words as to the payment being more than 5s. per week. It would be easy for a local education authority to extend the inquiries it is entitled to make under this Bill to the boarding schools. There are not very many such schools, and they could be asked to give a return as to what the different parents were paying for their children. If it were found that parents were paying 5s. or upwards, those parents would get the maintenance allowance. It seems to me to be a very simple thing to arrange.

I spoke about this matter on the Committee stage. I agree that it is not easy to administer. As I said then, I know of a case of a woman earning a living at what is called charing. She is a widow, and sends her two children to a convent school, to which she has to pay a very substantial sum towards the cost of maintenance. She would come within the income limit provided in this Bill. She is making a very considerable sacrifice to keep her children at the boarding-school, and it is very difficult, as she says, to look after them. She is earning her living during the greater part of the day. It seems hard on her if she can not get a maintenance allowance when her child reaches the age of 14. There is a substantial number of cases of this kind, and possibly words might be found, and added in another place to cover them.

Amendment negatived.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 31, to leave out the words "or resides in an institution."

The point put forward by this Amendment is a strong one. There are two sorts of institutions, one a public institution run by the local authorities, and the other run by voluntary subscription, like Dr. Barnardo's or the Salvation Army Homes. Taking the first case, very often a number of children are attached to such public institutions, and it seems ridiculous that, while a parent earning perhaps £3 a week is able to get 5s. a week towards the maintenance of a child, the authority responsible for these homes and looking after children without any income at all, should be deprived of all benefit whatever. This is not a matter of increased expenditure anyway. I think it should appeal to Members on the opposite side who are always anxious to relieve local rates and to pass the burden on to the Exchequer. The Amendment has that effect. It would mean that the Exchequer would contribute to the local authorities the 5s. for the children in the municipal homes. The other case is no less strong. Certain extra expense would be entailed. If these institutions are kept by voluntary aid, surely it is up to this House to give them the small support that is asked for in the Amendment by including them in the terms of the Bill. We are all agreed that these institutions are a real acquisition and do a great deal of good.

I should like to draw attention to the case of a child in a charitable institution. Under this Subsection, no one is entitled to have an allowance in respect of the child who resides in an institution. Therefore, the provision in paragraph (1) of the Second Schedule seems to be an anomaly. It reads:

"Provided that if any person satisfies the local education authority that he, and not the father or mother of the child, is actually maintaining the child, he, instead of the father or mother of the child, shall be entitled to receive the maintenance allowance."

I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. Maintenance allowances are paid to families and individuals. Under this proposal they would be paid to institutions. Is the institution getting £2 a week or £3 or £4? There is no basis on which you can go. Why should we favour one institution and not another? The whole basis of the maintenance grant is that it is paid to individuals and families, and not to institutions.

The right hon. Gentleman has not met the point of the Amendment at all. He must know that this is a burning question with the orphanages and the various charitable institutions who are in this position, that they have in the past been accustomed to maintaining children until the age of 14 and of seeing them go out to work at that age. They were then relieved of the liability of maintenance. Under this Bill, they are going to have thrown upon them the cost of children's maintenance in the institution, just as much as the liability is being thrown on to the parents. What is there in the institution which makes it unworthy to receive help from the State?

The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to have looked at the consequential Amendment on the Order Paper, in which we say that if the child is residing in an institution and is wholly maintained out of the general funds of that institution, that is to say that no one is subscribing to the institution in respect of that child, then the institution shall be entitled to the maintenance allowance; and in the next Amendment we add that it shall be an institution which is not conducted for private profit. Surely that does limit the right to a maintenance allowance to institutions which are certainly wholly disinterested, are wholly maintained out of charitable funds, and institutions which at a moment when it is not easy to get an increase of charitable subscriptions will have to bear a considerable increase of expense. We feel so strongly on the subject that rather than debate it we shall divide upon it unless the Minister can make us an offer.

I would like to put the case of the local authorities. The Minister does not seem to have considered this matter from their point of view. I have in mind one institution which was established by a board of guardians and is now carried on by a public assistance committee. The great object of establishing that institution was to take away the taint of pauperism from the children. The building is separated from the work house and is conducted on the lines of a good-class boarding school. The children are never dressed in uniform; in fact they are much better dressed than many children outside. They are sent for their education to the ordinary elementary schools and are divided amongst various schools. When the boys reach the age of 14, they are apprenticed to useful trades, in which they can eventually earn a good living. Many of the trade unions want them for a seven-years' apprenticeship—

As this debate has developed I have come to the conclusion that, if the Amendment were inserted in the Bill, it would give maintenance allowance to children who would otherwise not be in receipt of it, and that would obviously create a charge. The Amendment is out of order.

Amendment made: Leave out from the word "if" in line 35, to the word "in" in line 39, and insert instead thereof the words:

I beg to move, in page 3, line 7, after the word "statement," to insert the words:

"or wilfully omits to inform the local education authority of any increase of income whereby he has ceased to be qualified to receive such an allowance."

It is not necessary that I should say anything about this Amendment, because I understand that as a result of discussions the Minister is prepared to accept it.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman is moving this penal Clause by oratio obliqua.

Amendment agreed to.

Ordered,

"That further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."—[ Sir C. Trevelyan. ]

Bill, as amended, to be further considered upon Tuesday, 20th January, 1931.

Expiring Laws Continuance Bill

Message from the Lords

"The Lords insist on their Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed for the following reason:

Because they consider that the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act, 1920, should not be permitted to lapse before the 31st December, 1931, in order to allow of a full investigation into the effects of its expiry on the trade and security of the country; and on the development of scientific research."

Resolved,

"That the Lords reason for insisting upon their Amendments to which the House hath disagreed, be considered forthwith."—[ Mr. W. Graham. ]

Lords Reason considered accordingly.

I beg to move: House would naturally insist on its view as it is now doing.

It would be folly for me to enter upon a discussion of the relations between the two Houses. Whether the majorities have been large or small, these two decisions were, after all, decisions of the House of Commons. They were decisions relating to a subject which comes very near if not actually to a fiscal proposition, because, although there is no tariff in this case, there is a prohibition modified only by licence on the dyestuffs which obtain entry into this country. We ourselves and the electorate outside will form their own conclusions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I have never previously excited so much commotion in this House, but we have all been long enough in Parliament to appreciate the ups and downs of this institution, and I propose to leave it at that, and to point out that, having regard to that narrow majority, there is no other course open to the Government but to accept this decision of the House of Lords.

I do not rise to oppose the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman has just made —[An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] —because it is about the only sound Motion which he has made to the House. I should not have intervened, I think, perhaps at all but for one or two observations which have fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman, in moving this Motion, would have agreed that wise counsels had at length prevailed and that another place had saved him, if not from himself, at least from his colleagues, but the right hon. Gentleman has thought it right, in proposing this Motion to the House, to make some criticism of the action of another place. [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!"] Those who have applauded that sentiment are perhaps less acquainted with the Constitution under which we work than is the right hon. Gentleman himself. But the right hon. Gentleman at least knows what are the limits of the Parliament Act and what are not only the rights, but the duties of another place under the Parliament Act.

Those who were responsible—[An HON. MEMBER: "So will you be in a year or two!"]—I hope sooner than that. Those who were responsible for promoting the Parliament Act and passing it through this House, were very careful to lay down, while limiting the powers of the House of Lords, that its powers and indeed its duties within the limits left to it, were clear and plain and unrestricted. That will not be denied by anybody sitting on the Front Bench opposite. That being so, I say without fear of contradiction, that if the House of Lords had not taken the action that they have in this matter, they would have been failing to discharge a very plain duty. The last set of men in whose mouths it lies to challenge the action of the House of Lords in this matter are right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench. They know perfectly well that it was by their desire, and indeed on their claim, that the Expiring Laws Continuance Act was the proper and the only way in which this issue could be brought before this House. If we had sought to bring forward a Motion in respect of the Dyestuffs Act, we should have been told by right hon. Gentlemen opposite that the proper course to take was to raise the issue on the Bill under which positive effect could be given to such a proposal, namely, the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.

Therefore, it is really futile for the right hon. Gentleman to contend that either we or another place were carrying out anything but our plain constitutional course in dealing with this matter upon this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has said that there was a very narrow majority in this House in favour of this proposal. I venture to say, as I said last night, that if everybody had voted not only in accordance with their genuine opinions, but in accordance even with the speeches which they delivered, the right hon. Gentleman would have been defeated in this House last night. The action which has been taken, the acceptance of which the right hon. Gentleman now commends to this House, will be dissented from and received with opposition, not in this country, but only in one or more other countries, and those are the countries which were preparing to dump dyes into this country next month.

The right hon. Gentleman was rash enough to conclude his speech by saying that the electorate of this country would form their own opinion. I understand that in another place the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have been addressing their loyal followers, and I understand that something was referred to as "political suicide."

Let me say, not only on my own behalf, but on behalf of all the party, that if the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are anxious to test the feelings of the electorate on the action of the House of Lords, either constitutionally or on the merits of this particular proposal, we shall be delighted to meet them in the constituencies at the earliest possible moment.

Neither do I rise to oppose the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman has made—but I would like to oppose it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken for the Opposition is not a very generous opponent. He found fault with the matter of the speech of the President of the Board of Trade. I find no fault in that speech. He was placed by the House in an almost impossible position. Like a man he accepted the decision that has been taken, but I think he may fairly complain that he has been let down by the House of Commons. [An HON. MEMBER: "Save us from our friends!"] In the original debate, when the matter was fairly argued out, he bad a majority of 30. Last night, when the House of Lords had put the screw on the party here—[HON. MEMBERS: "Whose party?"]—he had a majority of six. He might well have expected a majority of 60 on the issue which was raised. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, the Dyestuffs Act almost raised a question of privilege. [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member may mock, but it was very near the line indeed. It is undoubtedly an Act which has laid a charge upon some of the people of this country. The dye users have had to pay more for their dyes. It almost raised a question of the privileges of this House.

It was a very strong measure indeed for the House of Lords to insist upon this Amendment, and I should have thought that the House of Commons would have resented its action. Hon. Members who might well have remembered what the issue was have surrendered to this claim of the House of Lords. The Government must have expected this House to rally to them on that issue, yet the House has tamely swallowed the insult, and allowed the House of Lords to decide this issue for it. [ Interruption. ]

There is another reason why I think the Government might well have expected support from the House on this issue, and that is that the Dyestuffs Act looks to my eyes strangely like a Protectionist Measure. [ Interruption. ] I am not a bad judge. I am an old and consistent Free Trader. I generally know my opponents as well as my friends when I am engaged in a political argument. Of course, we were told that it raised no tariff issue, but every speech made in support of it was a Protectionist speech. Of course, there were balancing issues. It was a key industry; it was important that there should be research upon these important matters. But, if you want research, why not endow research?

It is always a difficult case when it comes to taking off a Protective Measure. That is the worst of these Measures. I would urge my Friends who are not so ready to recognise Protection in one of its cunning disguises to resist the beginnings of evil. [ Interruption. ] The Government have yielded necessarily— for they had their majority withdrawn from them—to the pressure of the other House, but this House has yielded to something else; this House has made a shameful conquest of itself. It has yielded to strong and unremitting pressure from powerful corporations outside. [ Interruption. ] The free opinion of the House has been undermined. The atmosphere of the House has not been very pleasant. There have been comings and goings, and discussions in corners—[ Interruption ]—and the interests have triumphed and the House has been humiliated. It has been a sorrowful and alarming spectacle for all who value the integrity of Parliament. But what has happened may be sanctified if the House and the country realise the danger that is in front of them. I hope we shall learn the lesson in time, and save our House from being exposed to the powerful and unholy forces that will be let loose upon us in every direction—[ Interruption ]— if ever we are called upon to frame a Protective tariff.

I, with some other Members of the House, regret that this decision has to be accepted, but, in accepting this position, many of us on this side have been taught a valuable lesson. The right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway has pointed out the dangers which may arise out of the present situation. We have been taught that in this House Members can openly boast of being directors of concerns which control 50 per cent, of the dyestuffs in this country. We have read the speeches of Noble Lords in another place, who have also boasted about their directorships, and there are some of us who believe that it is not the permanent Tory executive in the other place which has settled this matter. The lesson that we shall never forget is this, that outside these Houses of Parliament the great Imperial Chemical combine, whose directors come to this House and go to the other place and openly boast of their connection with it, has power to make this House of Commons obey its will. We shall learn the lesson that the time has now come when those who control the monopolies of this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about the co-operative societies?"] You objected to Members of co-operative societies voting on certain Measures. The very men who made that objection are prejudiced. [ Interruption. ]

On a point of Order. An hon. Member has quoted the name of a Member of this House in connection with this charge. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, he did not!"] The hon. Member who is Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made the statement that the hon. Member for East Toxteth (Mr. Mond) has some corrupt motive in supporting this Bill. May I ask whether that is in order.

I have sat alongside the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson) throughout the whole evening, and he has made no such statement.

If any such charges were made, they would be clearly out of order, but I did not hear them.

I want to conclude by saying that I have tried to avoid personalities, and have repeated only what is on record in the OFFICIAL REPORT of this House and of another place and which can be brought up as evidence. We of the democratic forces are being taught this lesson.

We have been taught the lesson that if this policy of Protection can lead to such log-rolling as has taken place within the last two or three weeks—[ Interruption ]—it shows us what the policy of Protection can do.

I rise only to make one or two observations, because charges have been made or imputations brought against myself, and other directors of the company with which I am associated, in reference to the Bill which this House has been considering. I should have thought it would have been unnecessary in this Chamber to have mentioned the extremely difficult position in which I found myself as a member of this House in connection with the Measure which we have been considering. As it was, when I addressed the House on the first occasion, I made no secret of my connection with the matter, and I laid my views before the House quite frankly. There has been no question at all as to the views I have put forward, and the views that have been held in many quarters and many different parts of the country. I may go further and say that in all sections and in all parties in this House there has been a considerable difference of opinion on this particular question. I think it could not have been made plainer how little I, or any of those who are associated with me outside this House, desire any stronger measure of protection, or any unfair advantage. When I rose in my place, as far as I was in a position to speak for that part of the dye industry we represent, I said I was prepared to accept a one year's continuation, with a judicial inquiry in place of the five years put forward by the Conservative party of which I was a member. It is naturally a very painful episode for me, and for anybody who has the misfortune to have their industrial matters brought before Parliament. But that should not deter us from doing what we conceive to be our duty, and it will never deter me from coming before this House on any question of which I have special knowledge and on which, I believe, I can give any useful information, and laying that knowledge before the House, and making the best case I can for what I conceive to be right.

The other place has rejected what was passed here. I do not say anything as to there being very strong feeling in connection with the Act under discussion, but I want to tell the House that though my colleagues on this side may have some difference of opinion in connection with the Dyestuffs Act, we have no difference whatever in regard to the rights of this House as against the House of Lords. Even yet I appeal to the Members on the Front Bench to stand firm against the other place. A previous speaker warned us of the danger that is likely to arise. I would remind the House that, prior to the last Recess, we were put in the same position by the other place. They made an alteration in the Mines Act that has made it possible to have the whole of Britain idle as far as the coalfields are concerned. It was plain we had no time to discuss the question, and history has repeated itself here to-night. I appeal to hon. Members to set aside this question of the Dyestuffs Act, and to vote against the action of the other place. There is no reason at all why the Government should not take their courage in their hands. I listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, who, I think, started to crow a bit too soon. We could go to the country on an issue of the Commoners against the Lords. That time has to come, at any rate, and it might as well come now as at any other time. I appeal to my colleagues to force a Division so as to assert our power in this matter. Let us go into the Lobby as one man against the action of the Government.

I do not wish to refer at any length to the speech of the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Perry), who has sug- gested that this House and another place can be influenced by the fact that there is in each a director of a certain corporation. The insinuation is so unworthy of all parties that it can be dismissed. Neither do I rise to ask whether, on a point of Privilege, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway should have been uttered. Nevertheless, it is clear that he accused this House of corruption. [An HON. MEMBER: "IS it not true? It is only fair to the House of Commons, whose traditions are very dear to Members on every side of the House, that it should be realised that there could not have been a majority of only six, but for the fact that 50 of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues who took part in the Division voted against the Government. Neither could it have been possible unless there had been some 20 or 30 Members of the party opposite who deliberately abstained from voting. I think that we are entitled to ask whether this decision of the House of Commons, caused by the action of the representatives of the party opposite and of the party below the Gangway, is due to corrupt motives.

11.0 p.m.

There have been many occasions in this House when unfortunate remarks have been made, but I venture to think that no one will be more sorry than the right hon. Gentleman that he should have made a statement such as that, and, if he is not sorry, it is for him to bring one single case of a Member of this House who has been guilty of the charge which he has brought. On the other hand, is it not true, that for a brief moment this House really became a Council of State and acted upon this question? [ Interruption. ] May I not attribute sincerity to hon. Gentlemen opposite and to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway who were responsible for this Division? Is it not a fact that for a brief moment, when a great British industry was at stake, men rose superior to their party convictions and to some momentary party tactical advantage, and decided to vote on the merits of the question? The right hon. Gentleman asked, what of the future? I think that the people of the country outside will be deeply impressed by the fact that not only the Conservative party on this question is united, but that a strong section of the Members of the party opposite showed quite clearly that if those who spoke against their own Government had taken the trouble to vote, the Government would have been defeated. When it is realised that the Members of the party below the Gangway on this side took their courage in both hands and acted, it was a difficult task, according to their conscience, they at least will retain the respect of their constituents. and I am not prepared to gibe at their action, which was one of courage and duty. I hope that unless the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway is prepared to charge any single one of his colleagues in this House with corruption, he will withdraw the charge that he made—

The position in which the House is placed is one of very small latitude. This House passed, whether the majority was small or large, a particular Measure, sent it to the other place, and they sent it back amended. We reaffirmed our decision and returned it to the other place, and we find the other place adamant. They have sent the Measure once again to us. We have been compelled or, rather, our Front Bench have been compelled to accept that decision. I would ask the Government, and I would ask those hon. Members on the opposite side of the House who sit below the Gangway, and who still have some respect for what they have been pleased to term Liberal traditions, whether they are prepared to have placed in the new Franchise Bill that is to be brought before the House, provision that will further curtail the powers of the other place.

I am not going into that matter. I am asking the Government whether they are prepared to place that provision in the Measure.

In that case, I would suggest to the Government that they should accept the advice of the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones). It is not a question now whether or not the Dyestuffs Act or the other Acts contained in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act should go on. It is a definite challenge to this House, and this House, apart altogether from the views of its Members in regard to the Dyestuffs Act, will be false to itself if it does not accept that challenge. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] I do not require any advice from hon. Members. I am prepared to divide upon it. I am prepared to vote against the action of the Lords. I am prepared, if it be necessary, to go to the country upon the issue. I am convinced that the people of this country upon that issue would not allow themselves to be misled by all the various questions which would be introduced by the party opposite. They would take the issue, as it was the case years ago when the Liberal party went to the country upon the question of Lords versus the people, fairly and squarely and would leave no doubt as to their position.

I desire to support the speech made by the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones). For long months before this issue came to this House the charge has been made throughout Lancashire and Yorkshire that the great firm which has been frequently referred to in these discussions has been able to win such power through the protective methods provided by this particular Act that it was able to help its friends and delay those who needed dyes whom it did not count as its friends. It has been a regular charge during the last few months that this Act has given Imperial Chemical Industries Limited and kindred firms an opportunity of corrupting the industrial life of this country. [ Interruption. ] That process has been practised in every country where Protection has been tried to a considerable extent, and it has been a frequent charge made in this House against those who desire to extend this practice that corruption was bound to be the consequence. I want to submit that what has taken place in this House and in the other place has heightened the truth of those charges. We are today fighting for the purity of Parliament—[ Interruption ]—and against those influences which are bringing it down.

I had not the slightest intention of intervening in this debate until a few moments ago, but it would be an insult to the dignity of this House and no less an insult to the dignity of another place if we allowed the observations of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson) to pass unnoticed and without comment. I speak on this matter with complete detachment, having not the slightest interest in Imperial Chemical Industries Limited or the dyestuffs industry, but of this I am certain that if Imperial Chemical Industries Limited attempted to divert two or three votes by any corrupt methods they would fail. These institutions stand high above these corrupt suggestions. [ Interruption. ] I say with complete and deep conviction, moved by an emotion which is far deeper than any political sentiment, holding dear the institutions which have given to the people of this country the privileges which they enjoy, that these institutions stand between us and destruction, and when hon. Members opposite dare to suggest to us— [ Interruption ]—that Members of this House are swayed by corrupt motives, by the Imperial Chemical Industries Limited, then I take my stand and say with complete emphasis that the thing is either impossible or that our institutions and our constitution has failed. One or the other. The great institutions that stand between the liberties of the people of this country, and bankruptcy are challenged. I had not the slightest intention of saying a word on this subject till the hon. Gentleman began to question the motives of hon. Members of this House. I ask the hon. Gentleman opposite, whose party is dependent for their place on the support of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, does he challenge the 18 hon. Gentlemen who voted with us on this matter?

I ask if this House is to sit down silent under an insult, where there is a direct challenge of corruption against hon. Gentlemen who went into the Lobby with me?

I only rise to say how deeply some of us on these benches resent the insinuation of base motives when we voted on the Dyestuffs Act. So far as some of us are concerned, no pressure whatever was brought to bear on us in this matter, and the party Whips, so far as we were concerned, were not put on. This was not a matter of either Protection or Free Trade to us. The matter went deeper than that. Some of us here were at the front during the War and went through the experience of seeing our comrades broken because we were without munitions. We did not desire to see the country placed in a position like that again during a time of crisis. If language such as has been used to-night is used on an occasion like this, what language will there be left to use when there is a serious crisis? It is perfectly ridiculous of hon. Gentlemen opposite to throw these charges about. So far as we are concerned, we regret them, very deeply.

I am somewhat moved at the indignation of some hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they have been challenged with representing, indirectly, interests other than those of their constituents. [HON. MEMBERS: "No! Corruptly!"] I know, Sir, that with all your urbanity and kindness, it is impossible for you to control the enthusiasm of hon. Members opposite. I look upon them with quite an indulgent eye when they interrupt. I want to convey my sympathy to the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour). He has the honour of representing me in this House, not very greatly to my satisfaction. I could hear the pulsating of his emotion when he spoke as he did, but I would remind the hon. Member for Hampstead and those who think and act with him that so far as I have heard this debate the charge has been one of representing interests rather than the welfare of the nation. I remember that only a few years ago—it is on the records of the House—the hon. Member himself, speaking from below the Gangway on the Government side, began a speech in which he told the House that he was representing certain electricity interests—

On every occasion when those debates were taking place I was particular to make it clear that I represented nothing but the constituency for which I stood, and that I was under a disability in offering advice and assistance to the House in a matter of which I had particular knowledge.

Unfortunately for the hon. Member who represents me in this House, and with whom I have every sympathy, the incident of which I speak is well recorded in the records of the House, because it was challenged and was subject to a ruling by Mr. Speaker, your predecessor. I repeat that the hon. Member made that statement to the House. It surprised me and I thought he was representing Hampstead, but one of my colleagues—

The debate is going beyond the Motion which is before the House. Very serious charges have been made in the House against the honour of the House. I feel myself to be the special guardian of the honour of the House. Naturally, if those charges had been personal ones, I should immediately have called the hon. Member to order and should have insisted on their withdrawal; but, when general charges are made, it is difficult for me to interfere except to say that I personally resent them very much.

I gather with pleasure that while you, Mr. Speaker, have felt compelled in your position as Speaker, which we all respect, I hope, very much, to pass the comments which you have just let fall, you do not accuse me of making any charge of corruption or taking part in anything that you consider to be unseemly. But I feel that as a Member of the House I have a right at least to try to assuage the indignation of the hon. Member for Hampstead by reminding him, I hope quite courteously but very firmly, of an incident when he himself, possibly carried away by his youthful enthusiasm, lent colour to these suggestions. That statement was challenged by a colleague of mine, when we were sitting in opposition, on a point of Order to Mr. Speaker, who ruled that it was in order, and that it was well known that interests other than the constituency were represented in this House. If there is any challenge to my statement, the Ruling of Mr. Speaker's predecessor in the Chair is on record and can be looked up. My reason for intervening is so that it may not be thought that the suggestion which is said to have been made—I have not heard it myself—comes like a bolt from the blue. Everyone in every part of the House knows quite well that organisations and interests are represented. [ Interruption. ] There are one or two other hon. Members interrupting with whom I should like very much to deal.

I am exceedingly sorry to be the cause of any inconvenience to yourself, Sir, or any displeasure, and to that extent I express to you my regret. After all, I do not often speak in this House. I seldom rise unless I think I can in some way assist the House, but when hon. Members opposite continually interrupt me they must expect to be answered, and I very much regret it. I must ask you, Sir, to note that what is contributing to the prolongation of the debate is the continual interruption by people whose heads appear to fit caps, however ungraceful the caps may be.

I wish to raise a point of Order. The remarks which you, Sir, were good enough to make just now, and which were received in all parts of the House, I am sure, with satisfaction, lead me to ask you whether, in the circumstances of the case, you will afford an opportunity to the hon. Member far Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson) to withdraw the statement which he made in answer to a question addressed to him— that being the definite statement that he accused of corruption some 18 members of the Liberal party whose names appear in the Division List and are therefore identifiable. Further, Sir, may I ask you whether you would invite an old and respected Member of this House, the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones) to withdraw a similar statement contained in the reply which he made to an interjection by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood)?

The hon. Member has put a point of Order. In the few remarks that I addressed to the House, I made it quite clear that, had accusations of corruption been made against individual Members, I should certainly have called the offending Member to order at once, and insisted on his withdrawing them. But charges can be made against parties, and are often made, which, while perhaps not desirable, are not contrary to the Rules of this House, and are not matters which are out of order; and I am not in a position to call upon Members to withdraw such charges. It must be remembered that, when I spoke of these general charges of corruption, I was not accusing any party specifically, because, as far as I can understand it, all parties at one time or another have made charges of corruption. No doubt some of them were in retaliation, but the fact remains that all parties are involved, and it was only because all parties had been involved that I thought it necessary, on my part, to intervene, and to say that I resented charges of general corruption being made in this House.

I think that, if reference is made to the OFFICIAL REPORT, it will be found that I never used the word "corruption" in my speech. The right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench asked me whether some of the Liberals were corrupt, and I, somewhat foolishly, made a quick answer to the question that he put to me. I must point out that the word "corruption" is a word of many meanings, and it never entered my head to attribute to anybody in the House corruption in a sense in which the word ought not to be used. Even at the moment when I was speaking, all that was in my head in regard to my colleagues was that they had been corrupted by bad arguments.

I should always give a very careful ear to advice that you would give to me, Sir, on what ought to be the proper language to apply in this House, but the charges that I referred to have been so frequently made out in the country and in discussions in this House, especially when the subject of Protection and tariffs comes up, that I felt I had every precedent to support me in the charges which I made to-day, in the same sense and in no other sense, with regard to the matter before us.

As I am one of the Members who voted with the Government, perhaps it comes better from me than from anybody else on these benches to ask a question. I think we are entitled to ask the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Hudson) if he is prepared to rise either here or outside this House on a public platform, where he can be taken to task, and charge any individual Member of any part in this House of any act of corruption. I ask that question firmly.

I ask the question firmly, and I ask it in a friendly spirit, and in the interests of this House the hon. Member ought to answer it.

If the hon. Member wants to act in a friendly spirit, will he please read in a friendly spirit the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow?

The hon. Member, the House and the country may take it that the hon. Gentleman does not make individual charges against any Member?

Answer!

Question, "That this House doth not insist on its disagreement to the Amendments made to the Bill by the Lords, upon which the Lords have insisted," put, and agreed to.

Gas Undertakings Acts

Resolved,

"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Sheppy Gas Company, which was presented on the 25th day of November and published, be approved."

Resolved,

"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Broadstairs Gas Company, which was presented on the 2nd day of December and published, be approved."

Resolved,

"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Derby Gas Light and Coke Company, which was presented on the 2nd day of December and published, be approved."

Resolved,

"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Little Hulton Urban District Council, which was presented on the 2nd day of December and published, be approved."

Resolved,

"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Maidstone Gas Company which was presented on the 2nd day of December and published, be approved."

Resolved,

"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough or St. Helens, which was presented on the 2nd day of December and published, be approved.—[ Mr. W. R. Smith. ]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-six Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.