Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 308: debated on Wednesday 12 February 1936

House of Commons

Wednesday, February 12, 1936

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

Private Business

Coventry Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.

Great Western Railway (Additional Powers) Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

Hereford Corporation Bill (by Order),

Read a Second time, and committed.

London and Middlesex (Improvements, &c.) Bill (by Order),

London and North Eastern Railway (General Powers) Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.

London Midland and Scottish Railway Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill (by Order),

Surrey County Council Bill (by Order),

Thornton Cleveleys Improvement Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.

Wolverhampton Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

York Gas Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Bury and District Joint Hospital District) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (South Staffordshire Joint Small-pox Hospital District) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Chester and Derby) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (North East Lindsey Joint Hospital District) Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Questions

Argentina (British Investments)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet able to report the result of the representations of His Majesty's Government to the Argentine Government respecting Anglo-Argentine railroads?

2 and 3.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he is aware that the provisions for safeguarding United Kingdom interests in the matter of exchange contained in the Roca Agreement of 1938 have failed to protect British shareholders in the Argentine railroads; and will he remedy this defect by using, in an exchange clearing, the £25,000,000 excess purchases by the United Kingdom of Argentine products over purchases by Argentina of United Kingdom products;

(2) whether he will state the result of His Majesty's Ambassador's protest at Buenos Aires, on 4th December, regarding the treatment of £250,000,000 of British capital invested in Argentina; and will he postpone renewal of the Roca Agreement until he has ascertained from the Association of British Trust Companies that the ill-treatment of non-Argentine capital in Argentine public utility companies has ceased?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that British public opinion will not support ratification of any proposal to continue arrangements about the import of meat from Argentina until after the Argentine federal authorities have put into operation legislation to rectify the ill-treatment of British capital in Argentina; and will he notify the Argentine Government?

In fulfilment of the assurance which I gave my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter) on 16th December, His Majesty's Ambassador at Buenos Aires has on two separate occasions made representations to the Argentine Government regarding the various difficulties experienced by the companies in question. I understand that discussions are now proceeding between representatives of the British-owned railway companies and the Argentine authorities concerned. In these circumstances it will clearly be best to await the result of these discussions, but I can assure my hon. Friends that the situation is being carefully watched.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the result of these discussions has reached us this morning; that the Argentine Government have refused the request of British owned railways in Argentine to review railway rates but have offered to study the indirect tax on exchange; and will he inform the Argentine Government, in order to avoid misunderstanding, that no renewal of the Roca Agreement will be accepted by this House until there is a cessation of the hostility to British investments in Argentine?

I have not seen the report to which the hon. Member has referred, and I should like to see it before giving any further reply?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will, before His Majesty's Government discuss renewal of the Anglo-Argentine Trade Agreement, give the House an opportunity of expressing its views about any renewal, seeing that £200,000,000 of British capital, which has developed Argentine public utility concerns, has been rendered unproductive by the hostility of the Argentine authorities to non-Argentine capital?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will obtain an official explanation from the Argentine authorities why the Anglo-Argentine railway companies have been prohibited from continuing to transmit messages by railway telegraph offices where Government telegraph offices exist; and will he request His Majesty's Ambassador in Buenes Aires to support an appeal to the courts that this prohibition should be cancelled?

I have no information on this subject other than reports which appeared in the Argentine Press in April last, but as far as I am aware the railway companies themselves have at no time sought to enlist the assistance of His Majesty's Ambassador at Buenos Aires in the matter.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Buenos Aires Great Southern Railway Company has already taken action in the courts against the Argentine Government in view of the fact that they have suffered substantial damages by this action, and will he not do his utmost to support the action of the railway company in the matter?

That is rather different from diplomatic intervention. I do not think we should approach the railway company; I think we must let them approach the Argentine Government.

China and Japan

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider the desirability of drawing the attention of the Japanese Government to the effect on British loans to China of the policy approved by the Tokyo Government of enforcing on parts of China gradual independence of the Central Government at Nanking with the concomitant loss of revenue?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to my noble Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Lord Apsley) on Monday.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give information as to the present situation in Sinkiang and in Outer Mongolia; who now exercises the most effective sovereignty in these two areas; how many British and how many Soviet Consular or political agencies are established in these areas; and whether, in view of their increasing importance, he will take the necessary steps, with the Government of India, to ensure increased British representation there?

The Province of Sinkiang is governed by General Sheng Shih-Tsai, who is recognised and supported by the Chinese Central Government at Nanking. A British Consulate-General is established at Kashgar. Soviet Consulates are established at Urumchi and Kashgar, and there are Soviet Trade Agencies at Urumchi, Kashgar and Aksu. The Government of Outer Mongolia styles itself the Mongol People's Republic, and is in practice an independent administration under Chinese suzerainty but enjoying close associations with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which, I understand, has four agencies established there. The question of British representation in Sinkiang will be considered in the light of the report of Sir E. Teichman, who recently journeyed through the province. British connections with Outer Mongolia are so slight that the expense of maintaining official British representation there would not be justified in present circumstances.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say now when Sir Eric Teichman's report will be published? He did not know yesterday.

I do not know when it will be published, because I have not yet received it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Nine-Power policy in the Far East is in any way affected by the recent declaration by the Japanese Foreign Minister, M. Hirota, that China must abandon definitely her policy of playing one foreign nation against another; and, if so, whether Great Britain has recently made representations to China against the adoption of any such policy?

I have no information of the declaration to which the hon. Member refers. The last part of the question, therefore, does not arise.

Communist College, Tashkent

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to whether the college for trained Communist agitators in the use of the various Indian dialects and other Oriental languages, formerly situated at Tashkent, is still functioning?

Treaty of Locarno

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that the provisions of the Treaty of Locarno, requiring that this country shall immediately come to the help of France or Germany in the event of a flagrant breach by the other of Article 42 or 43 of the Treaty of Versailles concerning the demilitarised zone, will be rigidly adhered to as long as the Treaty remains in operation and have not been abrogated by general consent of the parties?

The obligations of His Majesty's Government are specified in the Treaty of Locarno itself. His Majesty's Government stand by those obligations and, as has been previously stated in this House, intend, should the need arise, faithfully to fulfil them.

Syria (Railway Construction)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the railway which is being constructed from Fuka to Matruh is expected to be a remunerative undertaking; and, if so, why the British Government are not to receive any return on the sum of £20,000 which it is contributing to the project?

From the information in my possession the answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part of the question does not therefore arise.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the British Government give away £20,000 without any return whatever?

Italy and Abyssinia

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what members of the League of Nations trade con cessions have been made by this country as compensation for the losses in their trade with Italy that such countries may have suffered as a result of the policy of sanctions?

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether other members of the League of Nations as well as the British Government have made concessions to Jugoslavia?

Can we have an assurance that nothing will be done which might defeat the general policy of this House by any agreement of this kind without it being brought before the House?

These matters are dealt with in consultation with the Board of Trade and other Departments.

Is it too much to ask for a White Paper giving details of these sanctions and how they are operating in different countries?

Can the right hon. Gentlemen say what would happen if the United States and Germany made a claim under the Most Favoured Nation Treaties against us? They are not members of the League.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now state the findings of the League Committee which is examining the feasibility of prohibiting imports of oil into the Covenant-breaking State?

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the report is likely to be published?

Will the right hon. Gentleman do all in his power to expedite the report of the Committee and bring to an end the scandalous condition of affairs under which the Italian war is being fed by British oil?

Obviously the Committee are fully aware of their duties and require no advice from me.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in any cases Italian war aeroplanes have been given permission to fly over British Somaliland or the Sudan or to re-fuel in these territories on their way to the seat of hostilities in Abyssinia?

May I ask whether any applications have been made by the Italian authorities for the purposes specified in the question?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, what desertions of Italian troops across the frontier into Kenya have taken place, with numbers and dates; and what the present position of these persons is?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information regarding deserters from the Italian forces crossing the frontier of Kenya Colony; if so, to what corps they belong; and whether they have been interned?

Between the 15th and 22nd January approximately 380 Italian native troops deserted into Kenya. These men, who are understood to be Tigreans belonging to regular battalions recently moved from Libya, have been disarmed and are at present detained at Isiolo. I have no later information.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether they will be staying there till the end of the war, and whether the Italian Government will be asked to contribute towards their upkeep?

I am quite sure they will be more interested in their ultimate fate than the hon. Member, but I could not say what it will be.

Will the right hon. Gentleman try to give a serious answer to this question, at any rate? Will he be good enough to consider whether the Italian Government ought not to be asked in the circumstances to pay for the maintenance of these men?

That is obviously a question for future consideration. I have given the answer to the question put on the Paper.

Can the right hon. Gentleman ascertain to what corps, whether black or white, these troops belong?

Royal Navy

Contracts

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether in the placing of contracts, prices not being unfavourable, preference will be given to those tendering from the North?

In accordance with the policy of His Majesty's Government, it is the practice, other things being equal, to give special consideration to tenders submitted by manufacturers in areas suffering from prolonged and severe unemployment.

Personnel

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the reductions in naval personnel, which were made prior to 1934, have now been made good; and, if not, what is the proportion of such reductions which have still to be re placed?

Except for the excess in authorised bearing of naval and marine personnel referred to in the White Paper of 4th December last, for details of which I must ask the hon. Member to await the Supplementary Navy Estimate, the information desired will be found in the second column of the Table on page 8 of the current Navy Estimates.

In view of the fact that the report shows a very serious shortage in naval personnel, do not the Government realise that it is very necessary to fill up the shortage at once?

Shipbuilding (Portsmouth Dockyard)

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the probability of increased naval building, he will consider the advisability of extending the facilities for shipbuilding in Portsmouth Dockyard so as to allow ships of maximum size to be built there?

The advisability of extending the facilities for shipbuilding in Portsmouth Dockyard has already been considered and sufficient information exists to enable the slip to be extended if required. As the Royal Dockyards exist primarily for the repair and maintenance of the Fleet, the amount of new construction undertaken is dependent to a great extent on the current programme of repairs. For the present, it is intended to continue building cruisers in these yards, and it is expected that the slip will be occupied with these for some time to come.

Rations

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether butter or margarine, or both, is part of the regular daily rations of men in the Royal Navy?

Margarine is the normal ration, but the issue of butter is possible in some circumstances in lieu of margarine to an equivalent value. Butter is also provided on certain foreign stations for local and climatic reasons.

Is the Noble Lord aware that the food value of butter is very much higher than that of margarine?

Cannot the Government give these sailors butter, since the public assistance committees of this country have turned from margarine to butter; and is it not the case that if the sailors were fed on butter they would be able to fight better?

It depends on the arrangements that are made by those responsible for messing in the different ships.

Recruiting (Newfoundland)

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that many young men in Newfound land wish to join up in the Royal Navy but are unable to do so at present owing to lack of facilities for enlistment in that dominion; and if he will take steps to remedy this?

Although no recruiting organisation is established in Newfoundland, arrangements are made when possible for desirable recruits to be provisionally examined in one of His Majesty's ships when visiting St. John's. In addition, wherever possible, passages for candidates who are found fit are arranged in any of His Majesty's ships which may be returning home, though the normal procedure would be for candidates to find their own way to England.

Do the Government pay their passages when they come to England to enlist?

His MAJESTY'S SHIP "AMPHION."

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether His Majesty's Ship "Amphion" has run her trials successfully; and, if not, what were the defects which developed?

His Majesty's Ship "Amphion" has not yet run her trials successfully, defects having developed in the mechanical reduction gears. Work of replacement is now in hand.

Can the Minister state the name of the contractors and the contract price of the defective machinery?

The machinery for this ship was constructed by Messrs. Beardmore and by Messrs. Vickers as sub-contractors for Messrs. Beardmore. It would be contrary to the public interest to publish the contract price.

I would require notice of that question. The information I am given is that this was an occurrence, happily rare, which might happen in any engineering works.

Is it the intention of the Minister in future, because of this failure in a contract, to put orders on the Tyne instead of the Clyde?

Is it not the case that Messrs. Beardmore have closed down their engineering side, as far as marine engineering is concerned, and that that is why somebody else got this contract?

Time-Expired Men (Training)

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number of men time expired with pension for the years 1932, 1933 and 1934 who had received training fitting them for civil life; the length of training period; and for what occupations they are trained?

The total numbers of ratings of all categories who have been tarined during the financial years 1933, 1934 and 1935 are 1,225, 1,346 and 1,368, respectively. Approximately 90 per cent. of these totals are men completing time for pension, but the exact number of such men cannot be stated without special returns being obtained from foreign stations. The men are trained for a very large variety of occupations, and the length of the training periods varies according to the nature of the occupations.

German Battleship "Deutsoh Land" (Oil Engines)

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what success has attended the use of oil engines in the German battleship "Deutschland"?

So far as is known, the performance of these engines has come up to expectations. There is, however, no reliable information as to durability or maintenance costs.

Can the Noble Lord say whether the new German ships have been fitted with oil engines or turbines?

Malaya

Rubber Industry

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, since the British Government have approved rubber restriction, he will ask the Government of Malaya to investigate the treatment of European planters employed by the companies which have benefited?

The adjustment of the terms of service of employés of this grade is not a matter which falls within the province of the Malayan Governments. I understand that, with the improved prospects of the plantation industry, a number of companies have already been able to make considerable improvements in the terms of employment.

King George V National Park

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken to carry into effect the decision to constitute a national park in Malaya, to be called King George V National Park, in commemoration of His late Majesty's Jubilee?

The situation of the King George V National Park has been declared by the respective Sultans in Council, legislation has been drafted, and a sum of $2,500 has been voted by the State of Pahang for the preliminary investigation and survey of the park.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any knowledge of the fact that, although this area was set apart as long ago as 1925, very little has been done to develop it, that in fact the boundaries have not yet been laid out and that practically no money has been spent on it at all?

I have already answered that the matter is now being seriously considered.

Will the right hon. Gentleman push the local authorities really to do something? They have been extraordinarily slack.

Game Laws

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken to implement the recommendations for the conservation of wild life in Malaya submitted by the special commission in 1931?

I am informed by the High Commissioner that legislation to amend the Federated Malay States game laws has been drafted and will be published and introduced into the Legislature in the near future.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that much of the local fauna is disappearing, owing to the lack of proper conservation?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is suggested that he should go there and stay there?

Hong Kong (Mui-Tsai System)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action he proposes to take with regard to the unsatisfactory condition disclosed by the report of the committee of investigation on the mui-tsai system in Hong Kong?

The governor informs me that the report is under consideration by the district watch committee composed of leading Chinese citizens of Hong Kong. He hopes to be in possession of the views of this committee very shortly, and will then report to me on the subject. I propose to await his recommendations before considering what action should be taken.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the report and the long time this terrible state of things has continued, will the right hon. Gentleman see that there is no delay?

No one could read the report without dismay, and I have no hesitation in saying that definite promises were made many years ago by the authorities and I am determined to end this system.

Is it not a fact that conditions in the colony of Hong Kong compare very favourably indeed with those in the neighbouring territories of the Republic of China?

I do not know about that, but I do know that this report discloses a state of affairs that no one in any part of this House or the country could regard as satisfactory.

Palestine

Ordinances

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table copies of the proposed Palestine Ordinances dealing with the constitution, land alienation, and immigration?

Provision for the establishment of a legislative council in Palestine will be effected by an Order made by the King-in-Council under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890, and I am advised that it would be contrary to established practice to lay such an Order in draft form. But I think I can best meet the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman by placing in the library a copy of the communiqué issued by the High Commissioner for Palestine last December, which sets out clearly the proposals of Government, and I will arrange for this to be done. As to immigration, I am not aware that new legislation is being drafted. As regards land alienation, approval has been given in principle to the enactment of legislation, but the law will not be drafted pending discussions which the High Commissioner will have with Jewish and Arab leaders. I shall be glad to consider, when the legislation has been drafted, how most conveniently to make it available to the House.

Am I to understand that the draft Order for the establishment of the Constitution of Palestine has been shown to the Arabs and the Jews in Palestine but has not been passed by the Cabinet, or has it been passed by the Cabinet and is it now in its final form?

The High Commissioner in all his negotiations both with Arabs and Jews has acted under the instructions of the Cabinet and with full Cabinet approval.

Has the scheme got full Cabinet approval; and may we in this House have the same information on this deplorable scheme as the people in Palestine have received?

I do not think it will help in a very delicate and difficult stage of the negotiations to define the proposals as other than a genuine attempt to give effect to the Mandate.

May we have the same information here as they have received in Palestine?

Anti-British Propaganda

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any satisfactory reply has yet been obtained from the Italian Government with regard to the propaganda broadcasts from Italian stations for reception in Palestine and Transjordania; and by what date the Palestine broadcasting station will be in full operation?

With regard to the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) on 18th December, to which I have nothing to add. It is hoped that broadcasting from the Palestine station will begin in the first fortnight of April.

Jerusalem Municipal Council

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is contemplated to appoint a Catholic to membership of the Jerusalem Municipal Council, thus further weighting the council against the Jewish majority of the population of Jerusalem; and, if so, is he to be an Italian or a German?

I will make inquiry of the High Commissioner for Palestine, but I may say that I should not be prepared to interfere with his discretion in the matter.

Does the right hon. Gentleman always leave a question of this sort to the man on the spot?

No, but if in the main the man on the spot is doing his job well, it is just as well to trust him.

Is this one of those questions in which the Colonial Office does not interest itself?

Malta (English Language)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is satisfied with the teaching of English in Malta?

No, Sir. I am not prepared to say that I am entirely satisfied. But the situation has been much improved in recent years following upon the reforms of 1932, under which English became the sole language, in addition to the Maltese vernacular, to be taught in the elementary schools.

In view of the Government's well-known concern for the welfare of the inhabitants of British Dominions, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that it is the wish of the majority of the inhabitants of Malta to have the English language taught in their schools?

Is not the English language, with all its disabilities, a good deal better than Mussolini's language?

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving this question his personal supervision?

Northern and Southern Rhodesia

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the request by the Convention of Representatives of Northern and Southern Rhodesia that a deputation should be received by His Majesty's Government to discuss the question of amalgamation and self-government, and of the fact that His Majesty's Government still adhere to the policy announced in 1931, he will make a statement to this House?

As no request for a deputation has yet been received by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, no further statement appears to be called for at present.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the resolution passed by these two great Colonies ought to receive such consideration and are of such importance that a statement ought to be made to the House, or a White Paper issued?

If these two great Colonies attach so much importance to the resolution they passed, they ought at least to communicate it, but we have not had it yet, and it rather looks to me as if they did not attach much importance to it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that our responsibility is to the natives of these two Colonies who have no voice in the matter?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the total population of Northern and Southern Rhodesia separately; the number of the white population in each area; and its percentage of the whole?

As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The total population of Northern Rhodesia in 1934 is estimated to have been 1,377,889, and of Southern Rhodesia 1,212,000. The white population of Northern Rhodesia is estimated to have been 11,464, or 0.83 per cent. of the total population, and of Southern Rhodesia 52,950, or 4.37 per cent. of the total population.

Kenya

Native Betterment Fund

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the failure of the Kenya Government to provide for the Native Betterment Fund, which was agreed to as the result of Lord Moyne's Committee's recommendations?

The Governor of Kenya decided, with the approval of my predecessors and myself, that the establishment of the fund must be postponed for the present in view of the financial stringency in the Colony. The position will be further examined when Sir Alan Pim's report on the finances of Kenya is available. In practice there has been little difference between the amounts spent on native services and what would have been credited to the fund if it had been established.

Defence Force

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies as to the position regarding the Kenya Defence Force, how the officers are enrolled and whether they are paid; at what age conscripts are enrolled; and whether they are compensated for loss of time away from their usual occupation?

Officers of the Kenya Defence Force are appointed by the Governor. The age limits for enrolment in the force are 18 to 50. The answers to the second and fourth parts of the question are in the negative, except that there are a salaried staff officer and a musketry instructor.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state for each year in which the Kenya Defence Force Act has been operative the number of men called up; the number of exemptions granted; what were the main grounds of exemption; how many were prosecuted for refusal to serve; and the nature of the penalties imposed upon those convicted?

This information is not available here, but I am asking the Governor to furnish it as far as may be possible.

Taxation

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received a report from the Governor of Kenya Colony upon the allegation in the legislative council that women are being seized and held as hostages pending the payment of hut taxes by their male relatives; and whether, as in the case of similar allegations in Nyasaland, he will ask the Governor to furnish him with a full and immediate report?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give instructions that the arrest by chiefs and headmen of native women in Kenya as hostages in case of non-payment of taxes shall cease?

I understand that a commission is being set up to inquire into the allegations that have been made. I am not in a position to announce its composition or precise terms of reference, but I have no hesitation in assuring the House that if the allegations are substantiated, the practice will of course be immediately stopped.

Why is it necessary to have a commission to ascertain a simple question of fact?

When a statement of a serious character such as this is made, obviously drastic action is necessary, and one does not attempt to take action unless one can prove the facts. The object of the commission is to ascertain the real facts.

Will my right hon. Friend at the same time extend the inquiry to discover the origin and source of this agitation against the payment of tax?

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that these allegations have been made in the legislative council itself by responsible members?

That is true, but one has only to look at the record of legislative councils and parliaments to know that allegations are made which require to be investigated.

Tanganyika

Labour Conditions

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any information on the inquiry into labour conditions in Tanganyika; and whether the question of reviving the labour department has been considered?

A senior administrative officer is at present investigating the labour problems arising in Tanganyika as a result of the expansion of the mining industry, but, so far as I am aware, he has not yet presented his report. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave him on 11th December.

Cotton Cultivation

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the government in Tanganyika is considering any proposals for extending the growing of cotton in suitable areas within the mandated territory; and whether he can state the nature of the proposals?

I am glad to say that with valuable financial assistance from the Empire Cotton Growing Corporation the Tanganyika Government has put in hand special measures designed to encourage native cultivation of cotton. New experiment stations and seed farms have been established. Assistance is also being given indirectly by opening up suitable areas through the construction of new roads.

Will the right hon. Gentleman convey his answer to the President of the Board of Trade who is engaged in restricting the manufacture of cotton?

Colonies and Mandated Territories

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give an assurance that His Majesty's Government have not considered, and are not considering, the handing over of any of the British colonies, either under mandate or otherwise, to a foreign Power, and that they are not prepared to make British colonies the subject of barter in any world conference?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a speech made in Berlin by Dr. Goebbels, the minister of propaganda, on 17th January, when he stated that the time would come when Germany would demand her colonies back; whether he will give an assurance that the British Government have no intention of handing over to the German Nazi Government any of the territories held under British mandate; and whether he will confirm previous Government declarations on this subject?

No, Sir, His Majesty's Government have not considered, and are not considering, the handing over of any of the British Colonies or territories held under mandate.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this reply will be received with gratification and relief throughout the whole of the Empire?

Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to see that this statement is conveyed to Herr Goebbels for his information?

Does the right hon. Gentleman's statement refer likewise to British protectorates?

I have already said British colonies or territories held under mandate, and that includes the last.

I answered specifically on the question of mandated territories; I did not refer to protectorates.

That is why I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether his statement did refer, or was equally applicable, to protectorates?

My answer covers the whole question, both of colonies, mandated territories, and protectorates.

Then has my right hon. Friend forgotten the Zeila negotiations a few months ago?

Uganda (Public Works)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he can make any statement on the development programme which is being initiated by the Government of Uganda; and whether money will be made available from the Colonial Development Fund?

The Uganda Government has, with my approval, decided to incur some expenditure on public works in addition to the normal annual programme. These works include a drainage scheme, water supplies and improvements thereto, new police lines, work on roads and bridges in various places and a remodelling of the Agricultural Department's headquarters. Uganda is happily able to meet all expenditure from its own surplus balances so that no assistance from the Colonial Development Fund is necessary.

If the hon. Gentleman will put the question on the Paper, I will give him the information.

State Servants (Accident Liability)

asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider appointing a Select Committee to inquire into the liability of State servants towards the members of the public who are injured by the activities of such servants; and whether there is any department which does recognise its responsibilities in that respect at the present time?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers given to various questions on this subject by my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General on the 6th instant. I would also refer him to the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates, 1935, in which the Committee state their conclusion that in this matter members of the public are fully protected. In the light of this information I hope that he will agree that the action suggested by him is unnecessary.

Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention to introduce a Bill covering the findings of a committee that was appointed by the Lord Chancellor in 1921?

House of Lords (Bishops' Powers)

asked the Prime Minister whether he will take into consideration, with a view to introducing appropriate legislation, the desirability of restricting the power of the Lords Spiritual in the House of Lords to intervention in matters concerning the spiritual affairs of the Church?

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this suggested action would be a suitable retort courteous to the Bishops who wish to restrict the powers of this House?

Coal Royalties

asked the Prime Minister when he proposes to allot a day for the Second Reading of the Bill for the nationalisation of coal royalties?

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the statement he made when the Gracious Speech was introduced in which he promised to introduce legislation at an early date?

The hon. Gentleman asked me if I could name the date. There is no departure from the intention, but I cannot yet name the date when the Bill will be introduced.

While the right hon. Gentleman is unable to name the precise date, can he assure us that the Bill will be shortly introduced?

Can the right hon. Gentleman give any assurance to the House that it will be introduced shortly, and can he give any approximate date?

No, I cannot give any approximate date, and I shall not use the term "shortly" because it is very often misconstrued.

West Africa (Mining Profits)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken, in view of the mining development in the West African dependencies, to secure that the largest possible proportion of the profits shall be reserved for the Government and shall be used for the benefit of the native population; and, in particular, what was the last date at which the amount of royalties payable to the Government was reviewed?

The rates of the royalties and other charges payable on the profits of mining undertakings in the West African Colonies have been fixed either by legislation or by the terms of concession agreements with due regard on the one hand to the interests of the community, and on the other to the desirability of encouraging mining development. These rates are not subject to revision at stated intervals, but they are constantly under review, and in recent years the rates of royalty or export duty have been increased in certain cases where circumstances were held to justify such a course.

How far do the Government, or the natives, or both, benefit from the proceeds of mineral royalties or profits in West Africa?

I cannot say how far a particular interest benefited, but it is undoubtedly true that developments of this character are in the main a benefit to all concerned.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state how many thousands of natives are employed in the mines and how many more desire employment at the present time?

Zanzibar (Disturbances)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any information on the disorders which occurred in Zanzibar on 7th February?

With my hon. Friend's permission I propose to circulate a statement of the information available in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I have asked the Resident to furnish further information as soon as he is in a position to do so.

I am sure I am interpreting the opinion of the House aright when I express very deep regret at the deaths of Mr. Rolleston and the Indian Police Inspector.

Following is the statement:

The information which I have received is that rioting broke out in the morning of 7th February. The cause is still uncertain, but was apparently some dispute which arose in connection with the inspection of copra and the strict enforcement of the regulations against adulteration. A mob first attacked the European Produce Inspector, on whom they inflicted severe injuries, and then they proceeded to attack the Provincial Commissioner and the Acting District Commissioner, Mr. Rolleston, who happened to be in the neighbourhood. They also attacked the Acting Commissioner of Police who attempted to restore order. These officers received serious injuries, to which Mr. Rolleston, I regret to say, has succumbed. Subsequently the rioters attacked the Post Office where they did some considerable damage and in the course of the attack on the Post Office an Indian Inspector, Mr. Camrudeen, sustained injuries which proved fatal. I am glad to state that the other injured officers are making favourable progress. A force of police was asked for by the Resident from Tanganyika Territory and arrived late in the day.

According to the latest reports which I have received the total number of casualties were:—two dead (Mr. Rolleston and Mr. Camrudeen) and 13 injured, namely, Mr. Donkin, the Produce Inspector, Mr. Skinner, the Acting Commissioner of Police, Mr. Jones, Provincial Commissioner, the Secretary of the Arab Association, who had endeavoured to restore order, two Arabs who happened to be in the neighbourhood, one native policeman and one Swahili youth, with five other native police slightly injured. Among the rioters four were killed and two are in hospital wounded. These casualties were caused when the police under Inspector Camrudeen were attacked. The Resident reports that 14 people have been arrested and that normal conditions are being restored. On the information at present before me I see no reason to attach any political significance to this regrettable incident.

Ceylon (Malaria Epidemic)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the total number of lives lost in, and what is the present position regarding, the malaria epidemic in Ceylon; and what, if any, action has been taken to safeguard against, or to minimise, the incidence of such epidemics in the future?

During the period of the epidemic, from November, 1934, to April, 1935, inclusive, the number of deaths in the districts affected by the epidemic exceeded the average for the previous four years by 59,144. Colonel Gill, the expert appointed to investigate the epidemic, furnished a report which was published last September. This report was fully considered by the appropriate Executive Committee of the State Council, who recommended a series of measures for giving effect to its proposals. The matter came before the State Council in November and is to be considered in further detail during the coming session.

Royal Air Force

Coastal Reconnaissance Squadrons

the Undersecretary of State for Air whether he proposes to take steps to establish coastal reconnaissance squadrons on the south coast and in the west country for the especial purpose of protecting convoys approaching or leaving these shores in time of war; and whether he will increase the intended number on the east coast?

The expansion scheme now in progress will provide a substantial increase on or near the East coast of all types of squadrons. Full consideration is, of course, also being given to the requirements in the south and west within the limits of our available resources.

Bombing Practice (Holy Island)

asked the Under-Secretary for Air whether any decision has been arrived at with regard to the proposal for carrying out bombing practice on the Northumbrian coast; and, if so, whether he will state the locality selected?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he has considered the copy sent to him of a resolution unanimously passed at a meeting of the county section executive committee of the Northumberland and Newcastle Society, on 10th January, 1936, viewing with grave concern the proposal to establish an air-bombing practice station on the Northumberland coast in the immediate neighbourhood of Holy Island; and whether he will consider the desirability of establishing the bombing practice station elsewhere?

A full statement on this matter was included in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) on Thursday last. All representations are being carefully considered and will come up for discussion at the meeting which my Noble Friend is holding next week.

Contracts (Fair Wages)

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the terms of the fair wages Resolution of 1910 are applied to all contracts and sub contracts when the Government give out orders for aircraft?

A condition embodying the Resolution in regard to fair wages and other conditions of employment passed by this House on 10th March, 1909, is included in all Air Ministry aircraft contracts, and the contractor is made responsible for its observance by his subcontractors.

Will the Under-Secretary take into account the fact that very often craftsmen are moved from low wage zones to other wage zones where the wages and conditions are higher, and will he instruct his officials to consult with the trade unions in this matter?

All complaints are the subject of investigation, and whenever any infringement is established the contractor is required to make the necessary adjustment.

Rations

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether butter or margarine, or both, is part of the regular daily rations of men in the Royal Air Force?

Airmen are normally provided with margarine each day. The ration is, however, not supplied in kind but purchased by the mess from cash allowances.

Is not the right hon. Baronet aware that the heat giving properties of butter are far ahead of those of margarine?

My information is that some margarines are better for one and more energising than some butters.

Can the Undersecretary tell us which of these he uses in his own dining-room?

Empire Air Day

asked the Undersecretary of State for Air whether Empire Air Day will be held this year; and whether the Air Ministry are co-operating with the Air League of the British Empire in the organisation of it?

Empire Air Day will be held on Saturday, 23rd May, when the large majority of Royal Air Force stations will again be open to the public. The arrangements are being made in close co-operation with the Air League of the British Empire.

Can the right hon. Baronet tell me how many thousands of pounds have gone to the Air Force charities?

Retired Naval Officers (Training)

asked the Under secretary of State for Air whether any flying training schools are being provided for retired naval officers of the Fleet Air Arm who are on the reserve of the Navy?

Officers who have retired from the Royal Navy after attachment to the Royal Air Force for service with the Fleet Air Arm are eligible if of appropriate age, to join the Royal Air Force Reserve. They then receive training under the normal reserve arrangements.

Does the right hon. Baronet not see that if we do not retain the Air Force Reserve they get no training at all, and is it not really important, in view of the small number of people we have, that when officers go on reserve they should be kept in proper training for landing on ships?

Does the right hon. Baronet consider that the pilots of the Fleet Air Arm should be of a retiring disposition?

Aviation

Mediterranean Air Services

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the full complement of machines necessary for the maintenance of the Imperial Airways ser vice to Alexandria across the Mediterranean has yet been made up; and, if so, which machines are being used to bring the numbers to full strength?

The recent loss of a Calcutta flying boat at Alexandria, together with the destruction by fire of a Scipio type boat at Brindisi, has necessarily involved some disorganisation of the Brindisi—Alexandria service, which is at present being operated by two Scipio flying boats.

Can the right hon. Baronet tell the House the age of these flying boats?

Aeroplanes (Wireless Control)

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, in order to prevent pilots becoming lost off their course, as occurred in a recent disaster, it is the intention of the Air Ministry to instal at Croydon an up-to-date and efficient system of wireless control, and a radio beam homing system such as has been in successful operation elsewhere for some time?

The system of wireless control at Croydon has been continuously modified in order to keep it abreast of the latest developments. The radio beam homing system has not yet passed out of the experimental stage and, in order to determine the most satisfactory form of installation, three separate types of such apparatus will be available at the aerodrome shortly for exhaustive trial.

Does the right hon. Baronet really consider that the radio beam homing system has not passed out of the experimental stage in view of the fact that it has been used for a very long time in the United States of America?

My information is that it has not quite passed out of the experimental stage, and that pilots are not yet willing to trust themselves to it in fog.

Imperial Air Services

asked the Undersecretary of State for Air whether the Government still intends that Imperial Airways shall continue to be the chosen instrument for the development of Imperial air services, and that, therefore, no sympathetic consideration shall be given to any other company desirous of developing an overseas service?

His Majesty's Government, after the fullest investigation in connection with the new Empire Air Transport scheme, details of which I announced to the House in December, 1934, decided to continue to utilise Imperial Airways for the development of Empire air routes including the future North Atlantic service. In taking this decision the Government, as the House is aware, took all factors into consideration, including the fact that it would be uneconomic and lead to the dissipation both of public and private money and effort to encourage competitive organisations. As regards other oversea services, my Noble Friend is, within the limits of available finance, prepared to remit to the Interdepartmental Committee, which was recently set up under the chairmanship of the Permanent Secretary of the Treasury, any proposals from other sources which show sufficient promise of successful operation.

If an air line competing with Imperial Airways were to provide a service over the North Atlantic, may we understand that it would be encouraged in the matter of mail contracts?

No, Sir. The Government decided over a year ago to entrust the North Atlantic service to Imperial Airways.

Is this policy still in force in spite of the fact that Imperial Airways have not been able to provide any machines capable of operating this service?

Is not the real trouble that the Air Ministry are relying too much on private—[ Interruption. ]

I have not been able to gather what the Noble Lady is trying to convey.

Air Ports

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, with a view to developing air traffic in Great Britain, he will consider setting up a departmental committee for the purpose of considering, advising, and making provision for additional airports to be established in and /or near London and the principal provincial centres?

A committee is at present sitting under the chairmanship of Sir Henry Maybury to consider measures which might be adopted by His Majesty's Government or by local authorities for assisting in the promotion of civil aviation in the United Kingdom. My Noble Friend thinks it advisable to await the report of this committee before embarking upon any further inquiries in this field.

Have any meetings been held by this committee and are they actively engaged?

Transport

Omnibus Fares (Stoke-On-Trent)

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the public resentment caused over the refusal by the Traffic Commissioners for the West Midland area of the Stoke-on- Trent corporation's application for a reduction of omnibus fares; and will he give special consideration to the case prepared on behalf of the public by the city council of Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle?

I have no information regarding this matter other than reports which have appeared from time to time in the Press. I have no power to intervene unless an appeal is made to me by a competent party in accordance with Section 81 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930.

Will it be possible to have an appeal in this case, as it is a matter of very serious moment?

I should imagine so, if the time for entering an appeal has not expired.

Barton and Trafford Swing Bridges

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the inconvenience caused to workpeople by the closing of the Barton and Trafford Ship Canal bridges; and whether he will take steps to prevent the closing of these bridges between the hours of 6.45 a.m. to 7.15 a.m., 7.45 a.m. to 8.15 a.m., 5 p.m. to 5.45 p.m., and on Saturdays 12 noon to 12.30 p.m.?

The Manchester Ship Canal Company, to whom I have communicated the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, assure me that they are making every effort to minimise inconvenience to the public in the operation of these swing bridges, but that it is not practicable to regulate the movement of shipping on the canal so as to have absolutely fixed times for opening and closing. I am sending to the hon. Member particulars of the instructions given by the company as to limiting the swinging of the bridges at certain hours.

Yes, Sir, I have, and I will send the papers to which I have referred to the hon. Gentleman.

Horse-Drawn Vehicles

asked the Minister of Transport whether, when considering the problem of horse-drawn traffic in relation to road safety, he will give special consideration to the necessity for the retention of horses for certain traffic in and about dock areas?

Road Accidents

asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the fact that on the roads in 1935, 6,521 people, including over 3,000 pedestrians, were killed and 218,798 were injured, he will consider invoking the aid of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the head teachers of all schools throughout Great Britain to assist in warning every road user, especially pedestrians, of the perils of crossing and using the roads?

I would like to express my gratitude to both these agencies for the constant assistance they have given in the direction indicated.

Did the Minister consider asking them to continue the warnings which they issue to the public?

Yes, Sir, but it is not very often necessary to ask them, as they are so anxious to help.

asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to a fatal accident that took place near Carr Mill, St. Helens, on the new East Lancashire Road, Liverpool to Manchester, on Monday, 6th January, when the coroner's jury recommended more lighting of the road; and will he cause inquiries to be made as to the more efficient lighting of this road?

Yes, Sir. A scheme has just been submitted by the St. Helens County Borough Council for the widening of Carr Mill Road, from the crossing northwards to the borough boundary, and the construction of an adequately lighted traffic "roundabout" at the crossing.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there has been an extensive correspondence on that subject.

Will the Minister review the question of responsibility for the care of this road, in view of the unsatisfactory condition of affairs which prevails?

Road Traffic Facilities (Glasgow Aberdeen)

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the protests made by municipal and other bodies against his decision in limiting the holiday traffic facilities on the roads between Glasgow and Aberdeen, which decision was taken against the opinion of the traffic commissioners for both northern and southern Scotland, and against the advice of the reporter for the Ministry of Transport, Mr. Oswald Dykes, K.C; that over considerable portions of the area affected there are no railway facilities, and that his decision involves hardship to large numbers of the public; and whether, pending any decision in the Law Courts as to competency, he will continue the holiday road transport facilities which have operated to the public convenience over the area in question for several years past?

The Orders made on these appeals are the subject of proceedings in the Court of Session, and have not yet been implemented. As the matter is sub judice, I can make no statement.

Pending the decision of the court, will the right hon. Gentleman continue the practice which has worked so satisfactorily during the last four or five years?

Steam-Driven Vehicles

asked the Minister of Transport how many steam-driven vehicles were licensed for the carriage of goods on the roads in 1931 and what was the corresponding number at the latest available date; what is the estimated annual consumption of coal or coke per vehicle; and whether he proposes to take any steps to arrest the decline in the number of these vehicles in use on the roads, in view of the efficiency of the latest improved models and the importance of this outlet for British coal?

In 1931, there were 6,784 steam-driven goods vehicles (exclusive of agricultural vans and lorries, and showmen's special vehicles which were not separately enumerated) as compared with 2,081 in 1935. I am unable to give an estimate of the annual consumption of coal or coke per vehicle. Steam-driven vehicles already have the advantage of the use of tax-free fuel and, if over six tons unladen weight, are accorded lower licence duties than vehicles of similar unladen weight run on petrol or heavy oil. Steam-driven vehicles also enjoy a special concession in respect of permitted maximum laden weight.

Street Lighting

asked the Minister of Transport what response has been made to date by local authorities to the recommendations of the interim report on street lighting; and if he is prepared to make any contribution out of the Road Fund towards the cost of street lighting improvement schemes in built-up areas?

asked the Minister of Transport whether the Government propose to adopt the suggestion contained in the interim report of the departmental committee on street lighting that the cost of street lighting should be met in some degree from national funds?

I have, so far, no information as to the extent to which lighting authorities have adopted the recommendations of the departmental committee, and I have no powers to make contributions from the Road Fund towards the cost of street lighting improvement schemes in built-up areas.

Humber Bridge Scheme

asked the Minister of Transport whether any recent approaches have been made to him in respect of the construction of a bridge over the Humber; whether, assuming agreement among all the parties concerned, he is prepared to make a grant from the Road Fund to the construction of such an undertaking; and if so, whether he can state its percentage of the cost of the bridge?

A scheme for the construction of a bridge over the Humber has recently been submitted to me and is now under examination by my Department. Until this examination is completed, I shall not be expected to say whether I would be prepared to make a grant from the Road Fund towards the cost of the proposed bridge.

These matters are, as may hon. Friend knows, highly technical, but there will be no undue delay.

Waverley Lane, Farnham (Improvement)

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered the application submitted to him for a grant towards the improvement of Waverley Lane, Farnham, Surrey; the date on which such application was first received by him; and the date on which he will be prepared to announce his decision?

The Farnham Urban District Council's application for a grant was submitted to me by the Surrey County Council on 7th February, 1935, but I have not yet been put by the council in a position to give a decision on the application, as I have not heard from them when they propose to undertake the work.

Forth and Tay Road-Bridges

asked the Minister of Transport the number and names of the local authorities that have agreed to contribute towards the erection of a Forth road-bridge at or near North Queensferry; the amounts they have respectively agreed to contribute; and whether he is now in a position to state the Government's attitude towards the local authorities' proposals?

Five authorities concerned have intimated their willingness to contribute between them 10 per cent. of the total cost, which is estimated at £3,500,000, but have not disclosed in what proportions. I cannot add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for North Lanark (Mr. Anstruther-Gray) on 4th February, of which I am sending the hon. Gentleman a copy.

Will not the right hon. Gentleman give us the names of the five local authorities?

I could do so. Would the hon. Gentleman like me to send the names to him or to circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Electricity Supply

asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the practice whereby a local electricity supply company may have 99 per cent. of its capital held by a central supply corporation which is not restricted in the prices it fixes for its plant and materials, such selling corporation having its capital held by a private company, and the private company in turn being controlled by a financial investment trust; whether he will inquire to what extent these facts apply to the supply of electricity to consumers in the Isle of Wight; and whether he is satisfied that the resultant financial burdens to the consumers are in the national interest?

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that in July last I appointed a committee under the chairmanship of Sir Henry McGowan, and he will also be aware of the terms of reference.

Ballot for Notices of Motions

University Franchise

I beg to give notice, that this day fortnight I shall call attention to the University Franchise, and move a-Resolution.

Private Manufacture of Armaments

I beg to give notice, that this day fortnight I shall call attention to the Private Manufacture of Armaments, and move a Resolution.

Location of Industry

I beg to give notice, that this day fortnight I shall call attention to the Location of Industry, and move a Resolution.

Ironstone Mining Industry

I beg to give notice, that this day fortnight I shall call attention to the position of the Ironstone Mining Industry, and move a Resolution.

Bill Presented

RELIGIOUS PROSECUTIONS (ABOLITION) BILL,

"to amend the laws relating to blasphemy and to abolish prosecutions for the holding or expressing of opinion on matters of religion," presented by Mr. Thurtle; supported by Mr. Sorensen, Mr. Ede, Sir Stafford Cripps, Mr. Lansbury, and Colonel Wedgwood; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 27th March, and to be printed. [Bill 55.]

Message from the Lords

Consolidation Bills

That they have appointed a Committee consisting of six Lords to join with a Committee of the Commons as a Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills in the present Session, and request the Commons to appoint an equal number of their Members to be joined with the said Lords.

Water Resources and Supplies

That they concur with the Commons in the Resolution communicated to them on 5th February, namely: "That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and report on measures for the better conservation and organisation of Water Resources and Supplies in England and Wales."

Selection (Standing Committees)

Standing Committee A

Sir Henry Cautley reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Mr. Burke and Mr. Servington Savery; and had appointed in substitution: Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte and Mr. Riley.

Standing Committee B

Sir Henry Cautley further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Mr. Quibell; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. William Robinson.

Standing Committee C

Sir Henry Cautley further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C: Sir Alan Anderson, Mr. Hills, Mr. Riley, and Mr. West Russell; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Rhys Davies, Mr. Leonard, Sir John Mellor, and Vice-Admiral Taylor.

Standing Committee D

Sir Henry Cautley further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee D: Captain Balfour, Lord Burghley, Mr. Christie, and Mr. Keeling; and had appointed in substitution: Colonel Burton, Mr. Douglas Cooke, Viscount Elmley, and Captain Shaw.

Sir Henry Cautley further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following twenty-five Members to Standing Committee D (in respect of the Sugar Industry (Reorganisation) Bill): The Lord Advocate, Mr. Albery, Mr. Alexander, The Attorney-General, Mr. Barnes, Mr. De Chair, Mr. Elliot, Sir John Ganzoni, Captain Heilgers, Mr. Creech Jones, Mr. Graham Kerr, Sir Joseph Lamb, Mr. Maxwell, Major Neven-Spence, Mr. Quibell, Mr. Ramsbotham, Mr. de Rothschild, Colonel Sir Edward Ruggles-Brise, Lord William Scott, Sir Ernest Shepperson, Mr. Spens, Mr. Henderson Stewart, Mr. Turton, Mr. Scrymgeour Wedderburn, and Mr. E. J. Williams.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Navy (Supplementary Estimate, 1935)

Estimate presented, of the further Sum required to be voted for the Navy for the year ending 31st March, 1936 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

Army (Supplementary Estimate, 1935)

Estimate presented, of the further Sum required to be voted for the Army for the year ending 31st March, 1936 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

Army (Ordnance Factories) (Supplementary Estimate, 1935)

Estimate presented, of the further Sum required to be voted for the Army Ordnance Factories for the year ending 31st March, 1936 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

Air Services (Supplementary Estimates, 1935)

Estimate presented, of the further Sum required to be voted for Air Services for the year ending 31st March, 1936 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

State Maintenance Grants

3.50 p.m.

I beg to move,

Whatever may be said regarding advanced and higher education for a minority of our school children, it is desirable and essential that there should be a vast improvement in the quality and character of our elementary school education. I am hopeful that the House will take the view that, with any extension of the school-leaving age, it is necessary to provide maintenance grants in order to ensure a greater measure of equality among our children who remain at school, and to remove economic disabilities. I feel that I have behind me on this occasion the considered view and authority of all educationists and expert administrators, and a large measure of public opinion. Indeed, all my friends who sit behind me in this House, and others who did not succeed in finding a place here under the banner of Labour, are committed, not merely to the extension of the school-leaving age, but to the provision of maintenance grants.

I observe that this week the Association of Education Authorities passed a resolution, with but 16 dissentients out of 500 delegates, in favour of no exemptions and asking for the provision of maintenance grants. At the same time the President of the Board of Education has received a deputation from the Trades Union Congress, representative of 4,000,000 organised workers, who realise the necessity for maintenance grants. I think I am entitled to ask the House to hesitate before it throws on one side or flouts the opinion of these educational experts, and ignores the large volume of public opinion in the country, though I have to admit that the light hon. Gentleman may tell me that in the recent election this issue was included in the programme of the Government, and, judging from the representation in this House, the people gave him and his Government some mandate. At the same time, I am hopeful that, on a private Member's Motion of this character, the House will not merely listen to reason but will also help to shape a more generous policy in these matters.

It is upon broad, generous educational grounds, and also upon economic grounds, that I plead for the passing of this Motion. Throughout my public life, which has covered well over 30 years, including more than 20 years as a publicly elected representative, I have never complained of wealthier members of the community being able to send their children to school for longer periods, so that they might receive the advantages of higher education and university training; but I and many like me on these benches, and, indeed, in all parts of the House, have resented a system which compelled children to leave school at the early age of 14 because of the economic conditions, the low wage conditions, the poverty conditions, of their parents. I hope and believe that the provision of these grants will tend to remove some of the disability which children of the working class admittedly suffer as regards education; and their introduction would undoubtedly lead to the majority—in fact, all—of them remaining at school for another 12 months. While I am speaking of the wealthier members of the community, I would remind the House that in some measure we do give them, under our Income Tax law, in calculating their taxable income, an allowance with respect to children who remain at school, and I believe there is no limit so far as age is concerned. That in itself is something in the nature of a maintenance grant, and I see no reason why the House should not on this occasion pass a Motion which would implement the introduction of maintenance grants.

I do not think it will be denied that there is a great deal of poverty and distress in the country, that there are large masses of people—not merely people who are unemployed, but people in employment who receive particularly low wages —who as parents will hesitate to encourage their children to remain at school for another 12 months, in view of the alternative proposal as regards exemptions which, as I understand, holds the field at this moment. The absence of grants will render this great reform of raising the school-leaving age to 15 something of an educational futility. It will vitiate the application of the principle and neutralise the advantages that might reasonably accrue to the children on the one hand and to the State on the other. I am not alone in this view, for I see that a former President of the Board of Education, Mr. H. A. L. Fisher, recently stated that he did not expect any notable benefits to follow from the introduction of the Measure. The "Times" in its Supplement criticised the proposals severely, and said in effect that the ideal method was to let the children remain at school and to provide maintenance grants. Upon this matter I feel that I am in good company and that I have a large measure of support.

I welcome the support of the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), as I was about to refer to her. I gathered from a question that the Noble Lady put to the President of the Board of Education the other day that the figures he gave respecting exemptions at Plymouth, where the school-leaving age has been raised to 15, mightily disturbed her, and she invited the right hon. Gentleman to think twice, if not thrice, before he incorporated such a policy in his Bill. I am happy to find that even the Noble Lady is walking with me in some measure on this subject. I only hope she will have the courage to walk into the Division Lobby with me later in the evening.

I was saying that there is a great deal of poverty in the country. I wonder why it is thought necessary to sacrifice the education of children between 14 and 15 for some doubtful purpose of what is termed "beneficial employment," seeing that on 10th January of this year we had 1,699,003 men registered as unemployed. Surely industry is not so hard, surely with such a volume of unemployment, with well over 2,000,000 people unemployed, industry could get on without the employment of young children and could allow them to remain at school for a longer period, which of course they are not likely to do, and their parents are not likely to encourage, unless we provide some financial assistance to take the place of the money that the children might earn in industry. Upon this question of unemployment, I would remind the House that there is a tremendous amount of short-time working. Wage rates are not only low, but men's earnings are small because of the short-time work. I recall a statement made by Mr. J. A. Dale, of the Ministry of Labour, before the Royal Statistical Society on 19th December, 1933. Though that seems a long time ago the position is very much the same to-day and the conclusion that he then drew might well be drawn from our unemployment problem at the present time. He said: scope of Unemployment Insurance. Seven hundred thousand of them are men and boys. The average wage of agricultural labourers, I am told is 31s. 8½d. a week. It will not be suggested that those in this group have anything to spare. They would rather be encouraged, if opportunity presented itself, to remove their children from school under the exemption Clauses of the Bill. Thus we shall create and continue to create the divisions and the inequalities which already exist to the disadvantage to the children on the one hand and the State on the other.

Then, of course, the absence of maintenance grants will compel children to leave school because of the economic position, the low wages of their families. Many of these children will drift into blind-alley occupations and some no doubt will drift later into the ranks of the unemployable. In the absence of maintenance grants I do not see how the administrators of our education system are going to resist the pressure of parents on the one hand and that of industry on the other. I am informed that 100 per cent. of the children in Leeds who leave school at the age of 14 find employment, and that in Bradford the figure is 90 per cent. There is a decline in the school population. The remaining 10 per cent. will have no difficulty in finding employment. How does the Minister propose that the education authorities are to resist the pressure of parents on the one hand and employers on the other?

There will be great differentiation as between area and area. Children will be allowed to leave school, not on educational grounds but on occupational grounds, and that will be a grave mistake. We have to admit that many of the newer industries rely on cheap boy and girl labour. Education authorities will find it very difficult to resist the claims of employers, and where populations depend upon two or three industries great difficulties will arise. There will be discrimination and different policies in operation as between one area and another, as between the prosperous and the non-prosperous areas. State maintenance grants would make for uniformity in administration and would enable education directors to plan ahead a coherent policy. I understand it is proposed that children will be able to leave school, to find work and to go back to school. I ask the Minister whether that is a desirable thing, so far as the education of the children is concerned.

I would raise a point of Order for the guidance of the House. How far are we entitled to discuss the terms of a Bill the Second Reading of which is not to be moved until to-morrow? I ask that question only for the purpose of answering my hon. Friend who is moving this Motion.

I understood that the Motion had reference only to what is called State maintenance, and I do not think that that is mentioned in the Bill which is to come before the House to-morrow. In the circumstances the hon. Member should confine himself to the terms of the Motion which he is moving and not refer to the subject of the Bill.

The Prime Minister when challenged to give a second day for the discussion of the forthcoming Bill, reminded the House that it would be possible on the Motion which is now being moved to discuss everything in the Bill with reference to maintenance. Many of us took that as implying that a rather lenient attitude would be taken towards the relationship between the present Motion and the Bill which is to be moved to-morrow. Otherwise how could the discussion to-day take the place of a second day's discussion of the Bill?

I did not understand the Prime Minister to say that. I understood him to say that to-day's Motion would provide an occasion for the discussion of State maintenance grants.

I submit with all respect that the effect on the children of raising the school-leaving age is the reason why there should be State maintenance. It appears to me that if we try to separate the one thing from the other it will be almost impossible to discuss reasons for State maintenance.

I understand that there is a differentiation between what is called State maintenance and the maintenance grants which are paid to local authorities.

Apart from that point, surely there is reason to suppose that what has been raised by the hon. Member who is moving this Motion is not relevant to his own Motion and is out of order on that account?

Do I understand that it will be competent for us to discuss State grants, on to-morrow's Bill?

As I have said, there is a difference between State maintenance and Government grants. They are quite different things.

I am obliged, Mr. Speaker, for the advice you have offered, and I shall certainly conform to the Ruling that you have given. The Minister rose rather late to put his point of Order, and happily I had said already a great deal of what I wanted to say upon this question.

I will turn now to the cost of maintenance grants. There have been various speculations regarding the cost but Sir Charles Trevelyan, in the Bill that he introduced in 1930, proposed to give 5s. a week to 60 per cent. of the children affected at that time, and the total cost of the maintenance allowances would have been £3,750,000. I am speaking now purely of maintenance grants. I have worked out one or two other calculations based upon figures respecting the number of children estimated to leave school at the age of 14. On 31st March, 1936, it is estimated that 456,000 will leave at the age of 14 or over. To give these children 5s. a week would cost £5,928,000 per annum. On 31st March, 1939, it is estimated that 411,400 will leave school, and to give them 5s. a week would cost £5,348,200 per year. From then onwards the cost would be a falling one. There will be a declining number of children reaching the age of 14, and consequently there would be a fall in the cost. The estimated number of leavers on 31st March, 1945, it is estimated, will fall to 370,600. But we have to remember that there would be some savings. I understand that there would be savings in connection with evening schools and juvenile employment. When the Trevelyan Bill was introduced, the experts associated with the Labour party estimated that there would be a saving in unemployment benefit of £2,000,000 in 1936, declining to £1,700,000 in 1940. In addition, the payment of maintenance grants would lead to advantages of a moral and social character which would outweigh any financial considerations. I think we can well afford the figure of £5,348,200 a year or, if we only pay on the basis of 60 per cent. of the children, £3,750,000. I think it will be difficult for the President of the Board of Education to assert that we are not in a position to afford this cost. In the interests of the children themselves, and indeed of the State, and upon the grounds that I have addressed to the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.

4.20 p.m.

I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from "House," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:

I do not think that education need be a party question. I remember with pride in the history of my own party that every landmark in our educational advance—the Act of 1870, the Act of 1902, and the Act of 1918—was passed by a Conservative or Coalition Government, but, for all that, I know that at the present day those who are eager for educational advance are not to be found in the ranks of one party either inside or outside the House. While this is nominally in connection with education, I hope to show that the proposals involved in the Motion have very little indeed to do with it.

The first matter that I ask the House very carefully to consider is that the proposal to give State maintenance grants generally to those who are being compulsorily educated in the elementary schools is quite novel and unprecedented. A proposal which is novel and unprecedented is not therefore bad, and I shall certainly deal with the arguments which I apprehend have been, and can be, advanced in favour of the proposal, but it is a little important to recognise that it is unprecedented and new. We have had, since 1870, some 65 years of experience of educational reform in which several advances have been made, and at frequent intervals the minimum age at which exemptions from education could be given have been advanced. In 1893 it was raised to 11, in 1899 to 12, and in 1918 every exemption under 14 was abolished. On all those occasions there were those who were deprived by this reform of the ability to enter the labour market and to get wages, but on none of those occasions did Parliament in its wisdom see fit to grant maintenance allowances. With that long history behind us, I do not say in the least that hon. Members opposite are not entitled to advocate this reform if they can show good reasons for it, but, where it is so novel and unprecedented, I think the burden lies on them to put forward good reasons.

It is sometimes said outside that the proposal involved in this Motion is only some slight extension of the maintenance grant known to the eixsting law. That is a complete illusion. Grants for maintenance can be given under two sections of the Act of 1921, which replaced earlier statutory provisions. They can be given by local education authorities for elementary education under Section 24 and they can be given by local education authorities for higher education under Section 71. In the case of higher education the authorities, by scholarships and similar payments, can help students in secondary schools, but I would ask hon. Members to observe two things. First, the scholars so helped are chosen by examination and, secondly, during the period of compulsory education the parents receive no amount contributing to the family budget. All that they receive is an allowance to make up for the additional cost of the higher education compared with the education in the elementary schools. The practice as regards maintenance grants given for elementary education is that the Board of Education only recognises for grant such maintenance allowances as are provided in accordance with arrangements approved by the Board of Education and the Board's regulations, in order that there may be no possibility of any mistake. I will read one sentence from the Board's own circular to show the principle on which those maintenance grants are given:

What are the arguments by which the proposal contained in the hon. Member's Motion is defended? I am very anxious to state fairly, in a way with, which I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will be in agreement, the arguments that may be advanced in favour of their case. It seems to me that the proposal for general grants in respect of children compulsorily at school and enjoying education at the public expense must be defended, if at all, on one or more of three grounds. It may be urged that, by reason of their being compelled to stay at school, their parents incur some new expenditure to which it is right that the State should contribute. That is the first argument The second argument is that parents expect a child, on reaching the age of 14, to be able to enter employment and earn wages, thus contributing to the family income. By the action of the State they would be deprived of that possibility and as compensation for that deprivation the State should give grants to the parents. The third argument is that, although neither of the first two arguments may be right, the proposal is necessary on the grounds of the poverty of our people and the fact that hardship will be caused unless grants are given. I hope hon. Members opposite will agree that I have stated fairly the arguments by which their proposal can conceivably be defended.

Let me proceed to examine those arguments in turn. The argument that there will be some new expenditure need not detain me very long. It was not suggested in the speech to which I listened just now or in the Debates on the Trevelyan Bill, and it cannot be upheld. Parents are put to no new expenditure. The education was free and remains free. The argument that there will be a loss of wages is more important because it will constantly be raised, and is the normal argument put forward. Let me point out first that, to judge from the speech of the hon. Member and from the proposals in the Trevelyan Bill, it is suggested that the amount should be 5s. a week. If compensation is a right principle and one which ought to be recognised by this House, 5s. a week is wholly insufficient. That sum will not make up for the loss of wages. I hope the representatives of the Treasury will forgive me if I am supplying an argument for increased demands which has not yet occurred to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it is a fair test of the principle behind the demand to point out that if compensation be the principle, the sum proposed as compensation is inadequate. [An HON. MEMBER: "Put it up!"] I am very glad that I have the agreement of at least one hon. Gentleman opposite. I agree that if once the principle is recognised there is no logical ground whatever why the compensation should not be increased, and in that case there would be an irresistible demand for an increase.

But, apart from the inadequacy of the compensation proposed, what is the principle for which hon. Gentlemen opposite are asking? Education is given free. The raising of the school age and the consequent deprivation of employment will be passed by this House, if at all, because it is considered to be in the interests of the children that they should not be in employment but should be at school. Is it to be said, then, that the parents are to receive compensation for being deprived of the earnings of the child in employment when such employment is, on their own showing, contrary to the interests of the child? Some hon. Gentlemen opposite even take the view that no employment can be beneficial to children at the age of 14. There is sympathy for that view in a great many quarters. If that be the case, how can it be right that the parents should receive compensation because the child receives a benefit? I say that the proposal is not only not good sense—it is not even good socialism.

I come now to the most serious and most formidable argument, that of poverty. It is said that poverty is the cause of this Motion. I must admit that this is the one argument for which we can all feel sympathy and respect, because it touches a problem which we all know to be a real and true one. There is a problem of acute poverty and there are homes in which the loss of a shilling or a penny makes a difference. I am not going to minimise either in this speech or, I hope, in any speech I make, the severity of poverty, but I do ask hon. Members opposite to consider whether, if the problem be poverty, this is a right or even a plausible way of dealing with it. Let me, in passing, ask whether the Motion which has been brought forward is even intended to deal directly with poverty. The reason I ask that question is very simple. The hon.

Member who moved the Motion pointed out that some support had been lent to him by the Association of Education Authorities and by the National Union of Teachers. May I point out that both of these refer to necessitous children and that this Motion does not, nor does the Resolution of the Trade Union Congress. I should like to know from some subsequent speaker whether there is anything in the Motion which is being put forward to-day that constitutes a means test, and I believe there are also hon. Members opposite who would like an answer to that question. We should like to know whether there is to be a means test. If there is to be no means test, perhaps the Motion is not the most direct way of dealing with poverty.

There is, however, a shorter and more complete answer. The problem of poverty is one of the great problems on the solution or non-solution of which our civilisation will be judged. On the question of the cause of poverty and the cure of it, and possibly on the incidence of poverty, there may be grave differences between hon. Members on these benches and hon. Members opposite, but I believe that we can all agree that whatever the incidence of poverty may be, a family does not suddenly become poor at the precise moment when a child reaches the age of 14. I ask hon. Members opposite to deal with that point. If poverty is the object which they have in mind in this Motion, could more inappropriate, more clumsy and less accurate machinery be adopted? Which family is more likely to need relief by monetary payments—a family with five children under the age of 14, or a family with one child of that age? Yet by this Motion nothing would be given to the former and something would be given to the latter whatever might be the pecuniary position.

It may be that there are some hon. Members on the Conservative benches who have not too high an opinion of the constructive schemes of the Socialist party, but let me say that I do not believe there is a Member of His Majesty's Opposition who, if given the £5,000,000 or more involved in this proposal and told to use it for the relief of the poverty of parents of schoolchildren, would not produce a scheme infinitely better than that embodied in this grotesque Motion. If, therefore, there is no ground for this Motion on the footing of additional expense, if it cannot be defended as compensation for loss of earnings, if it is wholly inappropriate as a scheme for meeting the great problem of poverty, some of us may be driven to the suspicion that none of those things is the true reason for the bringing forward of this proposal.

I venture to suggest that what really lies behind the proposal is the fear that perhaps the raising of the school age is not popular in the country, and the thought that perhaps the pill of the extra year will have to be coated with the jam of a monetary payment. In my view it is possible to pay both too little and too much attention to the question whether any particular measure is popular. We pay too little attention to it if we make the mistake that some educationists are inclined to make of regarding the wishes of parents as something that may be ignored and ridden over roughshod; but we pay too much attention to questions of popularity if we ever forget that it is the duty of this House courageously to lead, and not to follow, public opinion.

In conclusion, may I give my own declaration of faith on this great question of education. I believe that in the long run the popularity or otherwise of an educational reform will not be determined by the exact words of the Statute and by the machinery of the local administration, vitally important though those things are. The question whether a great educational advance is popular will be determined in the long run by the quality and the worth of the education which is given to the children throughout the period they are at school. If that education is not worthy of the nation, no monetary grants will make it popular with the parents, but if the education given is worthy of our people, and worthy of the promise and intelligence of the nation's children and the devotion and great traditions of its teachers, I believe the parents in this country will welcome something which they recognise to be for the benefit of their children. I believe that the scheme advocated in this Motion is erroneous, contrary to principle, injurious to education, and against the interests of the State. I commend the Amendment to the House.

4.45 p.m.

I beg to second the Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss) and of myself. May I first pay the tribute which is ordinarily given to Members who have made their maiden speech; but in this particular case I feel that I can do it most sincerely and heartily. My hon. Friend moved his Amendment in terms of modest assurance which delighted, but which did not surprise his friends, and I feel that he made such an admirable case that hon. Members opposite, though they may not agree with him on all points, cannot have failed to be impressed by the cogency of the arguments which he brought forward. The House in general must feel as I do, that my hon. Friend has started in such a brilliant fashion that he will ere long be making his speeches from a position in the House very much nearer to the Treasury Box than he is at the present time.

The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Short) moved the Motion in terms to which no Member on this side of the House could take exception. His whole speech was temperate and moderate, but in moving his Motion he was studiously vague. For instance, he did not say how far the allowances were to go, what allowances he recommended and what the age limit, if any, was to be. I should like to know before we go very much further, either from the hon. Member or some speaker on that side of the House, whether he intends his Motion to apply maintenance grants to all children over the age of 14 or only to necessitous children. [An HON. MEMBER: "All children?"] My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich tried to elicit that from him but naturally, quite courteously, he would not reply in the middle of a maiden speech, but I shall be very grateful if he would do so either now or perhaps a little later. It may be that the hon. Member prefers to remain vague, and if so we can very well understand it. It may also be that these maintenance grants are intended to be used and to be given on the basis of the proposals of Sir Charles Trevelyan which so happily failed to secure the approval of Parliament.

The present situation, as all the House know, is that maintenance allowances may be, and generally are, given for children who are receiving higher education at secondary schools, and also at the central schools as far as elementary education is concerned. About 50 authorities give these maintenance allowances to children also at elementary schools if the parents agree to allow the children to stay on for the full year. But that is not general, and the total number of children who receive such allowances is some 9,000 over the whole country. I do not think that that carries out in any way, or can be taken as a precedent for, the general scheme of maintenance grants advocated by the hon. Member who moved the Motion. They are more in the nature of scholarship grants in deserving cases. Ten authorities only give allowances from the age of 12 to 14 years, but in this case no grants from the Board of Education are given.

It is interesting to note what happens in other countries. In certain countries the school-leaving limit has been raised to the age of 15 or over. In the case of six provinces of Canada and four of South Africa, and in the case of 10 cantons of Switzerland where they are very advanced in education, and where the age limit is 15 years or upwards, no maintenance allowances are paid at all. This, as far as I can get information, is the general rule in other countries. In the United States, in one or two cases, notably Michigan, allowances are paid, but they are paid for very specific reasons, because of the extreme poverty of their parents who would otherwise be absolutely obliged to take their children away from school. I agree that it is not necessary in the least to follow the example one way or the other of other countries, but I have mentioned what other countries are doing, because I believe that it may at least be some guidance to us in this country. According to the Motion on the Order Paper the hon. Member for Doncaster advocates giving allowances only to children of the ages of 14–15. I understand that he would not give these allowances to children from the age of 6 to 14, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich has pointed out, this would be extremely inequitable. Why should a man, he said, with seven children all under the age of 14, with a very much heavier burden, get no allowance, whereas the man with one child over 14 would get the allow- ance? The hon. Member who moved the Motion claimed that this would be more equitable, but surely the example which my hon. Friend gave shows that such a proposal would be clearly grossly inequitable. He said that it would remove disability, but again I cannot see how in that respect he made out a case.

There is a further point—it may be a minor one—that if allowances were given under the Trevelyan scheme they would amount to some £13 a year, and the average rate of junior awards in secondary schools is only £6 14s. a year. Would there not, therefore, be a temptation among certain parents, in order to get the higher allowances, to keep their children at the elementary school rather than send them for further education at the secondary school? Some hon. Member might possibly claim that the secondary school allowances begin at 11, but, nevertheless, there are a number of authorities at the present time who only grant the allowances from the age of 14. No reference has been made to the cost, except that which the hon. Member for Doncaster mentioned based on the Trevelyan scheme. I think he got the estimate out of the Act, and he admitted that it would amount in 1935–36 to some £5,500,000. He took into consideration certain alleged savings that were calculated by people whom he declared to be Labour experts. We have no method whatever of checking those figures. He gave the figure of £2,000,000 as savings, and it would be very interesting to know how that figure is made up. I know that hon. Members opposite are not very interested in the expenditure of money. They seem to advocate on many occasions, as we all know in this House, the expenditure of considerable sums—vast sums sometimes—in various directions, but they do not seem generally to count the cost. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the subsidy to tramp shipping?"] I was hoping that hon. Members opposite would refer to expenditure on armaments. The primary duty of any Government is the defence of its population and it will be small satisfaction to any parents who are getting perhaps maintenance allowances for their children in the schools if bombs are dropped through the roof by hostile raiding aircraft or if their food supplies are cut off in time of war.

The hon. Member for Doncaster also referred to the question of the effect on unemployment, and I congratulate him on the extraordinary ingenuity with which during this part of his speech he contrived to keep in order. As I am probably not so ingenious or such an old hand as he is, I shall be very careful not to refer to exemptions. There are two extreme schools of thought with regard to education in this country. There are the obscurantists who seem to maintain that the only thing about education that is important is, that the less of it there is the better. There is the other extreme school—the extreme educationists—who seem to go on the Albert and the Lions theory and look upon the main function of matrimony as being to produce as many children as possible every year for them to educate. The average opinion is very much in between those two. On this side of the House we are at least as interested in the proper education of the children as are hon. Members opposite, but we believe that steps forward should be taken with every care and consideration in view of the principles involved. We believe that the case has not yet been made out by the hon. Member for Doncaster who moved the Motion, or by hon. Members opposite in the past, for the indiscriminate—and that is what it amounts to—granting of maintenance allowances to all children of from 14–15. It is, therefore, for those reasons that I beg to second the Amendment moved so admirably by my hon. Friend, and I hope that hon. Members on this side of the House at least will go into the Lobby and support the Amendment against the Motion.

4.58 p.m.

I support the Motion and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Short) upon taking this opportunity to bring forward this subject. The question of maintenance grants has been thought about, argued and discussed for a considerable number of years, and it has met with a very great deal of support irrespective of political opinion. I should also like to congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss) on his maiden speech in moving the Amendment. It was typical rather of the Oxford atmosphere and the Oxford Debating Society, but I hope that, at any rate, we may hear him on some future occasion. The speech, which, apparently, is to form the basis of the opposition to the Motion, calls for some answer, though the Amendment is not very happily worded. It contains the very essence of snobbery. If it lays down anything, it suggests that while maintenance grants under certain conditions may be a very good thing for secondary schools and secondary school scholars, they are in themselves bad for elementary school children or the parents of elementary school children. I think the House will agree that on the question of education equal facilities should be given to all children. The hon. Member for Norwich said that he would have had good cause for regret had he left school at the age of 14 and had his education ceased then. I am one of those who in 1889 was compelled to leave school at the age of 12 years and 6 months. The sole reason why I was compelled to leave school and was unable to receive the kind of education which the hon. and learned Member received, was simply due to economic circumstances and the poverty of my parents. We must endeavour in this age and at this time to do something to remove that sort of thing.

The Amendment seems to be the official point of view of the Board of Education, because the Barrow Education Authority having raised the ago of obligation to attend school from 14 to 15 years of age have been informed by the Board that any scheme to provide maintenance grants in respect of children at school after 14 years will not be recognised for grant. This points to the fact that, notwithstanding the expressed intention of Parliament, the Board is determined that no child who is or who may be hereafter put under an obligation to attend school beyond 14 shall receive the benefit of a maintenance grant so long as that child continues to attend a public elementary school; but maintenance grants for children in attendance at secondary schools even if they are under the age of obligation to attend school are recognised for grant purposes. Why this class distinction, if it be class distinction? Why the argument that maintenance grants are a very bad thing for parents if their children attend elementary schools but a good thing if their children go to secondary schools?

The hon. Member for Norwich talked about the proposal in the Motion being novel; he even used the word "revolu- tionary." This is a very mild sort of revolution. Surely, it is not necessary to use words such as "revolutionary" to describe a proposal of this kind. The principle of State maintenance grants has been recognised and on the Statute Book ever since 1921, at any rate. There is a case to be made out for State maintenance grants if the school-leaving age ever rises above 14 or if children are to be kept at school over 14. The hon. Member took the line that if the education is for the benefit of the child the parents should receive no remuneration for the extra year which it might occupy in its education. I am inclined to think that the hon. Member has no conception of the sort of life that ordinary working men and women, with families, live. In my constituency there are married men with five, six and even more children who when they are in regular work receive 35s. a week. Some receive even less. A wage of 37s. 6d. is supposed to represent a decent job. With all due respect to the hon. Member he has no idea about the condition of such a home and the struggle for life, for bread and existence which goes on day after day, week after week and year after year. Many a father and mother in those homes would be only too willing, and are prepared to sacrifice so that their children may receive a little better education than they themselves had, but it is a matter of economics and cannot be done.

The hon. Member asked why it should cost more to keep a boy of 14 than a child under 14. He must recognise that at 14 a boy or a girl is approaching a critical age and requires more food, better clothes and more looking after. The expenditure goes up. It seems to me that the hon. Member has not given sufficient consideration to his point and that he hardly realises the struggle that goes on in working-class homes every week and every day. There is a case for maintenance grants for all children and I see no reason why we should apply the means test in this connection. The ordinary working man with a comparatively small wage and with periods of unemployment is placed in a position in which he and his wife have a hard struggle. I think the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) said something in a sneering way about large families. He mentioned the possibility of their being large families and more children year after year.

The hon. Member is misinterpreting me. My reference to large families was that some extreme educationists appear to think that the main function of matrimony is to produce a large number of children for them to educate.

With all due respect to the hon. Member, I think that was a definite sneer at decent people. A falling birth rate is not desirable.

Does the hon. Member apply that statement to the teaching profession generally?

I am applying it to the extreme educationists. There are a number of people in this country who seem to take up the attitude that the thing that matters is their interest in education, and they are prepared to ignore the wishes of the parents and everything else, provided that their views are put through.

Can the hon. Member put his hand on any declaration by any competent education authority that discloses such a policy as that?

It has been argued that it is not altogether in the interest of the country that the family should only consist of one or two children. The married man who has four, five or even six children has some claim upon the State. It must be recognised that he is making a contribution. It is absolutely necessary that the House should remember that democracy is a very great tradition in this country. It is a thing that we stand for and that most of us swear by, and it is vital in the interests of the country that we should do everything we can to see that we have an educated democracy. The hon. Member referred to the fact that the proposal in the Motion would mean an expenditure of £5,500,000, and he suggested that hon. Members on this side take no notice of figures of expenditure. I would reply that of all the money which is voted in this House the money voted for education, if properly administered—

Yes, I have a right to say that. If properly administered, such money gives the best possible return to the nation. In the Motion we endeavour to lay down a principle. We do not endeavour to lay down the details. The Motion asks the House to subscribe to the principle that provision should be made for State maintenance grants in respect of children remaining at school after the present school-leaving age. Children leave school at the age of 14 to-day and in many cases, due to the economic circumstances of their parents, they are sent into the labour market as soon as possible, where they are swallowed up in the complicated methods of modern industry, and put on to machines. Would it not be far better if the House spent a little money and gave these children a 12 months breathing time? Would that not make for a better race? What sort of wages do these children get? One of the arguments adduced against the Motion was that if the allowance was 5s. a week it would be insufficient. The hon. Member who used that argument knows very little about the wages paid to boys and girls of 14 years of age. In my constituency they travel seven or eight miles morning and evening to and from their work and receive 10s. or 11s. a week. Twelve shillings a week is rather big money. A considerable part of the wage is swallowed up in travelling expenses and in extra food. In 99 cases out of 100 an allowance of 5s. would be a heplful compensation to parents for the extra year that the child might be kept at school. Such a provision is absolutely necessary. If it is desirable in the interests of the nation, and I think it is, that we should give our children as good an education as possible and encourage the parents to keep them at school as long as possible, some provision of this kind is necessary.

I am not concerned about the popularity or unpopularity of the Motion. That is rather a cheap suggestion to be thrown about from either side of the House. I prefer to believe that hon. and right hon. Members come here prepared to do the right thing and to stand by it. It is almost impossible to hope that any material benefit will be brought to children now attending elementary schools without some maintenance grant being made. Hon. Members scarcely realise the small margin there is even in the best working-class homes where wages are regular. The number of working men who are able to draw 52 weeks wages in a year is small indeed on account of broken employment and short time, and in my view it is the woman inside the home who is going to be the dominating voice in this controversy—the woman who has to think how the few shillings are to last until her husband brings home a bit more money. I know the conditions. I was brought up in a working-class home. I have seen my father put 17s. on the table as his week's wage and my mother cry because she did not know how she was going to keep house and keep her children respectable on it.

What is the good of saying to parents that they should keep their child at school for another year? It cannot be done. The poverty argument dominates the question; it is the crux of the whole matter. Hon. Members have expressed sympathy towards education and towards those people who are on the verge of poverty. But sympathy is not enough; you must have something practical as well if you really believe in better education for the children or want to do something to lift the people above the poverty line. I hope the House will pass the Motion. The Minister in all probability will be against it, but even Presidents of the Board of Education can possibly learn something sometimes. It is possible to put a point of view which may even convert a Minister; miracles do happen. On this matter the House, I think, may very well be allowed a free vote. But whether the House agrees with the principle of maintenance grants or not the day is surely coming when some House of Commons will agree. All who want to see better education, all who have felt the lack of a good education, like myself, will agree with the Motion. We want to do something to pass on the possibility of a good education to the children of the coming generation, and I appeal to hon. Members to help us, because without maintenance grants we cannot accomplish those things we want to accomplish for our children in he matter of education.

5.20 p.m.

I cannot say that I am enamoured of the precise wording of the Motion. It is a pity that it is confined strictly to State maintenance grants, ruling out the possibility that they may be paid partly by the State and partly out of rates. That is a form of maintenance grant which is more within the scope of practical politics at the moment. But the main purpose of the Motion is to affirm a principle regarding a matter which is much in our minds at the moment in view of to-morrow's Debate, whether it is possible to have a satisfactory scheme for raising the school age unless it is coupled with a system of maintenance grants. In affirming that principle I am in entire agreement with the Motion. It is not possible; and to show that it is not possible we have only to consider the alternative taken by the Government themselves in the proposals we shall discuss to-morrow. The Government are proposing to raise the school age, and to make it possible they propose to permit exemption for any child who can show that he has got beneficial employment and to parents who want the child at home because of the hardship it would be to them not to have the child's services.

It is plain to anybody who sat during the last Parliament and heard the long series of discussions on Education Bills and maintenance grants that nothing would have brought the present Government to the stage of introducing a proposal for granting exemptions but their desire to escape maintenance grants and their cost. To-morrow we shall see a curious spectacle—rather like that of a serpent trying to swallow its own tail. We shall see a Government which little more than two years ago denounced the Measure brought forward by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris)—a measure almost exactly on the lines of the measure they are proposing to-morrow—because of the exemptions he proposed to allow, which they said were open to insuperable administrative difficulties. What has converted the Government within two years and led them to introduce their Bill of to-morrow?

I do not want to curtail the Debate unduly, but I must point out that the hon. Lady is now really going beyond the scope of the Resolution.

I obey your Ruling at once, but I do not see how one can defend the proposition that you cannot have a satisfactory raising of the school age without maintenance grants unless one can consider the alternative, and the alternative, on the Government's own showing, is exemptions. It is clear that the Government do not want maintenance grants because they are going to cost too much. The only other alternative is a policy of exemptions. They have been converted by the right hon. Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), who has always been rather a believer in the policy of exemptions, but, at the same time, it is clear that the Government would not have given such a ready ear to his plea but for their desire to save money. In a few weeks we shall be discussing enormous increases in the Defence services. If the newspapers are correct they will amount to £250,000,000 or £300,000,000, and it is clear that the Government with that expenditure in mind want to save every penny they can. Granting that the Government are determined not to pay maintenance grants they are perfectly right not to have any compulsory raising of the school age.

Let me point out precisely what it would mean if we were to raise the school age for all children without maintenance grants. The hon. Member who made such an interesting maiden speech, to which we all listened with sympathy even if we disagreed, as I did, with nearly every word he said, made this perfectly amazing statement, that, after all, to oblige a parent to keep his child a year extra at school did not impose any additional liability on the parent because education was given free. Do children live on books? Do they sleep in school? Do not they have to be fed and clothed? Do these things cost nothing? I wonder whether the hon. Member realises what it costs to keep a child between 14 and 16 years of age at school. We have had many scientific inquiries into this subject and I propose to give an estimate, not the estimate of wild Members of the party opposite, but of the British Medical Association for food and also of a very eminent economist, Dr. Bowley, for other things. The figures are 5s. 6d. per week for food—just as much as it costs to keep an adult—Is. 6d. for clothing and Is. for fuel and cleaning and everything else, Nothing for rent, although the adolescent child is at an age when it is often most necessary that the family should be able to move into a bigger house. Does all that mean nothing? It is not a penny less than 8s. per week, and the very modest demand of the Mover of the Motion is for a grant of 5s. It would still leave the father with 3s. per week to find, if the child is to continue to live in healthy physical conditions. I do not pretend that all children now at school from 5 to 14 years old are getting that standard of existence which scientific people consider is essential for physical health. Lots of them are not because their parents cannot afford it.

I commend to the two hon. Members opposite, who perhaps have had more training in book learning than in the book of real life, the very interesting study in human life which will be found in the report of the social survey of the four big boroughs which compose Merseyside carried out by the University of Liverpool. They examined the income and expenditure of nearly 7,000 families of the working class population on Merseyside and found this curious fact, that in that area by far the greatest cause of poverty—second to unemployment—was the burden of dependancy during the years when the child could not earn. They found that of those 7,000 families only 16 per cent. were living actually in primary poverty, below the level of bare subsistence. No less than 25 per cent. of the children were living in these conditions. Poverty weighs most heavily on the parents during the period of child dependency. Am I to be told that this 8s. extra per week on a working class household is a burden which can be fairly-placed upon it? If you take 500,000 as the extra school population due to raising the school age, it would mean an expenditure of about £10,500,000 per annum. Can the parents bear that additional expenditure? The Government are not going to bear it.

The Government have adopted another expedient. That is the expedient of exemptions which I know I must not discuss at this point. But I think I might be allowed, in relation to the question of maintenance allowances, to consider what is going to happen to the children who cannot accept the alternative of exemption because they are unable to prove that they can get beneficial employment. These will be the children of the poorer people. Employers who want employés among the young will, naturally, select the well-grown, well-fed, well-clad children. It is the children of the poor who, in the words of the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, when he was condemning the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green, will be:

I wish to draw attention to an aspect of the question which may appeal to some hon. Members who otherwise would turn deaf ears to the sort of case that I am submitting. I have heard many discussions in this House on maintenance grants from the point of view of education and of humanitarianisim and in relation to the needs of the individual child and the individual parent. But I do not think I have ever heard the subject discussed in relation to its bearing on the welfare of the community and with regard to its effect on a declining birth rate and a shrinking population and the future of the British race. My Noble Friend the Minister without Portfolio smiles. Does he, of all people, deny the relevancy of that question to the question of maintenance allowances? If he takes the long view, and the Noble Lord is good at taking long views, can he deny the relevancy between the question of whether you are going to put an extra burden of 8s. a week on the parents for the maintenance of the children during an extra year at school and the fact of a shrinking birthrate, which already has shrunk so far that Great Britain has the lowest birth rate of any country in Europe, except Austria and Sweden, and nearly the lowest of any country in the civilised world? One reliable statitician has calculated that if the birth rate continues to fall as may be anticipated according to the experience of the last 10 years, there will be a slight rise in population for three or four years and then it will begin to go down, until, in 50 years, the population of Great Britain will have declined to 26,000,000, in 75 years to 12,000,000 and in a century to under 4,500,000. [ Laughter. ] Hon. Members may laugh but that is a calculation from the figures of the last 10 years.

These are figures which have been brought forward by Dr. Enid Charles, using the method of Dr. Kuczuski, and I have consulted several well-known population experts as to whether the method employed in arriving at them is reliable and whether the figures themselves are reliable and I am told that they are. They are not, of course, prophecies.

Is it not the case that the hon. Lady is only giving the estimate which was made by Dr. Charles, and that it is the most pessimistic of three estimates?

That is true and I would have given the other estimates but I did not wish to detain the House too long. I took the estimate based on the hppothesis that the birth rate continues to fall, as may be anticipated from the fall which has taken place during the past decade. It may be an exaggerated estimate. But even taking the hypothesis that the birth rate remains at the level of 1933, while I have not the actual figures I understand that that means a very heavy fall. Take the calculation of Professor Carr-Saunders, one of the most conservative of population experts. He estimates that even now this country's birth rate is between 25 per cent. and 33 per cent. below replacement level. We need not quarrel about which estimate we prefer. I am sure that the Minister would admit that population experts everywhere are beginning to be seriously alarmed at the extent of the decline in the birth rate. Is it not the fact that in other European countries, where the fall in the rate is not so steep as it is here, steps are being taken to check it. Do not the most recent figures from Germany show that those steps are having considerale success in that country? In this morning's paper there is a paragraph showing that in Italy among other measures in this direction II Duce has taken the characteristic action of offering a money grant to every father of a large family and a medal only to the mother.

While nobody would venture to prophesy that these tremendous falls which I have indicated are necessarily going to happen, there is going to be a fall unless something is done about it. What is the reason for this tendency? I think most experts would agree that by far the greater reason is the fact that as Professor Carr-Saunders writes:

Is the hon. Member not aware of the fact that the poverty of a home is where there are no children and that it is the tragedy in the lives of the people in many homes when they face their declining years?

To go into that subject would lead me rather too far away from this Motion. The point I want to make is this. I know that whatever may be said as an answer ad hominem on this particular discussion—

Why not? Homo means "human being" and I did not say ad virum. I know that some Members of the Government realise that they have to sit up and take notice of the declining birth rate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer alluded to the subject when he was introducing some increases in the allowances given to taxpayers in respect of children. Those allowances were some relief to the taxpayers but did not cover the class of people who would be covered by maintenance allowances. There are only two Ministers on the Front Bench at present but I suggest that there is no Minister in the Cabinet who ought not to be thinking seriously of this problem and considering its implications. The Minister of Agriculture, the Secretary for Mines, the President of the Board of Trade come here almost every day with fresh schemes for checking the glut of those very commodities, milk, meat, coal and textiles, on which maintenance allowances would be spent. The subject is also of interest to the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Secretary of State for the Dominions—whom we shall all be glad to welcome back on personal grounds whatever we may feel on other grounds. What do they think about the uninhabited spaces of the Empire in relation to this problem? Are future administrators and colonists to be recruited from families of only sons and only daughters? What of the Ministers for the three defence services?

I think the hon. Lady is now going too far from the terms of the Motion.

I only wish to make this point. We can spend millions on rearmament in two or three years but it takes 20 years to bring a child to maturity. Are arms the only things that matter? Is man-power nothing? Hon. Members may think that these are big issues to raise on a simple Motion concerning maintenance grants but I submit that they are relevant and I repeat that the one weak point about the Motion is that it does not go far enough. I would like to see a Motion asking for maintenance grants for the whole of the years of dependence and childhood. I would not say that they should be paid entirely by the State. Sooner or later we shall have to come to that unless the country is prepared to face something very like race suicide. We have to look at the grim facts which are staring us in the face from across the Rhine, in Italy, and in the Near East. We will have to face a much more substantial contribution by the State than is involved in this Motion, towards the cost of recruiting future generations. I shall vote for the Motion though I do not altogether like it and I shall vote for the Bill to-morrow though I like it still less, because I believe that we have to take every instalment we can get and press on for more.

5.44 p.m.

I shall follow the example of my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) and vote for the Motion to-night and for the Bill tomorrow, but I could not quite understand the full relevance of the birth-rate question on which she enlarged at some length. However, as she has raised it, may I be allowed to ask her whether she is quite sure that any real or hypothetical shrinkage of the population is necessarily such a calamity? The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) said the father of a large family was making a contribution. Certainly he is, but a contribution to what? To the total population of the country; and the hon. Member is a bold man if he says that every father of a large family is, thereby, inevitably contributing to the sums of human happiness and human security. Many hon. Members have referred to the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss). I feel that I must be in the fashion by alluding to it myself. I have never heard a more magnetic or stimulating maiden speech, and I can assure him that it was the very excellence of his speech which evoked so much criticism and such numerous retorts.

Will the House allow me for five or six minutes more to explain why I am going to support this Motion? Without giving any pledge at the last election, I said that I would be inclined to support maintenance grants without any means test. I do not agree with the giving of pledges at election time, as I believe they both dishonour democracy and make future trouble certain for one's self; but to-night I intend to be not only as good as but better than my word; I intend to support maintenance allowances. This indeed may be the last chance of debating them in any detail, as I understand it is possible that on the Committee stage of the Bill which we are to discuss to-morrow any Amendment to include maintenance grants may conceivably be ruled out of order.

I wish to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick). I do not know in what category of educationalists he would include myself, but I tell the House frankly that my own view is that all of us could do with more education. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad to have said something at long last which has evoked general agreement in this honourable House. I am not concerned so much with the popularity of this Motion as with the popularity of education itself, and when we are enlarging the basis of equality of opportunity—and surely all social progress must inevitably take that direction—we ought, I think, to take care at the same time that we reconcile the public to that enlargement. It is true that the triangle of hostility that used to prevail between the parent, the schoolteacher, and the child has now been, as it were, smoothed out into a fairly harmonious circle. The parent of the school-child to-day no longer regards himself or herself as the automatic shield against the ruthless assaults of the school teacher, and individual parents and school teachers have a relationship rather of partnership than of natural hostility.

But while on the one hand I believe parents at large have been reconciled to the instructional aspect of education— complete, general, full, free education—I believe they still have to be reconciled to the economic aspect of any enlargement of its basis. One of the results of maintenance grants would certainly be to shorten the queue for those exemptions about which many of us are very doubtful; otherwise, by a paradox, if you have no maintenance allowances, you will be discriminating between the prosperous and the depressed areas, in favour, by a paradox again, of the depressed areas. In the more prosperous areas there is little or no juvenile unemployment. That is so in Leeds, the city which I have the honour to represent, where there are only a few score unemployed children, who have just come on to the labour market. "Beneficial employment," whatever precisely may be the definition of that controversial term, is very easy to find for such children. I am told by people who have been there and studied the problem locally that "beneficial employment" for children is almost impossible to find in such areas as South Wales, and maintenance allowances would be, for the more prosperous areas, a proper encouragement to let the child stay at school. Otherwise, by the paradox which I mentioned just now, you will find in 10 or 15 years' time South Wales better equipped for the purposes of citizenship than the Midlands and the industrial North, where the depression has not been fully felt, and future adults in those areas which are depressed to-day will be able better to discharge the duties of citizenship.

I wish we could discuss how we equip children in school for those duties of citizenship which they will later have to discharge. We discuss at great length, from Debate to Debate in this honourable House, the machinery of education, but we seldom mention here what is or should be taught. We seldom discuss, for example, on the Floor of this House domestic science in the education of girls or the position of civics in the training of the young of both sexes. We discuss the relation of the national expenditure to education, and we forget that we ought also to consider the purely cultural aspect of education as distinct from the vocational.

My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich touched the heart of the question when he adduced three possible reasons for which this Motion might be supported. The third reason he gave is the vital one, namely, the question of poverty, and I would stress and underline what my hon. Friend said, and repeat that for too many poor families it is a, serious matter when the child's capacity for earning is postponed for no less than a year. We have heard it said to-day that there is plenty of money available for other purposes, and many arguments of that kind no doubt will be adduced inside and outside this House. I have no doubt further that those purposes will be given some spurious electoral value. Those other purposes may be less desirable, but they have, I think, become just as necessary.

However, I submit this consideration to the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth, who sought, I think legitimately, to answer the argument about expenditure on armaments. If indefinite resources are rightly to be made available to deter the Germans from destroying our children by giving us an overwhelming power to destroy theirs, can we not spend a little more on a purpose more immediate, more constructive, and more certain to yield a result?

5.52 p.m.

I rise to support the Motion, and I should like to be associated with those who have congratulated the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss) on his able maiden speech. If I may say so, however, it seemed to me to be more marked by academic distinction than by nearness to the real problem which we are discussing. I was encouraged by his suggestion that this question of education might be made a non-party question. I think that we on this side of the House might go further than that and say that we should be very glad if the whole of our programme was made a non-party question, in which case we should only have to discuss the details of the programme concerned. I am rather inclined to that opinion, because yesterday I thought hon. Members opposite were rather acclaiming a victory for the National Government. It seems to me that there could be no better achievement for the National Government than the raising of the school-leaving age with adequate maintenance allowances. It certainly is not for us on these benches to adumbrate a fresh policy for the party opposite or to indicate what would be a really worthy programme of national government, but I cannot imagine anything more worthy or national and patriotic in the highest sense than raising the standard of child life and culture in this country. What better could there be, for instance, than to take half a million out of the employment market and to give tens of thousands a good start in life physically, setting their feet firmly upon a way of life with well trained hands and minds?

We all agree that these things are desirable, and evidence of that is to be found in the fact that, in so far as we are able, we seek to give all these things to our own. What we have to appreciate is that those things are not possible for all in the absence of the assistance that is suggested in this Motion. It seemed to me a rather strange and impossible notion that an addition to the school life involved no extra cost upon the parent. It seemed to me necessarily to increase the length of time during which the parents would have that liability, and, as the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) suggested, that increased time at school is also a period of increased financial liability. In any event, whether this is called compensation or whatever term may be applied to it, in Yorkshire we should say it represents "brass" in order to find necessities and to keep these children clothed and otherwise equipped.

If this additional school period is really to become effective, obviously it must be assisted, and if the number of exemptions are to follow in proportion to the number of people who cannot keep their children at school in the absence of this provision, educational administration is likely to become a farce. The existing scheme without this assistance will present a problem not only for parents but for educational administrators that will be absolutely insuperable. We must have, if we are to have a healthy race, some sort of social standard of health instruction and general well-being, and the standard is only made possible where some assistance of this kind is forthcoming. Then again it seems to me to be a question of either encouraging or discouraging parents in this connection. I think there was a Gresham law with regard to money which told us that bad money was driving out good, and I think that in this and all other social connections we should see that that law is not able to operate but that, on the other hand, we encourage in every possible way parents and other people to set up desirable social standards rather than give the advantage to those who desire to debate them.

Without assistance of this kind, sheer economic necessity will compel parents to find employment for their children, and beneficial employment will necessarily and inevitably become employment that adds to the family income. Incidentally, it will be beneficial to employers who are able to secure an army of cheap juvenile productive units, but I do not think that that will be of any ultimate advantage to the State. We have to recognise that unemployment in this connection is not juvenile, because in most of our big cities to-day there is very little, if any, juvenile unemployment. So far as Leeds is concerned, out of 29,000 children between 14 and 18 years of age, only 309 are out of work at present, and 95 of those are only temporarily unemployed. One learns from other statistics that in Cornwall 90 per cent., in Bath 92 per cent., and in Chesterfield 92 per cent. of children left before they were 15 in 1934–5. We are all aware of the pressure that is brought to bear upon members of education committees from parents to secure exemption before their children reach 14 years of age, and in the absence of legislative control and of some lengthy period of assistance, a large number of children would get no education at all.

If we agree that extended education is desirable, some assistance of this kind is self-evident. The practice of self-sacrifice and self-help is in itself a desirable thing, but you are going to penalise the parents who are willing to make sacrifices and who have a right attitude of mind in this matter. Indeed, the argument is presented that parents who make sacrifices and send their children to secondary schools complain that other youngsters get the jobs and that there is no room for their children at a later day to find places in the world of employment. Reference again was made to the quality of education, and undoubtedly it is related to this problem.

I think that the hon. Gentleman is getting perilously near to anticipating to-morrow's Debate.

I would point Out that Section 24 of the Act of 1921, dealing with the conditions of allowances, makes reference to a definite period of suitable education in an organised and progressive course of instruction. In the absence of any kind of financial assistance to the parents, obviously the children would not be able to maintain complete and regular class work, which would make the value of the education much less and create chaos and difficulty in the class rooms. There is objection and criticism from some parents—and it was particularly the case years ago—that the later months, and in some cases the later years, of education were rather wasted because the children were not applied to useful forms of instruction. This financial assistance is necessary if we agree that any extended education is desirable. In many instances there would be very little additional cost to the authorities for school accommodation to meet the increased numbers who could remain at school if this assistance were given. The declining birth rate and the reduced school population provide that accommodation at the present time, and any increase in the numbers remaining at school would not place much additional liability upon the authorities. I am not suggesting that there is not a real necessity for much better school premises—

I must point out to the hon. Member that this Motion deals solely with State maintenance. He is now delivering a speech which is more suitable for to-morrow.

I was endeavouring to make the point that, in any event, with this proposed assistance to the parents, the additional numbers remaining at school would not place any particularly heavy responsibility upon the authorities for accommodation. The most experienced and even conservative educational administrators are in favour of this proposal, inasmuch as it does provide in a real and effective way for additional school life in the interests of the children. The future of the children demands it, and this country, too, needs the benefits which it would bring about.

6.5 p.m.

I have listened to all this Debate and have found, in spite of the notable speeches we have had, and particularly the maiden speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite, an element of unreality in the issue we are discussing. We all really want to be talking about something rather different, but we have been quite wisely and rightly limited to a particular issue. The Mover and Seconder of the Motion made it clear that they were advocating a system under which, with regard to this element alone in education, namely, the maintenance of children, the whole provision should be provided by the State. Those who, like myself, are accustomed to handle almost daily, as chairman of education committees, the question of this, that or the other contribution by the State, varying from 20 per cent. in some cases to 60 per cent. in others, find it rather difficult to contemplate there being one essential alone among all the things, like transport, premises and teachers, to which the ratepayers should make no contribution at all. That element in the Motion produces inevitably an aspect of unreality when one comes to contemplate it.

It is natural, too, that the hon. Members responsible for the Motion, being afraid of even getting within measurable distance of pronouncing the words "means test," have indicated, whenever they have come close to that matter, that they wish the State grant to be made for all children. That, again, presents an element of unreality to anyone who would be inclined to handle the matter from the point of view of educational administration. I should have liked, if the Motion had been different or wider, to have put before the House why one feels that, in order to administer a system of raising the school age, maintenance grant would be necessary under certain conditions with certain limitations and with a reasonable proportion provided by the ratepayers. That, however, is naturally and rightly a matter for discussion to-morrow, and therefore I cannot embark on it. There is, too, an air of unreality in the Amendment because, although the Mover and Seconder indicated that they were in favour of encouraging children to remain longer at school, they did not suggest that any contribution towards maintenance, even if it were to be provided wholly by local education authorities, ought to be contemplated in that connection.

Therefore, one feels that the whole question of maintenance grants in their real aspect, that is, grants towards expenditure on maintenance made by local education authorities, needs a great deal more discussion and ought to be kept open for discussion and not ruled out of further discussion as it might be if the Motion were to be negatived. I want to make only two points. The first, speaking for my hon. Friends, is that we think it necessary there should be a system of State grants towards maintenance. The second is that we think it should be selective and only given in necessitous cases, and, in order that it should be properly discussed, we hope there will not be a decision to-night on this Motion which might rule out further discussion on a very vital matter.

6.10 p.m.

It seems to me a pity that so many of the speakers who have dealt with this Motion have apologised because it did not mean something entirely different or did not say something entirely different. My hon. Friends in framing the Motion deliberately tried to narrow us down to a particular discussion which it was neces that the House should have before we got on to the big discussion on the Bill to-morrow with regard to what exemptions could be made. I take it that this Motion deals with those who, on whatever grounds, are kept at school under whatever Act is passed. Having got that clear, I would like to ask the House to understand what it will mean to those parents who are faced with the fact that their children cannot get work, and must therefore remain at school without a maintenance grant. I make no apology for speaking as a representative of one of the most distressed areas in the country. I would ask hon. Members to look at what it will mean in those areas if the State says to parents, "If your child cannot get beneficial employment, it must remain at school."

Many valuable reports have been issued yearly by the medical officers of health of these areas, and they all point out the rapid deterioration of the child of 14 after it leaves school if the child does not get work. In the discussions we had on whether children from 14 to 16 should get unemployment benefit that point was made over and over again. The Commissioner in the distressed areas pointed out the effect simply through lack of food on these children who were reaching the difficult stage of adolescence. You are telling the mothers that these children must remain at school. Most mothers, however, have other children to think of. If a child is outside school age the anxiety of the family is always to try and get that child to pick up odd jobs, such as carrying bags, cleaning windows or minding babies, if the child is a girl. That kind of casual employment, bringing in at the best only coppers, does not solve the problem and tends to produce a situation in which the expensive and excellent education which has been given to the child up to 14 is likely to be wasted. Not even the noble Lord the right hon. Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy)—and that is saying a lot—would recognise that as beneficial.

The important thing, now that you are saying that such a child shall not get anything except what is given under public assistance, is that it does not only affect the child. The effect goes right through the family, because in struggling to keep the child at school when its wants have gone beyond the wants of childhood and have reached those of adolescence, the desperate mother has literally to take the bread out of the mouths of the younger children. Nobody can say that a sufficient amount is allowed by public assistance in the distressed areas like Durham, where public assistance is not even administered by stony-hearted public assistance committees, but by Commissioners under an arrangement which is without any heart at all. They are literally going through every household budget and trying to get 6d. off. I talk of that which I know. This is not comfortable Norwich, but an area where men and women are facing great hardships. All these areas are continually pressing their Members to try to get even boots from the education authorities, and yet we are to say to a mother there that her children must remain at school without any extra help other than that which she is getting, if she is getting it, from public assistance.

One point which has not been brought out is the possible effect on the child itself, and I would ask the Minister of Education to realise what that may be, because his many speeches on education show that he is very sensitive to this problem. Here we have the case of the adolescent child of 14. The normal view in a working-class family is that 14 is the age at which to begin work. Now they are to have to stay at school, and the child of 14 will know that the others in the family will have to "go on being scraped" while he stays on for the last year. In the child's most sensitive year, that year of change to adolescence, it will be made to feel that it is a burden on the family. Anyone who has dealt with those extraordinarily bright boys and girls in these areas knows how sensitive children are at that age, how they want, almost, to take over the whole burden of the family, if necessary. If the child had a maintenance grant, even though it was not equal to what it might earn in wages, at least it would feel that something was coming into the house in respect of itself. It would not feel that it was such a burden on the family. To give a maintenance grant would make all the difference, particularly in those areas where, Heaven knows, the psychological problems raised by unemployment are not the least of the difficulties with which we have to deal.

If the Bill to be considered to-morrow passes in its present form, perhaps the number of children who will be eligible for grant will be less, and cannot the Government regard them as worthy of a grant? I say with all the earnestness that I can command that a reform for which we have worked so hard seems likely to become—it is difficult to get the exact words—linked up as a burden with the advantages of education, and that is something which we have always tried to avoid. It is easy for those of us who have had special advantages at college and elsewhere to talk about the value of education, but we have to carry the message of education to these poor women who children are each one of them, a burden—in one sense. I know women with eight or nine children who love their children as much as any one, but they are up against the economic situation. If nothing is done on the lines we are advocating it will affect the intimacy which springs up between parents and their children at that age, when there is that psychological feeling, that knowledge, that Johnnie or Dorothy feels a burden, and there will be an attempt all the time to evade the law and to get the children into some sort of employment. In the interests of the country this precious extra year in which children may acquire culture in a wider sense than they gain within the fairly narrow limits of elementary education ought not to be linked up in the mind of the family and of the child with an extra burden falling on the household.

6.21 p.m.

I hope there are many hon. Members in this House who are members of local education authorities and juvenile employment committees, and that they will feel able to bear out what I have to say. I believe the maintenance grant suggested to be absolutely essential. If the bread-winner of a family is on short time or is unemployed there is a temptation to take the boy from school at the age of 14 in order to ensure that a little more money shall come into the household; though I dare say that if the father happens to be subject to the means test the boy's small earnings will be taken into account and no real benefit will come to the family through the boy's sacrifice. It may be argued that if boys take a job at 14 they can attend evening classes, but that is no sound alternative. If a boy who has been putting in 28 hours a week at school is dumped into industry, where he has to work 50 hours a week or more, he cannot attend evening classes, and if he is working in a job where he can attend evening classes he is probably too tired at the end of the day to imbibe the instruction which is given. While at school children are under the watchful eye of the medical officer of health, but when they leave school at 14 they are not entitled to health insurance benefit—until they reach the age of 16. They have no panel doctor, and the parents are too poverty stricken to get medical attention for them. We find very often that it is in these two years that the foundations of ill health are laid which become a handicap to children throughout their life.

A maintenance allowance may probably be cheaper in the end than the unemployment insurance we are paying at the present time. Take the position in the distributive trades. In July, 1935, the insured persons under 16 numbered no fewer than 249,950, nearly a quarter of a million. To-day 43 per cent. of shop assistants are under 21 years of age. At the same time there are 300,000 adult shop assistants unemployed. It would be far better to keep the boys at school, with a maintenance allowance, than send them into blind-alley jobs, because that is what it means at the present moment. There is no prospect of continuous employment, and what is the proportion of unemployment? In the distributive trades, between the ages of 14 and 15, it is I in 35, but between 18 and 21 it is 1 in 12. At one time we used to say, "Too old at 40," but now it is "Too old at 21." Boys who drift out of blind-alley jobs often drift into a life of crime. Magistrates in every town in the country will bear out that statement. Boys and girls constantly appear before the juvenile courts charged with petty pilfering and house and shopbreaking. Surely it would be far better to keep them at school with a maintenance allowance than to throw them on the labour market when there is no possibility of continuous employment. We want to safeguard the future of the child, and to remove every possible obstacle to its having a free and full educational course.

I believe the grant of a maintenance allowance would remove the objection of poor parents to their children remaining longer at school, and it is far better to give an allowance than to spoil the career of the children and bring them into competition with adults for jobs. Juvenile unemployment is to-day a very serious menace to adult workers. In a dispute recently in the East End of London it was revealed that out of 74 employés at one shop only 10 were over 20 years of age. That is the position in the distributive trades. Education ought not to be viewed as a luxury but as a necessity, and believing it to be a necessity we feel the maintenance allowance to be absolutely essential.

6.25 p.m.

I shall detain the House for only a very few minutes, because this, after all, is one of the occasions specially reserved for debate by Private Members, and, in addition, we are discussing to-night a subject which has long been a cause of political controversy, one in which the arguments are comparatively familiar to most of us in this House and no special guidance or special departmental knowledge is really necessary to assist the House to come to a decision. In addition, I think that the hon. Member who moved the Motion and the hon. Members who moved and seconded the Amendment put their respective arguments for and against this proposal with great force and great clearness. The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Short) not only moved the Motion with his accustomed skill and sincerity but I feel that I must further congratulate him on the dexterity and skill with which he drafted it, so as to cause the maximum of embarrassment whether we accept it or reject it. I feel that in future we must recognise the hon. Gentleman as being both Short and Sharp.

The hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss), who moved the Amendment, is one with whom, in the past, I have had certain official relations. He is prominently connected with the Anti-Noise League, as both I and my successor at the Ministry of Transport know, and I am sure that I shall only be echoing the sentiments of the House if I say that we hope he will not include among those noises which he wishes to suppress the sound of his own voice, because even those who disagree with his matter all unite in praising the manner in which it was put forward, and the cogency with which it was argued. I, who have no complaint about the matter, feel that I have special cause to thank him, because he has, to a large extent, already used, and used effectively, the arguments that I shall be bound to put before the House.

In fairness to hon. Members opposite I ought to say that I regard this purely as a question of grants. I treat their Motion as one that covers advances by the State towards the cost of these allowances, whether part be paid at the rate of 50 per cent. or 100 per cent. We have heard a number of speeches of great interest, and I hope, that hon. Members who have spoken will not think it discourteous of me if I do not refer to the speeches which they have made. The reason is that hon. Members who are lucky enough to catch your attention can make their speeches to-day. I, unfortunately, am condemned to make mine to-morrow, and I therefore want to confine myself very narrowly to the question of maintenance allowances.

I do not think that any better justification could be found for one of the arguments used by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich than the course that the Debate has followed since he spoke. His argument was that the reasons for the support given by hon. Members opposite to the policy of maintenance grants were not confined to the reasons dealing with an age group, which happens to be between 14 and 15, but that, in fact, the problem of the maintenance of the child in school between 14 and 15 was no different in character, and little, if at all, different in extent, from the problem of maintaining the child in school from 13 to 14 or from 12 to 13; that, therefore, the real argument behind this question of maintenance allowances was the general one of poverty in the home. The real reason why hon. Members opposite will support this Motion in the Lobby is not, as they will find if they examine themselves closely, the educational reason that has been put forward, but a sentiment, which is certainly not one that any of us can condemn, that if there is any means for putting a few shillings a week more into working-class homes which, hon. Members know, can use them well and usefully, hon. Members are going to support those means in the Lobby.

If we are really dealing with the general question of poverty, and not with any exceptional condition in a particular age-group, the method of State maintenance grants to the children who happen to be between 14 and 15 is surely the most illogical, unjust and anomalous way in which you could attempt to deal with that poverty problem. There is not a Member opposite who, if he were told that the State would contribute £5,000,000 or £10,000,000 towards meeting the problem of poverty among working class families, would distribute that money in the way advocated in this Motion. In his interesting speech the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) referred to his personal knowledge of workers with five or six children and earning 30s. per week. Are we to believe that if the hon. Member could share in handing out that £5,000,000 or £10,000,000, he would give nothing to that man but would give rather to a man earning more money and with only one child to support if it were the good fortune of this man that that child happened to be between the ages of 14 and 15?

I believe there is a real and general question of poverty, but we have seen, even in our lifetime and with the difficulties that our generation has to encounter, a progressive improvement in the standard of life. Nobody will deny that a problem of poverty still exists, but many of us are beginning to believe that the division between poverty and, anyhow, competence, can no longer be drawn between the better-paid and the lower-paid wage earners, and that it is even doubtful whether it can be drawn between the man in employment and the man who is out of employment; and that the real test of poverty and its real cause, to which the hon. Lady referred, is the difference between the big and the small family. That is the problem which we have to face and to tackle.

I was not convinced by the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) that this is the method by which we should approach that problem, or by which she, in any other place but in controversy in this House, would attempt to approach it herself. I followed years ago with considerable sympathy and very great interest the publicity which the hon. Lady used to give to a proposal for a system of maintenance allowances, not to selected children between 14 and 15 years of age, but family allowances. I well remember that she wrote "The Disinherited Family." I feel sure that at the time she was writing that book she would not have advocated, as a way of dealing with the problem, anything so limited as we find in the Motion.

I expressly said that I accepted the Motion only because it was an instalment, and because something was better than nothing.

I doubt whether an allowance which is distributed on quite different principles would be looked upon as an instalment. I do not wish to go in great detail into the very important and interesting question of the vital statistics, of the possible approaches to a decline in the birth rate and questions of population, however big or however small; nor do I want to discuss at length whether, or at what point, such a decline in the birth rate becomes dangerous. I express my gratitude to the hon. Lady for her great care that we should make certain that we provide enough people for our Army and our Navy in the next 20 years.

There may be difference of opinion on that point, I agree. Where I would join issue with the hon. Lady is that the remedy for a declining birth rate or a shrinking population lies in giving a maintenance allowance to children between the ages of 14 and 15. I may not be in the same position as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, and I may not, in the view of the hon. Lady, have profound experience in what she calls the book of life, but I certainly doubt whether the disinclination of married people to in crease their family would be influenced by the knowledge that in 14 years they would be able to draw 5s. a week for a period of 12 months. Is it not that apart from this general question of poverty, which nobody can deny, but which is not touched by the Motion, the real object of the maintenance allowance is political? I do not use that word in the sense of party political, although it happens that hon. Members opposite support the Motion and hon. Members behind me are opposed to it, but it involves—

The right hon. Gentleman does not mean maintenance grants in necessitous cases, but a flat rate grant?

It surely means that there are a number of educational experts who believe that the raising of the school-leaving age to 15 is enough. I believe they know that that would be unpopular, but they believe, quite rightly, that in a democratic system where unpopularity for a proposal has to be taken into account, the unpopularity can to a great extent be allayed by the payment of this grant. There is nothing ignoble in trying to get a reform through which you believe to be justified, but I wonder whether making those grants is the best way to meet what may be the unpopularity of a Measure such as this. If it is unpopular, why is that so? Nobody can pretend that it is unpopular because of any general indifference of parents in their children. Hon. Members who come from the areas of great industries see daily the sacrifices which are made by parents for their children, and they would be the first to testify to the truth of what I am saying. Nor can it be said that it is due to indifference by parents to the educational advance of their children. All of us know cases in which great sacrifices have been made by parents for the secondary or higher education of their children, and to send them up the educational ladder; as well as the great burden of the years during which the children are in school and debarred from bringing anything into the home. That burden is borne cheerfully and without complaint by parents.

Why is it, as most of us admit if we are honest with ourselves, looking back only to the period of the last General Election, that the proposal for raising the school-leaving age is met with opposition and indifference by parents? Is it not partly our fault? Is it not because we have not yet convinced them that the value of that extra year in school is great enough to compensate them for the postponement of the wage-earning capacity of the child, and the easing which that makes in the situation at home, because of the material benefit that that may well mean to the child? Is not that the real reason of the difficulty which we have to remove, if the reform is to become effective? Many of us know beautiful, new, senior schools, complete with every facility and into which it is a joy to the child to go, and where, one can well believe, instruction is profitable. On the other hand, everybody knows schools where facilities are poor, and premises are inadequate, where the preparations made for senior courses of that kind cannot be called complete, and where there is great difficulty in honestly saying to the parent of the child that to keep the child in school for another year will be of sufficient benefit in after life to compensate the parent for any sacrifice that might have to be made. It seems to me that the way to do away with this opposition is, not to try to buy it off with an allowance of a few shillings, but so to alter the balance of the choice which the parents now have as to make that year so obviously to the advantage of the child in after life that the choice which parents of the wage-earning classes have to make will fall in future in favour of the attendance at school.

I only want to say one or two words about the financial side of the matter. It has been raised by hon. Members opposite, and, that being so, we must at any rate have the finance of this question set out accurately. I am glad that the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) referred to that matter, because, in some quarters of the House, to talk about what a thing costs is regarded with almost the same shame as if one were rude to a poor relation. Personally I do not think that any of us need feel ashamed or humiliated, when we are dealing with the national finances, in believing that one element at any rate of our choice in accepting or rejecting a proposal should be the financial effect which it has.

It is not, of course, entirely easy to estimate the effect of the proposal put forward in the Motion, because the hon. Member has been careful not to commit himself, and I noticed that other leaders of his party at the General Election were equally careful not to commit themselves, either as to the amount of these maintenance allowances or as to the conditions under which they were to be paid. We have, however, a basis. When my predecessor, Sir Charles Trevelyan, was dealing with this point, it was proposed that the allowance should be 5s. a week. I notice that now, if it is referred to at all in the circles of hon. Members opposite, it is always referred to as at least 5s. a week. But do they think, or does any one in this House think, that it would ever be possible to keep this allowance at 5s. a week? If the reform is to be made less unpopular, if the hostility of a parent who loses a wage by it is to be reduced, is there any point at which it would be possible to stop, short of the average wage for which this maintenance grant is to be a compensation? I should be very surprised, in the first place, if on a platform hon. Members opposite ever came down to 5s., and, secondly, if hon. Members below the Gangway, if they came down to 5s., would let it stop there.

Another question that makes it difficult to be certain what would be the financial effect of this proposal is the question of the means test. Sir Charles Trevelyan proposed a means test for these maintenance allowances. I hear references now to payments in necessitous cases, but I have not heard anybody on the benches opposite say this afternoon, although, of course, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), when he winds up, may rectify the omission, that what Sir Charles Trevelyan said in 1930 still holds good to-day, and that they intend to administer these maintenance allowances on a means test. Even if it be now said that they intend to do that, I should be very doubtful whether they ever will. The principle of a means test, whether in education or in public assistance, is very much the same. It would be very difficult for hon. Members opposite to justify on a platform the difference between the position of one of their supporters who has a child at school in respect of whom he is being paid 5s. a week and the position of another supporter who has a child at school between 14 and 15 but who gets nothing because of the means test instituted by the Labour party.

Therefore, I think we can at any rate be certain that the estimate of nearly £5,000,000 at the time of Sir Charles Trevelyan's proposal based upon 5s. a week and a means test would be likely soon to become something more in the neighbourhood of 10s. a week and no means test, and that the £5,000,000 would be likely very soon to reach £10,000,000. An hon. Member says that we can quite well afford it. I speak on this question with a great deal of conviction, because I have looked up the speech that I made five years ago on the Financial Resolution of the Trevelyan Act, and I could now make it all over again, or perhaps not all, because I have noticed that, when I was speaking of the different burdens that we were assuming, and the strain that we should be putting on the national finances, a Member of the party opposite ironically asked how soon we should be bankrupt. That was in November, 1930. If we are going to consider seriously the question of finance in this House, we must never fall into the error of believing that we can consider each separate proposal in a watertight compartment, merely on its own merits and its own financial cost, without any relation to the other obligations that we are undertaking. Even among our educational obligations this must take its proper place, and we must see how far it would square with the extra expenditure which is already being incurred.

I must remind hon. Members that, even as far as education has been concerned, expenditure has risen and is still rising rapidly. Within the last few years we have restored the cut on teachers' salaries, which means an addition of something like £5,000,000 a year to the Budget. It is true, of course, that if we had retained that £5,000,000 and had applied it to the purposes of these maintenance grants, it would pro tanto have reduced any financial argument against them. But I never heard any educational interest at that time suggest that we were wrong in restoring those cuts, and that we ought to retain the money for these other purposes. We are also fulfilling, by administrative methods, some of the pledges we gave during the Election, and that cannot be done without an increase of expenditure on education. To take one instance alone, there is the survey we have made of technical education and there are the provisions that we hope are going to be made all over the country. It is estimated that this will involve an expenditure of something like £12,000,000, spread over a few years.

Yes. I am afraid I have never been engaged in administration which deals with millions, but have only dealt with my own small personal matters, and I have never yet been able to acquire what I believe is regarded as the right idea, namely, that you have only to raise a loan and spend it and it is not money—that it is only money if you spend it out of revenue.

The right hon. Gentleman was trying, as it seems to me, and I think to my hon. Friends, to charge the whole of the £12,000,000 against one year. He was dealing with an annual expenditure and comparing it with the annual expenditure on maintenance grants. This £12,000,000 is only £600,000 a year at the most.

I was not doing anything of the kind; I was only showing the way in which, in any event, education expenditure is rising. But you have not only to take into account increased education expenditure, but to weigh any proposals against increased demands from elsewhere.

I am glad that the hon. Member, in indulging his tendency to interrupt, has said exactly what I wanted to say. That is the argument that is going to be used from door to door and at the street corners, and it is much better that it should be used here. With regard to any proposal of any kind, whether for maintenance allowances, health or anything else, which we say cannot be done, hon. Members will at once say, "Ah, but what about the money you are spending on the Navy, Army and Air Force?" I should like to know upon what exactly their argument is based. Is it their argument that, because we can afford to spend large sums on the Services, we can afford to spend money on other things?

Our attitude on these benches is that we believe that the education of children and the raising of children in this country is much more important, and therefore should have much more expended upon it than is spent on the destruction of children.

I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman; I am glad that I gave way to him, because he has given me the answer to my question. He has said that any expenditure of this kind should come before what he calls expenditure for destruction. But it is not the official view of hon. Members opposite that there should be no expenditure on the Navy, Army or Air Force. Their view is that we should spend as much upon those Services as is necessary to get from them what degree of security can be got from armed services. They have said very often that, if they are convinced of the necessity, they are prepared to increase the amount which is now being spent upon those Services. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who said that?"] I have seen it in articles in the "Daily Herald." [ Interruption. ] Hon. Members will have a chance of denying it. The leaders of the Labour party have said that they were prepared, if they were convinced that it was necessary, to increase the expenditure upon armaments —that, to secure efficiency and provide security, they were prepared to co-operate in and to support such an increase. Hon. Members can challenge that statement if they like. Do not we, therefore, come down to this, that all of us are prepared to spend upon armaments the minimum required to obtain security from them? If that be so, to say that, having settled upon the minimum which is required to obtain security, we should cut it down by further millions in order to use them for other services, is surely to say that you are prepared to throw to the winds even the security that you require.

I do not want to close purely on this controversial note. I want to say that, although I hope my hon. Friends will support the Amendment and reject the Motion, I feel that there is much that can be done upon two lines. First of all we should think of the general poverty problem, with special reference to children, and secondly of the possibility of making so plain the advantages of this extra year, of so improving the facilities, the curriculum and the contents of that year, as to alter the choice of the parent and incline it towards the extra year.

7.1 p.m.

I do not propose to follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument in relation to the policy of his party concerning armaments. That would lead to too long a discussion and to the allied subject of the policy which leads up to armaments, and that is inappropriate on this occasion. This afternoon we have had a series of speeches on a subject of first-class importance. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Short), introduced a Motion which was brief and concise and had reference to the necessity for the provision of a State maintenance allowance in association with a proposal for raising the school-leaving age. In the subsequent discussion we have had one speech, if he will allow me to say so, of particular attractiveness—the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss). If I say that I was very much intrigued by his arguments, I hope that he will not take it that I was convinced by them, but none the less I would like to congratulate him on the excellent way in which he presented his case. In the course of his argument he tried to apply himself to the arguments for and against maintenance grants, and he and the Minister, when they sought to imply that this party was actuated by motives of seeking popularity in urging this reform, were saying something that was not true, and if it is true it is just as applicable to his own party.

If the right hon. Gentleman did not imply that, I will withdraw it. There certainly was a reference to the desire to commend things that were popular in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. As long ago as April, 1925, in a Parliament dominated by the Tory party and not by us, a resolution was carried on a similar occasion in this House in favour of the provision of maintenance allowances in connection with secondary education or any other form of post-primary education. Let me read the words of that Resolution:— a National party. The great merit according to that part of this National party called the National Labour party is said to be that they liberalise the Tory element. The result of the liberalising process is, that maintenance allowances have gone completely out of their programme.

I rather gathered from the hon. Member for Norwich that he contended that there was something new and revolutionary in the principle proposed. That is not true, and indeed I thought that he presented evidence that it was not true. Whatever Section 24 of the Education Act of 1921 does or does not do, it does recognise by law the provision of maintenance allowances. There is nothing new or revolutionary in the proposal. All that is proposed in my hon. Friend's Motion is that there should be State maintenance grants, whereas the present law gives local authorities the right to give maintenance allowances with grants from the Exchequer. The law has recognised the right since 1907 of education authorities to give a maintenance allowance, not only in respect of secondary schools, but in respect of elementary schools. That remains virtually the law now. The only thing that prevents it being done at this moment is this. It is the board, in virtue of its power to issue regulations governing grants, which says to local authorities: "We will not make you grants in respect of maintenance allowances if you pay them." By what authority does the Board of Education arrogate to itself the right to override the law? The law is that a local authority may pay grants. In the Barrow case it was said that they should not have maintenance grants, whereas Carnarvon was told that it could have maintenance grants. To one authority you say "No," and to another you say" Yes." By what authority in law does the Minister say to one authority "You shall have grants," and to another "You shall not." Perhaps he will reflect on that point by way of homework.

The hon. Member for Norwich propounded what he considered to be three main arguments that might be advanced in favour of our Motion. The first I think was this: Grants should be paid because there was an. element of compulsion on the child to remain at school. His comment was that while it is true there is compulsion, there is no new expenditure involved for the parent. Education is just as free from 14 to 15. That is true, but will the hon. Gentleman tell me this? The State allows the Income Tax payer £50 per year in respect of each child. It therefore excuses the parent 50 times 4s. 6d. That is a maintenance allowance. Will the hon. Gentleman who opposed the Motion so eloquently tell me, is there any additional expenditure for the Income Tax payer when that allowance is made? None whatever, surely. The arguments which he propounded can, in my judgment, be equally applied to the Income Tax payer's allowance in respect of his children as it can be in respect of the maintenance allowance.

We can return to-morrow to the general subject of maintenance allowances in relation to the present law. I want to say a word or two now on the merits of this particular Motion. Let us interpret State maintenance grants as being 100 per cent. grants to parents in respect of their children from the State. Is there anything which is fundamentally vicious about that proposition? The right hon. Gentleman twitted us on our attitude towards armaments. He knows that the Government has been busy for the past four or five years in shovelling out subsidies to various concerns. I say without any fear of criticism that I see no sort of viciousness in the proposal to give 100 per cent. grants to children at school as compared with subsidies or grants to people who are producing sugar beet. I see no difference at all in principle. [An HON MEMBER: "Different people get it."] That is not a difference in principle. It is a difference in personnel. If our Motion cannot be accepted, I should still hope to see the present system extended and larger grants given to local authorities.

After all, where does the main burden of providing maintenance allowances fall? Where will it be heaviest? The largest numbers of children retained at school will obviously be in the thickly populated areas, and of those thickly populated areas those that are going to be hit heaviest are those where the distress is very great. Take, if you like, my own area of South Wales. There we get Acts of Parliament passed one after the other imposing this, that and the other additional burden. If you improve this standard of secondary education—carry out the Government's policy at the last Election if you like—it must mean extra burdens for local authorities, and therefore I do not see that I am doing anything frightfully wrong if I suggest that this service, the provision of maintenance allowances, shall be one provided financially by the State for which the local authorities shall become agents for the Government. There is a very strong financial case for local authorities which have these enormous burdens superimposed upon them by ever changing legislation from time to time. I am not therefore afraid to take my stand upon the literal interpretation of the Motion. Why should I be afraid of asking that a service like this, foisted upon local authorities it is true by legislation, should be borne financially wholly and completely by the Government? On the other hand, if it is rejected, I shall naturally take the second line of defence, namely an expansion of the support given by the Government. It may be argued that the Motion has a certain limiting effect but I would beg hon. Members opposite to notice this. They have an Amendment, too, which would not be without somewhat dire consequences because the effect, as I see it, would be that certain authorities now operating maintenance allowances would have to stop them. I believe there are schools not recognised as secondary schools but coming within the realm of the post-primary elementary regulations where maintenance allowances are granted.

They are only paid over the age of 14, that is to say, beyond the period to which the Amendment refers.

I think we misunderstand each other. Surely our Motion visualises the raising of the school age from 14 to 15, and therefore, the Amendment visualises the same proposition. If the Government are still in favour of raising the school-leaving age, as I see it the

effect would be that maintenance grants for such schools would have to be stopped if the Amendment were actually put into effect. I cannot believe that that is the intention of the hon. Gentleman, and it certainly would not be our desire either. Whichever proposal, therefore, is carried, it looks to me as though there might be very grave misunderstanding as a consequence of it. I want the House, however, to understand quite clearly that the party for which I now speak gladly acknowledges that it is committed to the principle of raising the school-leaving age with maintenance allowances. We have never urged it without maintenance allowances and we are not going to urge it now. The higher you go in the child's age range the greater becomes the case for some sort of financial assistance to the home. I want the House to understand, therefore, that we shall refuse to make ourselves responsible for any proposal to raise the school-leaving age unless we can give to the parents the certitude that they can get financial assistance for that purpose. I very much hope that the House will not lightly reject the Motion. The Motion presented in 1925, I dare say, appeared to many to be somewhat revolutionary or novel in character. This Motion, too, to many may have some element of novelty, but we must be pioneers in this matter. We must do the necessary educative work. We must prepare the ground as occasion offers. Therefore, we very much hope that the somewhat specious arguments advanced by the hon. Member, though with great cogency and effectiveness, will not prevail with hon. Members in any part of the House, and that the Motion will be carried with overwhelming assent.

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 140; Noes, 199.

Division No. 37.]

AYES.

[7.31 p.m.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

Ammon. C. G.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Adamson, W. M.

Aske. Sir R. W.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Holdsworth, H.

Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

Banfield, J. W.

Holland, A.

Richards, R. (Wrexham)

Barr, J.

Hollins, A.

Riley, B.

Bellenger, F.

Hopkin, D.

Ritson, J.

Benson, G.

Jagger, J.

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Broad, F. A.

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

Bromfield, W.

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

Rothschild, J. A. de

Brooke, W.

Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

Rowson, G.

Brown, C. (Mansfield)

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Salter, Dr. A.

Buchanan, G.

Jones, J. J. (Silvertown)

Sexton, T. M.

Burke, W. A.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Shinwell, E.

Cape, T.

Kelly, W. T.

Short, A.

Cluse, W. S.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Silverman. S. S.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

Kirby, B. V.

Simpson, F. B.

Cocks, F. S.

Kirkwood, D.

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Compton, J.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Cove, W. G.

Lawson, J. J.

Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees-(K'ly)

Daggar, G.

Leach, W.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Dalton, H.

Lee, F.

Sorensen, R. W.

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

Leslie, J. R.

Stephen, C.

Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

Logan, D. G.

Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Lunn, W.

Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Macdonald, G. (Ince)

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Day, H.

McEntee, V. La T.

Thorne, W.

Dobbie, W.

McGhee, H. G.

Thurtle, E.

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

McGovern, J.

Tinker, J. J.

Ede, J. C.

Maclay, Hon. J. P.

Viant, S. P.

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Maclean, N.

Walker, J.

Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

MacNeill, Weir, L.

Watkins, F. C.

Foot, D. M.

Mander, G. le M.

Watson, W. McL.

Frankel, D.

Marklew, E.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Gallacher, W.

Marshall, F.

Welsh, J. C.

Gardner, B. W.

Maxton, J.

Westwood, J.

Garro-Jones, G. M.

Milner, Major J.

White, H. Graham

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Montague, F.

Whitcley, W.

Grenfell, D. R.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)

Wilkinson, Ellen

Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Naylor, T. E.

Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

Groves, T. E.

Oliver, G. H.

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

Paling, W.

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Hardie, G. D.

Parkinson J. A.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Harris, Sir P. A.

Potts, J.

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Price, M. P.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Pritt, D. N.

Mr. Mathers and Mr. John.

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Quibell, J. D.

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

Cobb, Sir C. S.

Fraser, Capt. Sir I.

Agnew. Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.

Fremantle, Sir F. E.

Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)

Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.

Furness, S. N.

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

Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)

Gluckstein, L. H.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

Apsley, Lord

Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff(W'st'r S.G'gs)

Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

Assheton, R.

Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh.W.)

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)

Craddock, Sir R. H.

Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

Astor, Visc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton)

Crooke, J. S.

Grimston. R. V.

Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)

Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

Gunston, Capt. D. W.

Atholl, Duchess of

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Guy, J. C. M.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Cross, R. H.

Hamilton, Sir G. C.

Beaumont, Hon R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

Crowder, J. F. E.

Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

Birchall, Sir J. D.

Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.

Harbord, A.

Blair, Sir R.

Davies, C. (Montgomery)

Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)

Blindell, Sir J.

Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

Bower, Comdr. R. T.

Denville, Alfred

Hepworth, J.

Brass, Sir W.

Donner, P. W.

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

Dower, Capt. A. V. G.

Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)

Hopkinson, A.

Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

Horsbrugh, Florence

Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

Dugdale, Major T. L.

Howitt, Dr. A. B.

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

Duggan, H. J.

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

Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)

Duncan, J. A. L.

Hulbert, N. J.

Bull, B. B.

Dunglass, Lord

Hunter, T.

Burghley, Lord

Dunne, P. R. R.

Hurd, Sir P. A.

Campbell, Sir E. T.

Eastwood, J. F.

Jackson, Sir H.

Carver, Major W. H.

Eckersley, P. T.

James, Wing-Commander A. W.

Cary, R. A.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Joel, D. J. B.

Cautley, Sir H. S.

Ellis, Sir G.

Kimball, L.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br.W.)

Elliston, G. S.

Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

Channon, H.

Elmley, Viscount

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

Entwistle, C. F.

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Choriton, A. E. L.

Erskine Hill, A. G.

Lees-Jones, J.

Christie, J. A.

Everard, W. L.

Levy, T.

Clydesdale, Marquess of

Findlay, Sir E.

Lindsay, K. M.

Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)

Lloyd, G. W.

Purbrick, R.

Storey, S.

MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G.

Radford, E. A.

Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)

McCorquodale, M. S.

Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-(N'thw'h)

McKie, J. H.

Ramsden, Sir E.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

Sutcliffe, H.

Magnay, T.

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Tasker, Sir R. I.

Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

Tate, Mavis C.

Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Maxwell, S. A.

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

Titchfield, Marquess of

Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

Ropner, Colonel L.

Touche, G. C.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Rowlands, G.

Tree, A. R. L. F.

Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)

Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Scott, Lord William

Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.

Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

Turton, R. H.

Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

Wallace, Captain Euan

Munro, P. M.

Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Warrender, Sir V.

Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st),

Waterhouse, Captain C.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.

Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

Wedderburn, H. J. S.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

Palmer, G. E. H.

Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

Williams, H. G. (Croydon. S.)

Patrick, C. M.

Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Penny, Sir G.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.

Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Perkins, W. R. D.

Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

Wise, A. R.

Pickthorn, K. W. M

Spender-Clay, Lt.-CI. Rt. Hn. H. H.

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

Pilkington, R.

Spens, W. P.

Plugge, L. F.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES —

Mr. H. Strauss and Mr. Petherick.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The House divided: Ayes, 184; Noes, 136.

Division No. 38.]

AYES.

[7.40 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

Duggan, H. J.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

Duncan, J. A. L.

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)

Dunglass, Lord

Lees-Jones, J.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Dunne, P. R. R.

Levy, T.

Apsley, Lord

Eastwood, J. F.

Llewellin. Lieut.-Col. J. J.

Assheton, R.

Eckersley, P. T.

Lloyd, G. W.

Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G.

Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)

Ellis, Sir G.

McCorquodale, M. S.

Atholl, Duchess of

Elliston, G. S.

McKie, J. H.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Elmley, Viscount

Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.

Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Manningham-Buller, Sir M

Birchall, Sir J. D.

Entwistle, C. F.

Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

Blair, Sir R.

Erskine Hill, A. G.

Maxwell, S. A.

Blindell, Sir J.

Everard, W. L.

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Bower, Comdr. R. T.

Flides, Sir H.

Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

Brass, Sir W.

Findlay, Sir E.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Fraser, Capt. Sir I.

Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

Fremantle, Sir F. E.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

Furness, S. N.

Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)

Gluckstein, L. H.

Munro, P. M.

Bull, B. B.

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H.

Burghley, Lord

Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.

Campbell, Sir E. T.

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Carver, Major W. H.

Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

Palmer, G. E. H.

Cary, R. A.

Grimston, R. V.

Patrick, C. M.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br. W.)

Gunston, Capt. D. W.

Penny, Sir G.

Channon, H.

Guy, J. C. M.

Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.

Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

Hamilton, Sir G. C.

Perkins, W. R. D.

Choriton. A. E. L.

Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Clydesdale, Marquess of

Harbord, A.

Pilkington, R.

Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.

Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)

Plugge, L. F.

Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

Ponsonby, Col C. E.

Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

Hepworth, J.

Purbrick, R.

Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh. W.)

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Radford, E. A.

Craddock, Sir R. H.

Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

Ramsden, Sir E.

Crooke, J. S.

Hopkinson, A.

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Crooksliank, Capt. H. F. C.

Horsbrugh, Florence

Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Howitt, Dr. A. B.

Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

Cross, R. H.

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

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

Crowder, J. F. E.

Hulbert, N. J.

Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

Davies, C. (Montgomery)

Hunter, T.

Ropner, Colonel L.

Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)

Hurd, Sir P. A.

Rowlands, G.

Denville, Alfred

Jackson, Sir H.

Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)

Donner, P. W.

James, Wing-Commander A. W.

Scott, Lord William

Dower, Capt. A. V. G.

Joel, D. J. B.

Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)

Kimball, L.

Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.

Dugdale, Major T. L.

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st),

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)

Wallace, Captain Euan

Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

Sutcliffe, H.

Warrender, Sir V.

Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

Tasker, Sir R. I.

Waterhouse, Captain C.

Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)

Tate, Mavis C.

Wedderburn, H. J. S.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)

Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

Titchfield, Marquess of

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Spender-Clay, Lt.-CI. Rt. Hn. H. H.

Touche, G. C.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

Spens, W. P.

Train, Sir J.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

Tree, A. R. L. F.

Wise, A. R.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)

Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

Storey, S.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.

Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)

Turton, R. H.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Mr. H. Strauss and Mr. Petherick.

NOES.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke

Hardie, G. D.

Pritt, D. N.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Harris, Sir P. A.

Quibell, J. D.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

Adamson, W. M.

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Richards, R. (Wrexham)

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

Holdsworth, H.

Riley, B.

Ammon. C. G.

Holland, A.

Ritson, J.

Aske, Sir B. W.

Hollins, A.

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Hopkin, D.

Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

Banfield, J. W.

Jagger, J.

Rothschild, J. A. de

Barr, J.

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Rowson, G.

Bellenger, F.

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

Salter, Dr. A.

Benson, G.

Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

Sexton, T. M.

Broad, F. A.

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Shinwell, E.

Bromfield, W.

Jones, J. J. (Silvertown)

Short, A.

Brooke, W.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Silverman, S. S.

Brown, C. (Mansfield)

Kelly, W. T.

Simpson, F. B.

Buchanan, G.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Burke, W. A.

Kirby, B. V.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Cape, T.

Kirkwood, D.

Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)

Cluse, W. S.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

Lawson, J. J.

Sorensen, R. W.

Compton. J.

Leach, W.

Stephen, C.

Cove, W. G.

Lee, F.

Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

Daggar, G.

Leslie, J. R.

Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

Dalton, H.

Logan, D, G.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

Lunn, W.

Thorne, W.

Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

Macdonald, G. (Ince)

Thurtle, E.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

McEntee, V. La T.

Tinker, J. J.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

McGhee, H. G.

Viant, S. P.

Day, H.

McGovern, J.

Walker, J.

Dobble, W.

Maclay, Hon. J. P.

Watkins, F. C.

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

Maclean, N.

Watson, W. McL.

Ede, J. C.

MacNeill, Weir, L.

Welsh, J. C.

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Marklew, E.

Westwood, J.

Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

Marshall, F.

White, H. Graham

Foot, D. M.

Maxton, J.

Whiteley, W.

Frankel, D.

Milner, Major J.

Wilkinson, Ellen

Gallacher, W.

Montague, F.

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Gardner, B. W.

Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)

Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

Garro-Jones, G. M.

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Naylor, T. E.

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Grenfell, D. R.

Oliver, G. H.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

Paling, W.

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Parkinson, J. A.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Groves, T. E.

Potts, J.

Mr. Mathers and Mr. John.

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

Price, M. P.

Question put,

"That, in the opinion of this House, while the continued attendance of children at school beyond the period of compulsory attendance should be encouraged, it is un-

desirable to make provision for State maintenance grants for children in elementary schools during that period."

The House divided: Ayes, 181; Noes, 134.

Division No. 39.]

AYES.

[7.50 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

Blair, Sir R.

Burghley, Lord

Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

Blindell, Sir J.

Campbell, Sir E. T.

Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)

Bower, Comdr. R. T.

Carver, Major W. H.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Brass, Sir W.

Cary, R. A.

Apsley, Lord

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br. W.)

Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)

Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

Channon, H.

Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)

Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

Atholl, Duchess of

Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)

Choriton. A. E. L.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Birchall, Sir J. D.

Clydesdale, Marquess of

Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

Bull, B. B.

Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.

Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.

Hopkinson, A.

Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)

Horsbrugh, Florence

Ropner, Colonel L.

Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

Howitt, Dr. A. B.

Rowlands, G.

Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)

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

Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)

Craddock, Sir R. H.

Hulbert, N. J.

Scott, Lord William

Crooke, J. S.

Hunter, T.

Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

Hurd, Sir P. A.

Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Jackson, Sir H.

Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.

Cross, R. H.

James, Wing-Commander A. W.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Crowder, J. F. E.

Joel, D. J. B.

Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st),

Davies, C. (Montgomery)

Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)

Kimball, L.

Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

Denville, Alfred

Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

Donner, P. W.

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

Dower, Capt. A. V. G.

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)

Lees-Jones, J.

Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

Levy, T.

Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

Dugdale, Major T. L.

Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.

Duggan, H. J.

Lloyd, G. W.

Spens, W. P.

Duncan, J. A. L.

MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

Dunglass, Lord

McCorquodale, M. S.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)

Dunne, P. R. R.

McKie, J. H.

Storey, S.

Eastwood, J. F.

Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.

Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)

Eckersley, P. T.

Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Ellis, Sir G.

Maxwell, S. A.

Sutcliffe, H.

Elliston, G. S.

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Tasker, Sir R. I.

Elmley, Viscount

Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

Tate, Mavis C.

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Entwistle, C. F.

Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Erskine Hill, A. G.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Titchfield, Marquess of

Flldes, Sir H.

Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

Touche, G. C.

Findlay, Sir E.

Munro, P. M.

Train, Sir J.

Fraser, Capt. Sir I.

Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H.

Tree, A. R. L. F.

Fremantle, Sir F. E.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.

Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

Furness, S. N.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.

Gluckstein, L. H.

Palmer, G. E. H.

Turton, R. H.

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

Patrick, C. M.

Wallace, Captain Euan

Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

Penny, Sir G.

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.

Warrender, Sir V.

Grimston, R. V.

Perkins, W. R. D.

Waterhouse, Captain C.

Gunston, Capt. D. W.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Wedderburn, H. J. S.

Guy, J. C. M.

Pilkington, R.

Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

Hamilton, Sir G. C.

Plugge, L. F.

Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)

Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Harbord, A.

Purbrick, R.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)

Radford, E. A.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

Ramsden, Sir E.

Wise, A. R.

Hepworth, J.

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Mr. H. Strauss and Mr. Petherick.

NOES.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke

Ede, J. C.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Kirby, B. V.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

Kirkwood, D.

Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

Foot, D. M.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

Adamson, W. M.

Frankel, D.

Lawson, J. J.

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

Gallacher, W.

Leach, W.

Ammon, C. G.

Gardner, B. W.

Lee, F.

Aske, Sir R. W.

Garro-Jones, G. M.

Leslie, J. R.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Logan, D. G.

Banfield, J. W.

Grenfell, D. R.

Lunn, W.

Barr, J.

Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

Macdonald, G. (Ince)

Bellenger, F.

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

McEntee, V. La T.

Benson, G.

Groves, T. E.

McGhee, H. G.

Broad, F. A.

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

McGovern, J.

Bromfield, W.

Hardie, G. D.

Maclay, Hon. J. P.

Brooke, W.

Harris, Sir P. A.

Maclean, N.

Brown, C. (Mansfield)

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

MacNeill, Weir, L.

Buchanan, G.

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Marklew, E.

Burke, W. A.

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Marshall, F.

Cluse, W. S.

Holdsworth, H.

Maxton, J.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

Holland, A.

Milner, Major J.

Compton, J.

Hollins, A.

Montague, F.

Cove, W. G.

Hopkin, D.

Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)

Daggar, G.

Jagger, J.

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Dalton, H.

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Naylor, T. E.

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhlll)

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

Oliver, G. H.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Paling, W.

Day, H.

Jones, J. J. (Silvertown)

Parkinson J. A.

Dobble, W.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Potts, J.

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

Kelly, W. T.

Price, M. P.

Pritt, D. N.

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Watson, W. McL.

Quibell, J. D.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Welsh, J. C.

Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees-(K'ly)

Westwood, J.

Richards, R. (Wrexham)

Smith, T. (Normanton)

White, H. Graham

Riley, B.

Sorensen, R. W.

Whiteley, W.

Ritson, J.

Stephen, C.

Wilkinson, Ellen

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

Rothschild, J. A. de

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Rowson, G.

Thorne, W.

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Sexton, T. M.

Thurtle, E.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Shinwell, E.

Tinker, J. J.

Short, A.

Viant, S. P.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Silverman, S. S.

Walker, J.

Mr. John and Mr. Mathers.

Simpson, F. B.

Watkine, F. C.

Resolved,

"That, in the opinion of this House, while the continued attendance of children at school beyond the period of compulsory attendance should be encouraged, it is undesirable to make provision for State maintenance grants for children in elementary schools during that period."

School Homework

7.58 p.m.

I beg to move,

That was my first experience of the close association between vanity and vexation of spirit, but unfortunately the vanity only lasted for a week and the vexation of spirit persisted for five years, so that the division was rather inequitable. The House will notice that the Motion is divided into two parts.

The first is that I ask the House to affirm that,

I had, however, confirmation of the statement almost at once from a quarter which I could absolutely trust, namely, my secretary. While I was dictating some letters with regard to this question, she said: "There is no doubt about it. My own sister is in a secondary school and every night she is working three hours at her lessons, from the time that she has finished her tea until bedtime. She also works the whole of Saturday morning, and she only gets through her homework with the help that I can give her." Knowing that I could absolutely trust any statement that came from that quarter, I put a question on the Order Paper in December, 1934, to the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Education. I asked

I do not wish to weary the House by quoting from the endless letters that I received. After further inquiries I found that there was the greatest divergence between the amount of homework set in different schools. I went to the Board of Education and interviewed the Parliamentary Secretary—it was before my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Education took office—and I learned, to my astonishment, that the Board of Education did not dictate or lay down in any way the amount of homework that should be set for children. I accordingly went to the local education authority of the city of Manchester, one of whose divisions I represent, and interviewed them, taking it for granted that they must be the persons who laid down the curriculum for homework; but I found that they did not lay it down and that it was the headmaster or the headmistress who was a law unto himself or herself in this regard. The result is that there are numbers of teachers who set what they believe, no doubt conscientiously, is a reasonable amount of homework for the children on a particular subject.

That would be all right if there was co-ordination. One teacher may set what he considers a reasonable amount of homework, but when four or five others set an equal amount the total becomes unreasonable. For instance, if any hon. Member suggested that after this Debate he would like me to be his guest for a reasonable amount of refreshment, it would be an eminently sensible and harmless suggestion, and it would be dealt with through the usual channels, but if four or five other hon. Members did the same thing it would be disastrous to the object of their hospitality. In the same way, when there are a number of teachers each setting what they believe to be a reasonable amount of homework, the total must inevitably be too much. I am in no way attacking the teachers or charging them with being heartless or unreasonable in regard to what they consider a proper amount of homework, but the fact remains that what may be reasonable when set by one teacher becomes unreasonable when an equal amount is set by four or five teachers. The teachers are the masters or mistresses of the subject on which they set the questions. They may set a paper which they conscientiously believe could be answered easily in 15 or 20 minutes, but other people would take a much longer period to answer the questions. That is more likely to happen in the case of children. I could set a paper on some subjects with which I could deal in 15 or 20 minutes, but it might take another person an hour to answer.

I have come in contact with a large number of children who have had to do excessive homework. Recently, I opened a bazaar and one mother came to me and said, pointing to her little daughter: "This is one of the children who has to do too much homework." Every night she is engaged with her homework until long after she ought to be in bed, and when she goes to bed she is constantly talking in her sleep." I could quote from eminent medical authorities on this question. For instance, the Medical Officer of Health for the county of Derby spoke very strongly on the subject recently. Sir Bruce Bruce-Porter, a very eminent medical man, writing in the "Evening Chronicle" about a fortnight ago, said:

It seems to me very extraordinary that this state of affairs should exist with regard to children of tender years, seeing that we are so solicitous in regard to their welfare when they become a little older. Under the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, no child at school may have any employment at all until it reaches the age of 12. When it has passed the age of 12 it may not have more than two hours employment on any school day. Under the Shops Act, 1934, there is provision that until a boy or girl who has left school reaches the age of 16, he or she must on no account and on no occasion be employed for more than a 52-hour week until the end of this year, when the figure is to be reduced to 48 hours per week. We have made these provisions by legislation, and yet these same children while they are at school and until they reach the age of 14 are placed in such a position that neither the Board of Education nor the local education authorities, still less legislation, make any regulations as to the amount of work to which they are to be subjected after school hours.

I would ask hon. Members to visualise the extraordinary anomaly that this state of things produces. Let them imagine the position of a boy of 13 and a girl of 12, in the same family. They may attend the same elementary school, where there are no home lessons. The boy is strong physically but not particularly brainy, while the girl may be comparatively fragile but very brainy. She finds her way into a secondary school, whereas her brother, who is a year older, remains in the elementary school. They both leave school at the same time in the afternoon. The boy, being over 12 years of age, has succeeded in obtaining a situation for the delivery of morning newspapers before he goes to school, and delivering evening newspapers after school. In the morning he has about an hour's work, going round on a bicycle or on foot, and after he has delivered his newspapers he goes to school. He comes home and has another hour's work delivering papers and is free from homework thereafter. Owing to the growth of the neighbourhood, new housing estates being put up, his evening round might run into an hour and a quarter or an hour and a -half, and instantly his employer has broken the law under the provisions of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933. A prosecution follows because that strong boy, to the benefit of his health, has walked or cycled for a period of 2| hours in the day delivering newspapers.

What about his little sister? His evening's delivering of newspapers will be over between four o'clock and six and he is free, but his little sister sits there slaving away at her home lessons until 9 and 10 o'clock at night—and no law has been broken. As things are, that child can be set any volume of work the teacher thinks right, and however well intentioned teachers may be, as I have endeavoured to show, it may be that with the multiplicity of teachers and subjects far too much is being set that child to do with her tired brain at the end of the school day. In the case of the lad there is a prosecution if he works beyond a certain hour, but the little sister can wear herself out until any hour. There is something anomalous in such a position. Surely there is no harder work for a child, if it is conscientious, than striving at night, when its brain is tired, with subjects with which it has been wrestling during the day.

I want to make it quite clear that I am absolutely in favour of what are known as home lessons or preparation on the school premises. I know from my own experience, not only with regard to school matters but when I sat for examinations for my own profession, that whether you are a boy or girl, or grown up, the time that you develop your brain and enlarge your knowledge is not when you sit listening to lectures but when you have to get down to things yourself and ferret out and answer questions. That is when you acquire most knowledge. Therefore, I am in favour of children having this work to do off their own bat in preparation for the next day, but I say that if it is of such volume as to extend to two or three hours, or even longer, it is altogether out of reason, it is far too much, and it would be far better performed on the school premises in the form of preparation, as boys and girls at boarding school do to-day. The average time school finishes is about 4 o'clock. I do not admit that two hours are necessary; one hour or 1½ hours of preparation should be enough, but even if it were held that two hours' preparation is the necessary minimum I do not say that they should sit in school from 4 o'clock to 6 o'clock. I would rather curtail some of the lesson time. I would rather see two hours' preparation and have an hour knocked off the school day. Children should go away from the school leaving their work behind them. I like to leave my work behind me. I do not like to take it home.

How many of the hundreds of thousands of children who are being educated have the necessary facilities in their homes for doing homework? By far the greater number come from working-class homes, and in the poorest of these there is only one living room. The child comes home, gets its tea and wants to get on with its homework, but the table cannot be cleared because father and big brother have to come in and have tea. The child has a corner of the table, and when they come in there is the family conversation, and there may be a gramophone or wireless. It is unfair to the child, it is unfair to the home; it must spoil all the comforts of the home. Even if it were a bigger house, a parlour house, in the winter it would involve putting artificial heat in the other room, and these people cannot afford it. Even where financial questions do not enter into consideration it means making additional house work.

Preparation on the school premises is much better than home lessons. The President of the Board of Education is about to introduce a very important Measure, and before it reaches its final form I would appeal to him to give careful consideration to the question whether some provisions can be inserted in the Bill to achieve the ends which I have endeavoured to outline. We really are dealing here with a subject of most profound importance to hundreds of thousands of our children every year, and I appeal to the House, first, that they will pass the Motion which it has been my privilege to move, and, secondly, to the President of the Board of Education to give the most careful consideration to the subject, to see whether we can, while children are at school, give them the same measure of protection as we extend to them when they get a year or two older.

I am not going to crave the indulgence of the House because during my short experience here I have found that the House, though critical, is always very generous and, therefore, I take it that it will be equally generous to me in making my maiden speech. I am heartily in favour of the Motion, partly because I gave a pledge during the General Election. I gave a pledge to a little girl 11 years of age that if I was returned as a Member of Parliament, I would try in some way to tackle this homework question. I support the Motion, not only on the ground of that pledge, but also on the ground of my own experience. I am straight from the anvil of practical experience. Having been returned as Member for Barnard Castle I went back to the school where I was a teacher and spent a week there before coming to London. I have been a teacher for over 30 years and I know the evils of homework. I also know the causes of that evil. My personal opinion is that examinations are at the root of the evil and in order to tackle the question of homework we ought to get down to the fundamental cause and deal with the question of examinations. A child attending school to-day has a multiplicity of examinations to undergo. No matter what the type of school, the child has term examinations and annual examinations and examinations for certificates of various kinds. As the Mover has said, the poor child is bewildered by the multiplicity of examinations and of the subjects for examinations.

I do not entirely blame the head teachers of those schools in which much homework is given to the children. The head teacher is the victim of circumstances. But I am definitely opposed to the idea of any child having to spend so much time in an evening from which rest, recreation and play are excluded. I am in favour of the proposition that some of this preparation work should be done on the school premises. I suggest, however, that the juniors should spend a shorter time in such work than the seniors. The younger boys and girls up to 11, 12 and 13 ought not to be asked to remain as long for preparation as the older children. If preparation work is to be done in school we ought to ensure that the younger children will have a shorter time or, if all the children are to remain for an equal length of time, I think it would be fair to ask the older children to do some voluntary work at home. I realise from my own experience as a pupil teacher years ago, when I had homework to do, the terrible conditions under which some boys and girls have to do their homework. The hon. Member who moved the Motion mentioned the case of the home where only one room was available, but even in a home where there are two or three rooms the conditions are often such that it is scandalous that little children should be asked to sit down in those rooms to study or to prepare for the next day's work. I would remark that it constitutes an indictment against our present system that we should have one-room or two-room cottages housing perhaps four, five or six people each.

Be that as it may, the only solution of the problem is, as I have said, to tackle the examination question first, to try to reduce the number of examinations, to try to reduce the number of subjects. Then you can go on to the further question of having the preparation work done in the schools. This, as I have said, is a maiden speech. Another maiden speech of which I know consisted of one word. The maiden in that case afterwards became a matron and her speeches now are not limited to single words but have grown to curtain lectures. I propose to cut short my maiden speech on this occasion and perhaps when I am more matured I may become more matronly and give the House some curtain lectures.

8.30 p.m.

We have listened to a maiden speech which contained the soul of wit, if we are to take brevity as the standard. I only wish that my maiden speech had been made on such a subject as this, and I compliment the last speaker on the amount of knowledge and experience which he packed into his very short but able statement of the case. He has put the point of view of the teacher and it is, therefore, unnecessary for me to deal with that aspect of the question as I had intended to do. The Mover of the Motion can rest assured that his proposal will meet with sympathy and support on this side of the House. I am glad that he has brought the subject forward and I am sorry that so few hon. Members have been here to listen to what he had to say. We hear to-day talk about a redistribution of seats. I suggest that if the time comes for such a change we might include in the electorate a constituency of school children. If such a constituency existed I am sure that the hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Radford) would be the sitting Member. He speaks for a body of future electors who, at the moment, have no one to speak for them. There are special issues affecting them which ought to be brought before this House as well as the important national issues which we discuss in season and out of season. I am not going too deeply into the hon. Member's motives for volunteering for homework in his young days. He has explained that he did so in order that he could wear a school satchel, but there may have been other reasons which he has not disclosed. But let us accept the reason he has given to us, and I think we will all agree that volunteering for homework on the Member's part entitled him to some greater honour in later life than membership of this House.

This question divides itself into three parts. We have to consider the teachers' side, the child's side and the parents' side. Nobody, so far, has put the parents' point of view, but it is one which hon. Members ought to take into account. As to the child's side, I took the opportunity this morning of ascertaining the point of view of my eldest boy who is of school age. I do not propose to inform the House of the language in which he put his point of view. It will be sufficient to say that it was schoolboy language, but the purport of his remarks was: "This is a perfectly iniquitous system, and I hope that you, father, and other hon. Members of the House of Commons, instead of considering slavery in Abyssinia, will apply your minds to the slavery which exists at home." He went on to give me his views on homework. They are the views which were, I suggest, held by all hon. Members of this House in their own youthful days. None of us wanted to do homework with the notable exception of the hon. Member for Rusholme.

And he repented very soon. In putting the parents' point of view, I would say that as I look round the House and survey the few hon. Members who have remained for this discussion and consider how long it is since they lost their schoolboy complexions, I wonder how much of the change is due to homework which they had to do in their young days. There may have been other contributory causes, but I do not think we need go into them too closely to-night. I am speaking, I hope, to parents to-night —and I know I shall have their sympathy on this issue, at any rate—who have to suffer the inquisition of being asked by their children to square the hypotenuse or to elucidate the quadratic equation and who have not the courage to say, "My boy, either I have long forgotten that, or I never learned it." Surely that point of view ought to enlist our sympathy and persuade us to support this Motion.

It is evident to me that this Debate will not go on for too long, and I do not wish to prolong it, but I thought it was necessary to put the point of view of the schoolboy and the parent. My last remark is to those who are not yet parents, to consider what will happen when, later on in life, they are faced by their children asking them what they did in the great homework Debate. How are they going to answer that? I suggest that there is only one possible answer, and that it is the same as I shall give to my boy to-morrow morning when he says to me, "Well, what did you do about it yesterday?" I shall answer, "I voted for this Motion."

8.37 p.m.

I shall say only a very few words, but I want to support this Motion as forcefully as I can, and I want to do it from the very important point of view of the medical effect upon young children of prolonged hours of study. The whole of the trend of modern investigation on the psychology of the child—and there has been a very great deal of work done upon that subject in the last 10 or 15 years, and I am glad to say it is largely English work—has concentrated attention upon the fact that fatigue in the mind is a very quick phenomenon in the young child. The child's attention cannot be held for any prolonged period of time, and the retention of knowledge depends entirely upon the degree of attention given by the child. If that attention is withdrawn or incomplete, the lesson is meaningless. The story of the master of Trinity College at Cambridge is familiar. He had an undergraduate pupil who disappointed him extremely by his lack of interest in his studies. He knew the boy was a brilliant boy, and he had an idea. The boy was a very fine billiard player, and the master, a very famous physicist, said to him, "Have you ever considered what a large part the science of physics plays in a game of billiards? "The boy answered, "I never knew physics was any good for anything." "Well," the master said," consider the matter a bit." He aroused the boy's interest in physics, and that boy in his third year pulled up all the arrears that he had had in the first two years.

I think that part of the present trouble is remediable and that the fault lies in our present system of education. It is that classes are far too large and that it is impossible for the teacher to give individual attention to the child if the class contains much more than 30 pupils. The point has been made that preparation should be taken at school, and there are very many reasons to reinforce that argument. Again I must refer to medical work, especially in recent times. This work has shown how large a part in the development of physical deformity is played by the posture of the child when studying. How is that going to be supervised at home? Another important question is that of lighting and of helping to find a quick way of solving a problem, for example, in mathematics. Supervision is impossible in large classes. I do not think the evil is more prevalent in what one may call elementary schools than it is in secondary schools. In point of fact, I should say the evil is rather worse in the most expensive higher schools, and I have personal and individual experience of that evil. It is a very strong reproach to a teacher if the child is required to do much homework. It is according to the amount of homework that that reproach must be measured, and the longer the hours spent on homework the greater is the reflection on the teacher. But I think the teachers are handicapped by the size of their classes, and that is one point which I think is remediable and which ought to be remedied at once.

8.41 p.m.

I differ fundamentally in politics from the mover of the Motion, but I want to associate myself with the remarks he has made in favour of it. During the time he was speaking my mind went back to my own early boyhood, and he might have been outlining my own experiences. When I was 11 or 12 years of age, my father at that time was out of employment, with no hope of a job at all, and there was no national unemployment insurance. The result was that I had to go and do what an hon. Member has been speaking about, namely, deliver newspapers. I was going out at that time at 5.30 in the morning, delivering papers until about 8 o'clock, going to school during the day, delivering newspapers in the evening, and then doing my homework after that. I never regretted having to do that. It was a valuable experience. Nevertheless, I want to use any influence that I may have in order that no other boy of the working class shall have-to go through a similar experience.

There is one kind of homework about which I am very much concerned and which has not yet meen mentioned. In order to enable you to hold your own in modern industry, it is necessary, when you leave school, that you should develop your self as well as you can technically, that you should become as good a mathematician as you can, for instance. The result is that you have to go to evening school. I remember starting away from home in the morning, going to work at 5.30 or 6 in those days, not getting home again until 6 in the evening, then having to cycle two or three miles in order to attend evening school. The amount of homework which is set at evening school has a very detrimental effect upon young boys attending such a school; and it is because of those experiences, of which the hon. Member reminded me when he was speaking, that I have been forced to get up and say a few words in support of the Motion. I had no intention of taking part in this Debate, largely because there are other issues that are to be brought out during the next week or two, and the danger of speaking too much is that others do not get a chance. I made up my mind, therefore, that I would not take part in this Debate, but after hearing the hon. Member's remarks in moving the Motion, I was forced to take part and associate myself in the support of it.

8.46 p.m.

My long connection with schools ceased three years ago, but I am still interested in all questions connected with school work, and I think the hon. Member who has brought up the question of homework deserves the thanks of the House. I am more concerned about the effect of homework on girls than about its effect on boys, because there was great shrewdness in a remark by Sir Henry Hadow that if you give a girl too much to do she breaks down, but if you give a boy too much to do he does not do it. Some years ago the Scottish Education Department issued a circular on over-pressure in schools, and as convener of the Secondary Education Committee of the Educational Institute of Scotland, it fell to me to examine the large number of replies to the questionnaire which we sent all over Scotland. We found some things quite definitely. Some replies referred to the effect of examinations, and one person pointed out that the Education Department, in searching for the cause of over-pressure, was in the position of Satan rebuking sin, in view of the fact that its own examinations were to some extent to blame. I am bound to say that the burden imposed from that particular quarter has been lessened in recent years.

Another cause of excessive homework is the fact that in Scotland, at any rate, after about the age of 12, the pupils are no longer taught by one teacher all day, but by separate teachers for each subject. The more zealous the teachers, the greater danger there is of the total amount of homework being excessive. I always used to tell young teachers that they should endeavour to keep down the burden of homework to simple things, and that it should be in the nature of revision of things done in school so as to test whether it had really been understood. I am sure that anyone who has been a teacher knows that it is a chastening experience for a teacher to look through the results of what he himself has been trying to teach. In my school prospectus I used to lay down a general guide as to the number of hours that should be spent in homework at the different stages of the school, and I used to finish by saying that parents who found their children taking much more or much less time than those limits would do well to communicate with the headmaster. It is not always easy for the headmaster to control the amount of homework or to tell whether the kind of homework that has been set is too difficult.

I used to set, more as a matter of amusement, a little problem which was frequently solved by quite young children. I tried it this morning on a Member of His Majesty's Government, and he failed to answer it. The problem is this: A man went into a shoemaker's shop to buy a pair of boots. He selected a pair at 16s. and put down a pound note to pay for them. The shoemaker had no change and went next door to a butcher, got the change, came back with it, and gave the boots and 4s. to the man, who went away. Shortly afterwards the butcher rushed in to the bootmaker and said, "This is a bad pound note." The shoemaker had to give him a good pound. How much did the shoemaker lose? I have had 11 different answers to that problem.

Wrong! I have also a recollection of parents bringing to me complaints about homework, and it seemed to me sometimes that the cause of the complaint was that the parents were not able to do it themselves. I could tell the House of a distinguished public servant who makes no secret of the fact that one night he helped his little daughter to do two problems, and was told the next day that they were both wrong.

Speaking seriously, I was greatly impressed last year during an education debate by a speech of the then Member for Bothwell, Mrs. Shaw, who revealed some of the conditions under which the children of poor homes had to work. Although I think that there is something to be gained by having a small amount of revision in the evening, yet, as the hon. Member has qualified the second part of his Resolution by the words "where practicable," I shall take no exception to that part. The hon. Member for London University (Sir E. Graham-Little) put his finger on another cause of the trouble when he mentioned the large classes, and we are all looking for something more to be done in that direction.

8.53 p.m.

Our Ministers in Northern Ireland take pride in following the legislation which is passed in this House, and if it were possible for the Government to undertake legislation of this character, I have no doubt that our Minister of Education in Northern Ireland might see his way to do the same. This subject brings us back to our school days. I was told when I was at school that they were the happiest days of my life and that I should make the most of them. As a matter of fact, I never was more pleased in my life than when I left school, and I never wanted to go back. I should like, however, to go back to the days of my youth; I would pass them very differently from the way in which I passed them then. In those days, when I came home at 3 o'clock and had some food, I had to sit down to prepare some of my home lessons. After a little food about 6 o'clock, I had to sit down again and prepare until about 10.30. I was up at 6 o'clock in the morning to prepare more lessons for that same day. That can only be designated as "child slavery," and yet it was absolutely necessary, because of the examinations for which we had to prepare throughout the year. In those days our teachers were paid by results. Those results were drawn from the brains of the children, and one can easily realise that the home lessons set at that time were sufficient to destroy the children for life. There was a particularly bright boy at my school who was the darling of the teachers because of his ability to absorb any subject put before him and to gain the highest places in the examinations. As a result, he died at a very early age, and his poor mother's comment was, "I would rather have a dead donkey than a live genius." [ Laughter. ] Well, it was the other way about. "I would rather have a live donkey than a dead genius." I happen to be an Irishman.

The point I wish to get at, which has not been mentioned before, is, How are the Government going to reduce home lessons? The present system is not the child's fault, and it is not the teacher's fault. Perhaps boards of governors of schools have something to do with it, because the governors have to look after the welfare of their school and are for ever comparing it with other schools. They say to the head teacher, "Why have you so low a percentage of ' credits to the school in the examinations?" The head master in turn has to think of his governors and their monthly meetings. And so the pernicious system goes on, from one stage to another. How are the Government to take charge of the secondary schools over the heads of the governors? The whole situation bristles with difficulties. We all admit that it is a pernicious system, but how can the Government help I am afraid I cannot offer them any suggestion. There may be a dozen subjects taught in one school and a dozen teachers, and each teacher is thinking of his own position in that school, because if he is not successful some other teacher will take his place. He is faced all the time with that prospect, and therefore he must set these lessons for the children to prepare at home.

It is a pernicious system, but what is the remedy? If there is to be a remedy it must, I feel, begin with the schools themselves and with those who are controlling the schools, having to fear less the competition of other schools. There are night schools, also, and technical colleges. We wonder sometimes, with all the money spent on it, whether we are not overdoing education. I read the other day in an English newspaper a statement that there were 7,000 qualified ladies, with degrees, walking about with nothing to do. I have no doubt there are some walks of life in which those ladies could be very useful, but apparently those other occupations are not regarded as dignified. It is felt that it is much nicer to see young ladies pouring out of college with their books under their arms, their caps on their heads and their gowns on their backs. To me it seems sometimes that it is a little bit of swank, because it does not get them very far. Are we not overdoing education? Consider the girls who go to the technical colleges.

I think the hon. and gallant Member would do better to keep to the subject of the Motion.

I have mentioned some of the difficulties with which the Government are confronted and I will not delay the House any longer, but only express the hope that as a result of the introduction of this Motion and of the speeches which have been made there will be some effort by some authority to abolish this child slavery.

9.2 p.m.

I wish to associate myself with the mover of this Motion, because I honestly believe he is taking the right line of procedure. I had the privilege—not the honour, because the subject did not get very far—of raising this matter in the House long before the hon. Member came here. He has told us that he has received many congratulations from all parts of the country on introducing this Motion. I, too, when I brought forward this subject, received letters from all over the country, welcoming my action from teachers as well as pupils and from their fathers and mothers. The hon. Member is on the right track, and I am hoping that we shall jointly achieve our object. So far as the Minister is concerned I think we can safely leave things to him. I was for a great many years chairman of an education committee in one area, and therefore I know something of what happens. I hope the Minister will find a means of doing what is desired. Whether homework can be entirely done away with is another matter, but if that is not possible there ought to be a reasonable limitation of it. I meet young people—in trains and in waiting rooms at stations—coming from school with their homework, and find that they are given far more to do than ought to be required of them. I myself have a son in higher education. He is one of those concerned in authorising these lessons to be set and has said that he does not believe in all that is taking place. He feels that an injury is being done. I have a nephew, also, in a similar position; and there are others in my own family who are concerned about this excessive homework. It is time that it were either concluded or reduced in accordance with the requirements.

After I introduced this matter, I received a communication from a certain man. I do not think he knows that I am aware who he is, but the letter was without a signature, and what he said in it was: in their industries, and have been continually meeting with the difficulties associated with the homework problem. I advise the Minister to consider this matter seriously with a view to the reduction of homework, if not its total abolition, and I hope that the House will come unitedly to the conclusion that the Minister and the Government must deal with this matter. I confidently expect that the Motion will be agreed to without opposition.

9.7 p.m.

This is, for several reasons, one of the most remarkable Debates to which I have ever listened in this House. My experience of this House extends for 14 years, so that that is saying something. We have heard 10 of 11 speeches, not one of which was in opposition to the Motion, and every speaker has approached the subject from a different angle. There has been very little repetition. The hon. Member who gave us a problem did not give us the answer to it, and I believe that the Front Benches on each side of the House are still wondering what the answer is. I have an answer, but I do not know whether I am right.

Most of the speakers appeared to take the point of view of those who live either in or close to industrial areas, but there is another side to this question, and it concerns children who live in rural areas. For them, the hardships may be very much accentuated by the fact that they live far from the secondary schools. I know districts in which children have to travel from 15 to 20 miles to school. True, that distance is not as the crow flies, but many of the children have to go by train or some other means of locomotion. They may have to travel two or two-and-a-half miles to the station, there is the train journey and then a considerable walk from the station to the school. We have to consider not only the distance to the school but the time that the children take to get there. Train and omnibus services are not run to a time-table to suit the children; consequently the children have to accommodate themselves to the timetable. I have known of children who had to leave home as early as 7 o'clock in the morning and who did not reach home much before 7 o'clock at night. These hardships are added to the hardships of homework. Hon. Members may suggest that homework could be done during the journey, but I should be very sorry for any child who had to do homework during a; railway journey. An hon. Member mentioned that homework imposes a greater hardship upon girls than upon boys, and I agree with him, because when a girl gets home she is sometimes expected to help her mother. I believe that the best education a girl can have is the education given to her in housework by her mother, but if she has a lot of school work to do in addition, that is a hardship to her as against her brother, who, as a rule, is not expected to do much housework.

Although there has been sympathy with the Motion in all parts of the House, that will not carry as much weight as the sympathy which will be shown outside the House. I am not one who thinks that there should be no school homework. The question of increasing the hours of attendance at school will have to be very carefully considered, otherwise the troubles of those who live a long way from school will be increased. Perhaps the class instruction time could be curtailed by the teacher and more preparation given in school during class hours. It will be found that children spend, say, seven hours in school and another three hours in transport, that is, 10 hours a day. If there were a trade union among children, those hours would not be tolerated. We must consider the children's rights whether they have a trade union or not. So far no hon. Member has suggested a remedy. I doubt very much whether the President of the Board of Education will be able to do so. The fact remains that the hours are too many at present, and the work is too hard. I should not condemn the system of preparation either in or out of school, but the difficulty is in finding what is the proper limit to the use of that system. No matter how good a system may be, the extreme use of it is evil. Although the principle of homework may be necessary and good, it has evil effects if carried to extreme.

9.13 p.m.

I am very glad that the hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Radford) has brought this educational subject before the House. Those who have sat through the Debate will agree with the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) that this has been one of the most unusual debates that the House has had for a very long time. I propose to suggest to the Minister where I think the central evil is and what is the first step towards a remedy. This is a problem of the secondary schools, as the mover of the Motion revealed by drawing the contrast between the boys in the elementary school and his sisters who were at the secondary school. It it undoubtedly the case that over-pressure has become the curse of secondary education. I cannot speak for Scotland or Northern Ireland, but in this country the reason why no pupil in a secondary school can escape from it is that the school certificate examination and the matriculation examination for entry into a university have now been made one and the same. That was done with a perfectly good intention. The school certificate examination was instituted some years ago as an examination for the ordinary kind of fifth-form boy who would take it in his stride without worrying. Then the universities were asked to come in and assist, and they did so. The universities then asked why there should be two examinations, and why should not the university matriculation examination and the school certificate examination be brought together, so that a child getting a high place in the school certificate examination would be regarded as having matriculated for the university without any further examination.

That development has been a disaster. As a result of it, schools are judged by the number of matriculation successes that they can put before the public, and it means that practically all the children are being prepared primarily for this matriculation examination. That has inevitably led to over-pressure. The matriculation examination is intended to be taken at 18 for entrance to a university, but the average age for the school certificate examination is 16 years and three months for boys and 16 years and nine months for girls—say an average of 16½ years. Therefore, the whole system of secondary education is dominated by this pressing of children between 16 and 17 into passing a university entrance examination the standard age for which is 18. Of course, this means that they must have homework.

A friend of mine wrote a short time ago to the headmistress of the school to which her girl went, and complained about the homework. The headmistress replied very fairly: "Unless your girl does three hours' homework, she cannot get her matriculation." That girl was not 16 years of age. I think that, while we are producing, as a result of our secondary education, a very disciplined and industrious race, we are grinding the character and individuality out of them. Not long ago I asked a boy, a friend of mine, whether he would like a book as a Christmas present. He was a rather studious boy of 15, not inclined to be humorous, and he replied quite seriously: "I shall not have any time to read books until I have left school." An hon. Member said that it is the fault of the examiners. The governors are helpless, the teachers are helpless, the children are helpless—they are all the victims of this system.

There is a remedy. The first step to take now is to make a complete separation between the matriculation examination for entrance to the universities and the school certificate examination for the purpose of judging the standard of education of a child of the average age of 16, letting the universities keep the matriculation examination for children of 18 who want to enter a university. Why should the whole of our secondary education be dominated by an examination for a university which only 5 per cent. of the children will enter? Complimentary remarks have been made about the board, but I think that for the last six years the President of the Board of Education and the board itself have been remiss on this question. It is nearly six years since the panel of examiners who control the examination recommended this separation, and in those six years public opinion has gathered, as the House has shown to-night, but no steps have been taken. It is not only the secondary schools that are affected, though these are in the worst position, because day pupils have to go backwards and forwards in all sorts of weather. It affects also the big public schools, where the pupils stay at school. I do not know whether the President noticed that about a year ago the High Master of Christ's Hospital sent round a letter to about 50 headmasters of public schools asking their opinion on this proposal to separate the examinations. He received 32 replies, and these showed that five headmasters of big public schools wished to retain the present system, and 27 wished the separation to be made.

I hope the President will take this Debate as a serious expression of the opinion of the House, and I would warn him to be very careful about what is going to happen in the new senior reorganised schools. I would ask him to make it impossible for the children in those schools to be made to work at any time for external examinations. I was discussing this question with a well-known director of education, and he told me that in his new senior reorganised schools pressure was already coming from the parents, who were asking whether their children who went to these schools were not going to have some examination certificate at the end, so that they could get a job. That is a natural question, but it must be resisted. A few weeks ago in London I was impressed by the extraordinary position which has been reached. I happened to visit two schools where the age is already raised to 15. The children there are not the cleverest children, nor the scholarship children, but children who were going into manual work. One of these schools was a boys' school and the other a girls' school, and I found that one-third of the children in those schools, who were to leave at the age of 15, were working for this examination of a standard for extrance to a university at the age of 18. That, of course, is due to pressure from the parents. It is not education, but cramming. If it is allowed to go on in the senior schools, it will mean that we shall be robbing our boys and girls of their childhood.

9.24 p.m.

No one among those who have listened to this Debate—I regret that their number has not been larger—can complain of the interest that it has aroused; and, if I may say so, there has been a complete absence of party politics or of any desire to score points. That has been shown by the brevity and pungency of the speeches. Hon. Members will, I am sure, excuse me if I do not refer individually to all the speeches which, from rather differing angles, have converged on this problem, but I should like, although unfortunately I did not hear it, to refer to the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Sexton), which I understand was greatly appreciated by the House. I understand also that his 30 years of scholastic experience have left him with a brevity which very seldom survives such an experience.

Let me first deal with the subject as it is raised in the Motion so well moved by my hon. Friend—the actual amount and extent of homework that is done, the damage to the child that results from it, and the possibility of substituting in some way preparation in the classroom for the homework done in the home. We are in the middle of an inquiry into the question of homework, and it would be obviously foolish for me to prejudge the information we will get from it, and to make statements or offer remedies until I am in possession of the full facts. The Board of Education has not been deaf to the various things appearing in the Press or to questions asked in this House, all of which have been indicative of a growing feeling of uneasiness among parents about the extent of this problem of homework. Because of that my predecessor instituted this comprehensive inquiry about a year ago. Altogether 250 secondary schools will be visited, and as that represents about 19 per cent. of the total I think hon. Members will agree that it is a fair proportion to take as a sample of the problem. All the junior technical schools are being visited, and in addition several hundreds of the elementary schools, though so far there has been little sign of this spreading to the elementary schools and my inspectors take every opportunity of discouraging it.

I think the hon. Gentleman is right, but it is in the main a secondary school problem, and everything is done to discourage the spreading of that problem to the elementary schools as well. This is not a cursory sort of examination—and I say that to explain the time that is being taken— which is simply fulfilled by sending a questionnaire to the head masters and local authorities, which is filled up and returned. It is necessitating visits to all these schools, some of which last a day and some two days, and talking to the children, and to the teachers. The terms of reference given to the inspectors are on these lines—(1) The nature of the homework; (2) The amount of time which it is expected that it shall take; (3) The special factors which operate to make one night heavier than another; (4) How-homework is organised and controlled by the head teacher; and (5) What opportunities are given to parents of expressing their views on the nature and extent of the homework that is given? We have already a great mass of information as a result of these inquiries, and I think I may say that the examination is almost complete.

One of the interesting by-products of the inquiry has been that in the course of these visits inspectors have found numerous instances of interesting experiments in homework being carried out on the initiative of the teachers, largely with a view to reducing the volume of homework while increasing its effectiveness. I hope that when we publish the results of the inquiry it will be possible to give some instances of these experiments for the information and interest of other schools. I think it is obvious that while I am awaiting this great mass of information, and before I have had a chance to sift and analyse it and to see what I believe to be its lessons and its remedies, it would be unwise for me to attempt to anticipate it. I think it is clear that there must be some period during which a child does independent work. I agree that certainly as a child gets older the most valuable work is work it does for itself when it has to use its own initiative, its own self-discipline, its own quickness and its own intelligence.

No one contemplates any solution which cuts out this independent work, however, wherever or whenever it is done. The hon. Member who moved the Motion referred to the possibility of substituting preparation in the school for homework at home. I agree that to a considerable extent that could be done with profit, but I think it would be unwise to generalise on the possibility of complete substitution of work in the schools for homework. Extremely interesting experiments have been carried out by the London County Council. I understand the experiments have been confined to elementary schools, but this year a similar experiment is being carried out in the secondary schools. The London County Council have selected particularly poor areas where it is most probable that home conditions are the most unsuitable for homework, and have made available this form of preparation in the classroom in its place. It will be of great interest when we get the experiment in secondary schools. Although I do not want to anticipate and to put forward any ideas and remedies which may be rendered nugatory by the facts when I get them, there are one or two things I would like to say on a problem which interests me as it has interested other hon. Members.

The hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) commented on the fact that so many hon. Members in this House have spoken about this subject from a different angle. I want to say a word about it from an angle which has not yet been mentioned, from something that has come to me during the opportunities I have had of visiting some of the secondary schools. I feel very strongly—a view which perhaps would have been considered heretical 20 years ago when educational ideas were much more restricted in scope and rigid in outlook than they are to-day—that certainly not the least valuable, perhaps the most valuable, part of education in the secondary school is to be found in the school activities. The lessons that can be brought away from the school dramatic society, from the school library and from the games in the school are as valuable as can be brought away from the science room or the ordinary classroom, and it certainly worried me very much that once or twice, when I have been to a secondary school and asked first about the library and then about the other school activities, I have been told that the children, certainly in their later years at school, had not been able to avail themselves of these activities, had not been able to join in them, because of the amount of work that they had had to do, which had left no time for them. I feel that a child who has to give them up during his school life for work, however valuable, is missing something which he will probably never get again. He is missing the opportunity of acquiring a hobby, an interest, a cultural outlook, which will last him throughout his life and which, even for the sake of two or three years learning in the school, is going to turn a man whose leisure otherwise might be profitless and empty and boring into a man who is going to get happiness and enjoyment out of all the leisure that is available to him. That is by no means the least important aspect of this excessive homework to which this Motion calls attention.

It is quite possible that, as the result of the information that we get from this survey, it may be disclosed that methods of organisation, better control by the headmaster, more care in the provision of subjects and the setting of them by assistant masters, may reduce the amount of homework that has to be done, but, at the risk of anticipating, as I said I would not, the conclusions of this inquiry I must say I agree with the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last upon the really fundamental issue that we have to face. If we find that this excessive homework is due to no lack of administrative efficiency, if it cannot be remedied simply by arranging things more skilfully, if in fact it is necessary that people are to pass examinations they are set on passing, there is nothing we can do to stop them because whatever administrative measures we take, whatever we try to do, we shall never be able to stop a child doing the work which he is told is necessary in order to pass an examination to which the child, the parents and the teachers attach very great importance. So in that event it comes down in the long run to this question of examinations. The right hon. Gentleman, I believe, was quite correct in his analysis. It has been the linking of the school certificate to matriculation which has resulted in children coming more and more to base the whole of their ideas of a successful school career on taking too early an examination which at no time of life probably is of any use to them at all. Children who are never going to a university in fact take an examination which is intended for children who are going to a university. The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct in saying that attention has been drawn to this by the investigators of the school certificate examinations themselves. That of course, has been referred to the universities, as it is a matter for them. Matriculation, after all, is not a State affair. It is the standard examination which the universities set for entrance into a university. I hope that the inquiry, which I believe is now actively proceeding, will soon be completed and we shall be able to see what the universities feel is possible to be done.

An hon. Member referred to another point about the school certificate. It has not only become a passport to the university. It has become a passport into employment, and it was never intended for either. The second is perhaps the most difficult of all. The first, after all, lies in the hands of the universities. The second lies in the hands of thousands of employers up and down the country whom you can only get at by bringing these things to their notice. One must realise that this evil, as I believe it to be, has grown out of the very best intentions. I plead guilty myself. I used to be engaged in business in the City. I have all my life been keen upon education. I thought I was doing a good thing by saying in my office, where a boy who joined as office boy could rise to manager or partner, that I would not take a boy for the smallest job who had not the school certificate or matriculated. I thought in that way I was putting a premium on more education and was doing a service to education. It is this motive that has actuated employers throughout the country in asking for it. It is not going to be an easy process to convince them that they were wrong. If I was once again in charge of that business and responsible for employment, I should never insist on a certificate. I would only take a boy who was recommended to me by the Association of Headmasters, who look after these employment problems in London. That is to say that you should get not only the academic standard of passing an examination which is neither suited for the child nor for employment but the element of judgment which the headmaster of the school can bring to bear upon the boy.

It is up to all of us to try to get them to realise that, when they insist upon the school certificate or on matriculation as a standard, they are doing no service to the child or to education, and I believe they are doing no service to themselves as employers. If instead, we can get them to make more use of these bodies of which I know in London, and which I believe are being set up in many parts of the country, these associations of the headmasters of secondary schools, who work through committees and recommend boys for employment with knowledge of their suitability and their capacity for a particular job, I think we are going a good way to solve some of our problems. Certainly, it would solve the problem of the danger of the school certi- ficate growing up in the senior schools. There it is entirely an employment question, and, if once we could make certain that the possibility of a good job does not depend on the mere fact whether you have passed the school certificate, any incentive to extend this system to the senior schools would disappear and you need have no fear of the problem at all.

We have reason, I think, to be grateful to my hon. Friend who initiated the Debate. It is a subject of serious importance which has been treated seriously and I hope, although I have not been able to make any concrete suggestions, that I have said enough to show that the Board of Education is out of touch neither with opinion in this House nor in the country, and that we are as determined as any one in the House to see that the whole matter is considered, and that whatever is wrong is remedied. As some testimony of what our feeling is, I am sure we could do no better than allow this Motion to pass.

9.45 p.m.

I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in the inquiries in elementary schools, he is directing any attention to the year which immediately precedes the special place examination. In the experience of those of us who have taught in elementary schools there is very considerable pressure on the part of parents that homework shall be set for their children between 10 and 11 years of age in order that they may have a better chance of passing the special place examination than children who do not do homework. My own view is that homework at such an age is altogether indefensible, and that one wants least of all to get for the special place examination those children who have been cramming, and who have come to believe that the mere entry into a secondary school is an achievement in itself, and not an opportunity which carries heavy responsibilities with it. I hope that, in view of the belief which is apparently shared by both Front Benches that nothing is wrong with the elementary schools, the particular danger to which I have just referred will not be lost sight of, because those of us who are actively connected with the practice and administration in elementary schools are often seriously perturbed by the pressure which parents bring on teachers and authorities to permit homework at that quite indefensible age.

I said in my reply that the inquiry is covering several hundreds of elementary schools.

Could not the problem we are now discussing be solved to a considerable extent if the right hon. Gentleman and his Advisory Committee could eliminate from the curriculum a great deal of useless lumber?

As the right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware, it is the topic of secondary schools and their curriculae that is now being considered by the consultative committee.

Consultative committees have reported on this matter for at least 25 years. Now that the problem of homework is assuming such proportions in the secondary schools, is it not time that a great deal of lumber, such as history, should be eliminated from the curriculum?

I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's sweeping statement, although after reading the history of some political movements, I do agree that some history is lumber. Seriously speaking, this topic is now being considered by a very strong consultative committee of the board, and the report is expected in a few months time.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:

"That in the opinion of this House, it is undesirable that school children should have their evenings occupied with homework, to the exclusion of rest and recreation; and that, whenever practicable, preparation on the school premises should be substituted for homework."

Scottish Rating System

9.50 p.m.

I beg to move, Scotland, where the rating system is different from that which exists in England, there is no doubt that various anomalies have come to light. In England the rates are paid by the occupier, whereas in Scotland they are paid partly by the owner and partly by the occupier, the percentage being approximately 50 in each case. This division of rates in Scotland has been going on since 1663, and naturally at that time there was no thought of the burdens which local authorities would have to bear to-day. During these 270 years the position has arisen that many people have seen improvements which they think ought to be made, and during the last 40 years, in addition to a considerable amount of literature on the subject, there have been three inquiries and three reports on the question of Scottish rates. There was first of all a Royal Commission, and then there were two Departmental Committees, the last of which reported in 1922, and I would like to quote briefly from that report. It says:

With regard to the question of the inclusion of owners' rates in the rent which the landlord charges for his house, it is well known that, whether it is a matter of a duty on whisky or on tobacco, the consumer has to pay in the end, and in this particular case the occupier has to pay the rates. Now, when a man lets his house, he has to add to the rent which he charges a sum which will reimburse him for the owners' rates which he has to pay, and to that extent the rent is increased. In Scotland, however, the problem does not end there, for not only have owners' rates to be added to the rent, but those rates have themselves to bear rates. The rates are built up and up ad infinitum, and the result is that there is produced in Scotland a very high valuation for assessment purposes, and with that there is a low poundage rate which does not really show the true position. Extravagance is hidden and the various rates which are contained in the rents are lost sight of.

As an example it is quite fair to say that if a man in Glasgow and a man in England are letting similar houses, the former would charge £14 as rent and the latter, in order to obtain the same return on his outlay of capital, would have to charge £20. Naturally this leads the tenant to believe that in one case he has been charged more than he ought to have been charged, although £14 in England is exactly comparable with £20 in Glasgow. I have no doubt that this leads to a great deal of discontent, and I think every Member of the House will agree that it is important that there should be friendly relations between landlords and tenants. Therefore, I would suggest that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman who is to reply could devise some scheme to meet the position, it would be a good thing. If in rent books and leases in Scotland the true figures were shown, with so much allocated to rent and so much to owners' rates, the tenant would be able to see that, in fact, all the money he pays does not go to the landlord, but that a proportion has to be passed on to the local authority in rates. That is my first suggestion, and if it is practicable I do not think that it would do any harm, but would clarify the position very much indeed. I put that as an anomaly.

The other thing of which I want to speak is the question of unoccupied properties. If property in England is occupied the owner pays the rates, and if it is unoccupied no rates are paid. That is not the case in Scotland. In the Local Government Act of 1929 productive factories were relieved of rates up to 75 per cent. That was a very real advantage and a wise thing to do. Supposing such a factory for some reason or other is closed down, the relief of rates is immediately cancelled, and the result is that the factory has, in fact, to pay double the rates of a factory which is working. That is not reasonable, and if something could be done to put the matter right it would have a very good effect. We know what happens in Scotland. The way to avoid owners' rates on a house or factory which is not in use is to take off the roof and render the property useless. That is not a wise or an economic thing to do or one for which this House or anyone in Scotland really stands.

I heard of an instance lately—no doubt it is true, and it would make a good example if it were not the fact—of a certain firm with two factories, one in Scotland and one in England. Things were going badly and they were both closed down temporarily. The English works was immediately derated and the Scottish one had to pay double the rates it was paying before. In order to avoid paying the rates the factory was rendered useless. Things improved, and I understand that to-day, although the Scottish factory is derelict, the English factory is running on full time. Things like that should be put right. It would not take a great deal of money to put a factory which is not working upon the same basis for rating as a factory which is working. It would encourage people to come to Scotland perhaps, whereas the present system does everything to discourage them. I am sure it would be to the advantage of us all. I want to make it perfectly clear that they are only anomalies with which I am dealing, and I am not trying to reform the Scottish rating system. But I hope that my hon. and gallent Friend will take notice of these anomalies and will do something to rectify these justifiable grievances.

9.59 p.m.

I beg to second the Motion.

In doing so I crave the indulgence which the House grants to a new Member making his maiden speech. The question of the system of rating in Scotland has been a burning one ever since I can remember, and I assure the House, if it does not know it already, that when a question is so described in Scotland it can burn very brightly indeed. The rating system of Scotland as it is presently constituted really dates back, as my hon. and gallant Friend has told the House, to the year 1663. Therefore it is obvious that it is quite out of date for modern industrial conditions. It has long been realised that reform has been necessary, but the problem has again and again been shelved. In the last 40 years there have been three major inquiries. First a Royal Commission was appointed in 1896, under the chairmanship of Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and I believe that it sat for six years. Then in 1911 a Departmental Committee was appointed and sat for three years, and there was a third Commission, under the chairmanship of Lord Dunedin, which reported in 1922. In addition to these official inquiries, various unofficial inquiries have been held and nothing has ever been done. A friend of mine, writing to me the other day—and he is a man with some experience of rating questions—said that the English system of rating may not be a very good one, but the Scottish system is the worst that he knows.

I confess that I have not made an exhaustive examination of the English system of rating, but the principal differences between it and the Scottish seem to be, firstly, that the system of valuation in England is based upon rateable value, and it is revised every five years, whereas in Scotland our rating system is based upon rental value paid by the tenant, and it is reviewed every year. Another difference is that in England unoccupied property is not assessed, whereas in Scotland it is assessed. The third difference is that in England occupiers pay all the rates, and in Scotland the rates are paid, partly by the owners and partly by the occupiers.

I do not intend to say much about the system of valuation, because probably both of them are open to argument and criticism, but I would call attention to the fact that in Scotland the valuation appeal courts are largely composed of members of the local authorities. It seems to be a very bad system that the people who have to hear and judge the appeals should be those who in effect assess the rates and are themselves responsible for spending the money which is collected. I suggest that these courts should be made more judicial in character. The assessment of all unoccupied property is thought to be a very severe hardship. My hon. and gallant Friend mentioned the case of a works which for reasons of bad trade had to close down and said that it not only lost the benefit of derating, but the owner of it still had to pay full owners' rates. I believe that that is strictly the law, but in effect—and I have had experience of these matters—when a works becomes unoccupied the local assessor is empowered to reduce the valuation to some extent. It is entirely left to the discretion of the local assessor, and therefore the system is not uniform throughout Scotland as a whole. I do not think that the owner of unoccupied premises should pay any rates. He does not do so in England, and I do not see why he should have to do so in Scotland. The only way, as my hon. and gallant Friend has said, in which an owner can get out of paying his rates is to remove the roof from his house, or factory, or wherever the building may be. That is a very bad thing, because good times may come along again, and it costs a lot of money to recondition a building.

I now come to the question of rates in Scotland being paid proportionately by owners and occupiers. This leads to a number of anomalies, the principle one of which is that valuations are increased because they are based on the rent paid. Thus, an owner when he lets the property has to add the owners' rates to the rent that he asks from his tenant. Not only that, but he is assessed on the rates which are rent. Therefore he has to add a further sum, so that rates are paid on rates. To illustrate what I mean, I should like to cite a case that was given in evidence by the Town Clerk of Glasgow before an inquiry held by Scottish National Development Council, in 1933. He took the case of two men, one who built a house in England and another who built a house in Scotland, each at a cost of £400. In order to arrive at the rental which was going to give him a return for his house, the Englishmen charged 5 per cent. on his capital, which came to £20. He added to that, £7 for repairs and so on, bringing the total that he would have to ask from his tenant to £27. That on the English system would be the value on which the assessor would value the house. What happened in the Scottish case? He does the same thing in order to get £27 for his house, but he has to add to the £27, his owners' rates. That works in a vicious circle. In Glasgow in 1932 the owners' proportion of rates was 5s. 2d. So that the owners' rates on the £27 amounted to £6 19s. 6d. This being rent, the owner had to pay rates upon that figure, which amounted to £l 16s., and then rates upon that. In order to get his £27 return from his house he had to charge his tenant £38 8s. 1d. That was the amount at which his house was valued.

It is true that the local authorities have to get the money somehow, and it may be said that it is as broad as it is long, whatever method is adopted to bring in the money. Comparisons are constantly being made between cities in England and cities in Scotland, but those comparisons cannot be made fairly unless the valuations are the same. I suppose that at the present time the rates in Glasgow and Birmingham are, roughly, between 14s. and 15s. in the pound, but Birmingham is valued on the English basis of £27 and Glasgow on the basis of £38. It has been calculated that if Glasgow were valued on the Birmingham basis, the Glasgow rates would represent something like 25s. to 30s. in the pound. Think what an outcry there would be in Glasgow if the citizens were asked to pay rates at that figure. It would raise the whole question with a vengeance and would lead to a great deal of economy in city administration.

10.10 p.m.

I should like to compliment the hon. Member for Partick (Mr. Young) on his very excellent maiden speech. It was an interesting speech, and I hope that we shall hear him on other occasions. I wish he had had a better subject and a better case to present. While I agree that there is a case for an inquiry into Scottish rating, I am not sure that the manner in which the hon. and gallant Member for North Ayr (Sir C. MacAndrew) proposes to deal with it is the way that it should be approached. The question of Scottish rating requires something much more elaborate than the two suggestions put before the House in the Motion.

I tried to make it clear that I was not attempting to put the system of rating right, but that I was trying to iron out a few anomalies.

I have a certain amount of sympathy with the first anomaly mentioned in the Motion. Where you have rates and rent lumped together and rates imposed on that lump sum, it is an anomaly and one that ought to be dealt with. It is in regard to the second suggestion that I have the greatest difficulty and I feel some opposition. The system whereby unlet property is subject to local rates in Scotland is regarded by the hon. and gallant Member as an anomaly. I suppose that it is an anomaly compared with the system in England. They have built up a system in England, just as we have built up a system in Scotland.

But I am sure that in England they would never suggest that when a factory is closed down that it should pay double the rates that it would pay if it was working. They would not be so stupid as that.

That may be. They may not be proposing that, but I am not sure that it is the case in Scotland.

At any rate, my objection to the Motion with regard to that point is this. The hon. Member for Partick says that a local authority must get its rates. I want him to tell us where this loss in local rates is to be met; where the burden is to be placed? Is it to be spread generally over the ratepayers in Scotland or are we to have some other proposal put forward to make up the loss in rates to a local authority? If they are robbed of this particular part of their revenue from what source will the loss be made up? Neither of the two hon. Members have told us how it is to be done.

Obviously the money has to be found, but it is an anomaly that a factory which is not working should pay double rates. The rates might be raised over the whole field in order to make good the loss.

That may be all right, but I want to make sure that the proposition before us is not going to have the effect of raising the rates of the ordinary householder? Under the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, productive industries have had the advantage of derating, but the ordinary householder, the ordinary ratepayer, has had no benefit during all these years. In fact, his position is worse than it was before the derating Act was passed.

At any rate, the proposal before us will have the effect of raising the rates of the ordinary householder unless we can induce the Undersecretary to give us additional grants to make up the loss in rates to local authorities. I cannot support that part of his Motion. I do not suppose that we shall divide upon it, but this matter will certainly require a great deal more consideration and discussion than we can give it to-night before it can be accepted by local authorities in Scotland as a method of getting rid of what hon. Members call an anomaly.

10.19 p.m.

I should like to develop a point put by the hon. and gallant Member for North Ayr (Sir C. MacAndrew) when he asked that the Under-Secretary of State should differentiate on the returns between the amount payable in rent and the amount payable in rates. If he does nothing else I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will seriously consider that point. Perhaps he might issue an instruction that rates shall not be assessed upon rents. The hon. Member opposite has raised a very pertinent question. An alteration in the system would mean less money coming to rating authorities from this particular source, that is to say house property which is let, but our point is that the English system is much fairer than the Scottish system. In England, rates on houses that are let are assessed on the rents received, whereas, in Scotland, the rates on houses that are let are assessed not only on the rent but on the rates as well. This amounts to something like 50 per cent. extra on the hon. and gallant Gentleman's figures. If the rates on a house which is let at £14 are 6s. in the £ that would make a rent of £14 and a rate of £4 4s. That would be the position in England where the total sum would be £18 4s. But in Scotland the owner has to add the £4 4s. to his £14 and then pay the rate on that sum bringing the total up to £20. That is where the trouble has arisen.

Does the hon. and gallant Member suggest that in the valuation roll rates paid by the tenant are included in the value of the property?

I am saying categorically, that whereas the Scottish houseowner who lets a house and gets in rent £14 has to pay rates on the whole sum of rent and rates the Englishman in the same position only pays on the rent received. What we ask, in the first place, is that the two figures shall be differentiated in the return and, secondly, that the rating authority shall not be allowed to rate upon the amount of rent plus rates. We shall then get a fairer return and a fairer proportion of rates on house property that is let, which at the present time, bears a proportion of rates roughly 50 per cent. higher than corresponding property in England.

10.23 p.m.

I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for North Ayrshire (Sir C. MacAndrew) for raising this subject but it is too difficult and complex a question to be dealt with at this time of night. We Scotsmen regard it as something which interests us very much, but I do not intend to deal at any length with the subject on this occasion. The Mover and Seconder of the Motion made great play with the differences between the English and Scottish rating systems and told us how we in Scotland have to pay not only rates on rent but rates upon rates as well. Thus the owner of property or his factor is not only a collector of rents but a collector of rates. This system camouflages to a certain extent what people are paying in house-rent. It gives property-owners a bad name and leaves a very bad taste in the mouths of our tenants, as compared with the tenants across the Border. That is quite true. He also referred to the question of valuation. To my mind, valuation and rating can never he segregated. It is quite true that the valuation court of the local authority meet once a year, get the assessor's statement and the appellant's statement, and give judgment, but they are not the final judges in the matter, and I presume the Lord Advocate will tell us later on that there is an appeal to the court if there is dissatisfaction with the valuation.

I understand that the outstanding point in valuation which is often quoted by the assessor is the rent that can be obtained for a dwelling or property, taking one year with another. It has always seemed to me a rather anomalous position that you should apply that to unlet property, because if it is unlet, what is the rent of the property and how is the valuation arrived at? The valuation in Scotland, to my mind at any rate, is largely a matter of opinion, the opinion of the assessor or his advisers. I hope to see the day when the whole of the rating system in Scotland, not the anomalies only, shall be revised and a valuation taken on the real value of the property, taking into consideration the situation of the property, the cost of living where that property is situated, and the ability of the people to pay. It may be that we should take the cubic space of the property or the square measure of the floor space and have an equality of valuation all over Scotland, taking these things into consideration, that would lead to a more equitable system of rating house property as the means of raising the rates of all the local services that the local authorities are administering to-day.

It seems to me strange that the Mover and Seconder of the Motion should have referred to this matter as dating back to 1660. Scotland had not been joined to England at that time. We did not have the union of Parliaments until 1707. We allow hundreds of years to pass, and we have to come to London to put our Scottish rating system right. We did not think of doing it ourselves. Be that as it may, there are great anomalies in the rating system, I admit, but that is merely touching the fringe of the subject. Housing in Scotland to-day is in its present position largely owing to the vicious rating system. Why is it that in a survey of the houses in Glasgow, according to a return lately given to us by the medical officer of health, we have 100,000 houses overcrowded? It is because of the rating system.

It is a great factor in the matter. Rents, with rates, are made so expensive that people cannot afford to pay them. We have had examples given from Birmingham, where the rates are 14s. in the £, and if Glasgow were rated on the same basis, the rates would be from 25s. to 30s. in the £. That is included in the rent. The rating system in Scotland to-day is mere camouflage. I ask myself this question: Why is it that across the border here we have private enterprise functioning in providing houses for letting, when in Scotland we have scarcely anybody touching it? If you adopt the English system, you will cause a tremendous hue and cry, I admit. I do not admit that the English system is a good one. The Scottish system is bad, but the English system is not better, and I do not want the Scottish system brought into line with it. I say to my friends in Scotland that our system is not a matter of anomalies, but a matter for a commission that will probe it to its roots, that will root up the whole system and plant it anew. There are many issues that one could raise on this Motion, but this is not the time of night to discuss a great problem like this. It is a serious problem in Scotland, which affects the housing and health of the people, and we want a thorough inquiry into it in order that we may know exactly where we stand.

10.31 p.m.

I wish to associate myself with the demand for an inquiry into the rating system in Scotland. The anomaly mentioned by an hon. Member on the other side of a factory paying more when it is closed, is due to the fact that relief is given to the employer when he does not require it The way to end that anomaly is to end the relief. I want an inquiry into the rating system so that the workers will be entirely relieved of rates and all the responsibility for rates will come upon those who own property or who make profits out of industry at the expense of the workers. It might be in the form of a local income tax. I wish to draw attention to an anomaly which applies to Scotland, but not to England. It is the case of a man who is charged £5 because the authorities have kept him in gaol for a couple of weeks for the nonpayment of rates. That charge is for keeping him in prison, but you could keep him cheaper in the Savoy Hotel. This anomaly, if nothing else, should be sufficient to justify a thorough inquiry into the Scottish rating system. Therefore, while I do not agree with hon. Members on the other side on the solution they have in mind, I agree in the desire for an inquiry.

10.34 p.m.

I am not sure that I am greatly interested in the two anomalies that were chosen by the hon. Members opposite. I agree that it is silly, stupid and indefensible that the employer of a factory, when his factory is closed down, should pay double the rates that he pays when his factory is working. That is a subject for laughter and not for argument at all. If my hon. Friends who raised this issue had been really desirous of facing up to all the anomalies, or the major anomalies, in our rating system, they might at least have made a passing reference to the fact that men who own land in the neighbourhood of a local authority's activities may find the value of it increasing without being called upon to bear any share of the local burdens. We might at least have had some indication of the fact that landlords sleep but thrive. Hon. Members are well aware that around every city and borough in Scotland there are men holding on to plots of land who are reaping considerable financial advantages which they have never lifted a finger to create.

The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) suggested that we might have a municipal income tax. In theory that would probably be highly desirable, but there are very grave difficulties in the way. Where does a man earn his income? He may draw his income from twenty sources, and where is he to pay his local income tax? The proposal is not so simple as would appear at first sight. In theory we ought, doubtless, to abolish rating of house property altogether. There is no reason why the owner or the tenant of a house should carry the burden of municipal services on his back while the speculator and the financier, who may be making hundreds of thousands of pounds, get off scot free, or practically scot free. There is one big warren of a building in the centre of Glasgow which is practically composed of single-room offices in which men carry on speculations of one kind or another. They pay comparatively small rents and, therefore, comparatively low rates, but they make their thousands or, indeed, hundreds of thousands of pounds. Why should the owner or tenant of a house or a building be called upon to bear burdens simply because he uses that house or factory while the speculator who may be making hundreds of thousands of pounds may not be living in the city at all?

There are all sorts of anomalies, but they come from what we call the capitalist system. Every group or section is endeavouring to shift the burden on to another group. In theory the back which can best bear the burden ought to carry it, but undoubtedly there are hundreds of thousands of poor people; and for that matter of employers of labour and owners of factories, who are carrying burdens which they ought not to have to bear and from which speculators, financiers and the "moneyocracy" generally manage to escape; and if an inquiry is to be set up let us hope that it will not be confined to the rather minor anomalies referred to by my hon. Friends who initiated this discussion. Let us get down to this position: that local services have to be supplied and that the burden of supporting them ought to be laid on the backs of those best able to bear it. Generally speaking, I should say that is the attitude which we on these benches would adopt.

I am certain there is no one on this side of the House who would agree with the hon. Member for Cathcart (Sir J. Train) when he said that the rotten houses in Scotland to-day are the outcome of a vicious rating system. There are rotten houses, rotten slums, rotten villages and rotten towns in England, where there is a different rating system.

I do not advocate the English system, and I did not say it was the result of a rotten system.

I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the rotten housing system in Scotland was due to the vicious rating system. I hope I am not misrepresenting the hon. Gentleman. The housing system has been rotten in Scotland as far back as Chadwick's time, when it was much worse than it is to-day and when the burden of local rates was practically nil. The burden of local rates has never caused or perpetuated our slum system in Scotland. I trust that whatever remedies we may suggest for the anomalies—and there are anomalies —in our rating system, we shall not put up bogus remedies for our slum system such as the hon. Member for Cathcart seemed to me to suggest. If the Scottish Office and the Government should decide to have an inquiry into the matter, I trust that that inquiry will be wide, full and complete, and will not be confined to the two small matters that were raised by those who initiated the discussion.

10.42 p.m.

The subject that has been raised to-night is one upon which we could well have spent a good deal more time than has been available. It has its roots in history, for, as has been pointed out by several hon. Members, the Scottish rating system goes back a very long time, and I find that the English system of levying rates on occupiers alone goes back farther still, to the time of Queen Elizabeth. In Scotland, in the year 1692, a date slightly later, I think, than the one mentioned by my hon. Friend, a decision was arrived at to divide the burden, as far as possible, between owners and occupiers. The whole question of the incidence of local taxation in Scotland has exercised the minds of competent men for a long period.

In the last 50 years there have been a number of commissions of inquiry who have looked into this subject. In 1896, a Royal Commission of weight and importance under Lord Balfour of Burleigh was set up by the government of the day. That commission did not report until 1902, so that it had plenty of time to think about this very difficult problem. When it did report, it did so in favour of the substantial maintenance of the present order. Later, a departmental committee on local taxation in Scotland was set up, under Lord Dunedin, and that committee reported in 1922. At this late hour I will not recite the names of that committee, but they are names which command respect, and undoubtedly the deliberations of the committee carry great weight. I do not propose to quote the findings of the committee in any detail, but I would say that particularly on this question of the incidence of taxation as between owner and occupier, the committee found in favour of the maintenance of that division.

They also made an observation to which my hon. Friend who opened this Debate referred. It was to the effect that economy was called for because the system was, in their view, reaching breaking point because of the loads that were being attached to it. The years that have followed 1922 have shown interesting facts that bear out the statement that although expenditure has increased, the State's share of that expenditure has also greatly increased. The fear that Lord Dunedin expressed at that time about increased expenditure has been removed to some extent, owing to the increased share which the State has taken in the burdens that have been carried. For example, in 1922 the revenue expenditure of the local authorities in Scotland was £47,000,000, in round figures. In 1933 it had risen to £56,000,000. But the rate-borne expenditure, which in 1922 was £19,500,000, again in round figures, was in 1933 £18,500,000. Expressed as an amount per head of the population, that represents a decrease from £4 per head to £3 15s. The total amount shows a very clear drop.

As the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, those figures take no account whatever of the fact that the relief from national sources goes to a very small class in the community and that the tenant gets no relief whatever.

The right hon. Gentleman has missed my point. The total amount which the local authorities had to levy locally is shown to be £1,000,000 less in 1933 than in 1922, and in the present year, so far as I can ascertain from the demand notes issued by the local authorities—it is not a final figure—the rate-borne expenditure for the current year amounts to about £18,900,000, which again is less than the figure I have quoted for 1922. I will not develop that point in detail, except to say that of course the State has come increasingly into the picture in bearing certain burdens, notably the 40 per cent. share of the cost of relieving able-bodied unemployed.

Assuming that to-night we do not intend to discuss a change from the Scottish to the English system—assuming, that it is to say, that my hon. Friends do not wish, and I gather that they do not wish, to press to its utmost the flattery of imitating the English system—I think they would wish me to make some observations on the anomalies which have been mentioned to-night. In the first place, let me speak of the question which was raised as to the tenant not fully realising, in making his payment to the landlord or his agent, that a portion of that payment represented rates. What is the position with regard to the rent-book? The position is that at the present time the rent-book shows the occupier's rates. When regulations under the Rent Restrictions Act were being considered in 1933, it was suggested that the rent-book should also show the rates payable by the landlord in respect of the premises in the current rating period, in the first place for owner's rates, and in the second place for occupier's rates.

At that time—it was a year or two ago—the National Federation of Property Owners and Factors in Scotland did not agree with this proposal, on the ground that the filling in of this information would entail increased work which would not be justified. I do not say that that is a final decision on this matter, because I promise to examine the point which my hon. Friends have raised. I would like to make it clear, however, that the point is not entirely a new one, but that it was in fact considered in 1933, when these regulations were being framed. I repeat that we shall examine the question and consider whether it is possible to do anything on the lines that my hon. Friend suggests, in order to make clear the share which relates to rates.

Let me come to the question of the empty factory. In the first place, what is broadly the practice at the present time in regard to the factory which ceases to produce? The benefits of derating were given for a specific purpose. When premises are disused so long as to lose the benefit of derating the valuation should be and normally is reduced. I think that the hon. Member for Partick (Mr. Young), on whose practical maiden speech I should like to congratulate him, agreed with that. I agree that this is not a uniform rule, but it is the general practice at the present time. In the first year nothing is done at all. After the first year the practice has been for the assessors to reduce the valuation by a proportion up to 50 per cent. when the derating provisions cease to apply. In the third and subsequent years the valuation is still further reduced, having regard to the particular circumstances and the condition in which the works are maintained. Premises likely to remain empty permanently are valued at a nominal figure. I agree that this problem should have sympathetic consideration, and I can undertake that it will have, and is having at the present time, close examination. But we have not before us many concrete instances. I have made inquiries at the Board of Trade and other Departments concerned, but we have not been able to obtain concrete instances of hardship. I am very willing to see a thorough inquiry made to see whether the position is causing hardship.

If inquiry is being made, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman make inquiry also on the other side with regard to the tenant who has become unemployed as to whether he will get his rates reduced because he is unemployed owing to a factory being closed down?

The hon. Member is raising a different question. He was not here earlier in the Debate or he would know that this is a larger question. At five minutes to 11 one can hardly cover the whole field of conditions arising out of a system which has been developed out of antiquity. The hon. Member for Partick raised a question in relation to the constitution of the local valuation appeal committee. As he rightly said, these committees are composed of members of the local authorities, who are at the same time the authorities which levy the rates in the district. I am very glad to hear any representations that my hon. Friend would wish to make on the point, but I am assured that in general there is not any body of complaint about the work of these committees, and they have above them the very efficient control of the Lands Valuation Appeal Court. It is true it seems odd that the composition of the committee should include people who apply the rates in the district, but with their knowledge of the district, and their desire to maintain industry in the district, in general the operation is fair.

The right hon. Gentleman who spoke last was going to widen the field with a little healthy propaganda on the subject of the taxation of land values, and finally the larger subject of the capitalist system. I do not think we should develop that theme at five minutes to 11. I think he would wish that for the present, and I hope for a long time to come, we should grapple with this problem of local government in a practical way, recognising that we have certain conditions to face and certain conditions under which we can work a satisfactory system if we can iron out the anomalies. I thank my hon. Friends for the way in which they have raised the subject. The House may be assured that it will have our whole attention. I accept the Motion in the form in which it is moved and can assure hon. Members that any representations that they have to make on the subject of these anomalies will be very carefully listened to.

10.58 p.m.

I am afraid the local authorities will not be too well satisfied with the manner in which the Undersecretary has dealt with this question. There is great dissatisfaction amongst them in connection with the present system. There is a definite desire to have many of these anomalies removed. One of the greatest of all is the percentage that has to be collected by the local authorities themselves as compared with that provided by the State. When the present system was inaugurated, the foundation on which it was built was quite suitable for the conditions of that time. There were no great social services to be administered by the local authorities as there are to-day, and the collection of money for local purposes was a simple matter. We have had vast changes even since the Dunedin Committee reported.

Vast increases in the State's share of assistance, increases of which the Dunedin Committee had no idea.

That is true, but you have also limited the shoulders which have to bear local responsibilities because of the De-rating Act, with the result that more and more money has to be provided by owners and occupiers of houses and shops. I should have wished it had been possible to have a statement that the Government were prepared to set up a Departmental Committee or another Royal Commission to inquire into the whole problem of local rating. I feel Sure that, if that promise had been made, it would have been hailed with satisfaction by the Convention of Royal Burghs. I am speaking on their behalf. They are making an appeal for the setting up of a Committee or Commission to inquire into the whole question.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

The Orders of the Day were read, and postponed.

Unemployment (Advisory Committees)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [ Mr. James Stuart. ]

11.1 p.m.

Last week I put two or three questions to the Minister of Labour regarding the setting up of advisory committees under Part II of the Unemployment Insurance Act. The answers of the right hon. Gentleman were so unsatisfactory that I am compelled to deal with the question on the Adjournment. I am sorry to say that the answers of the right hon. Gentleman, as well as those of his predecessors on this matter, have been not only unsatisfactory but, as I shall show, have deliberately ignored the fact that the advisory committees have to be set up under the law. The essence of the case is that under the 1934 Act it is definitely laid down that these advisory committees, composed of experienced men with local knowledge, have to be set up. This is not dependent upon some date, for it is definitely laid down that from the time the Act begins to operate the committees shall be set up.

The importance of these committees rests mainly upon the fact, as will be remembered by the House, that when the Act as a Bill was first suggested to the country, the country was wholly alarmed by its proposals. What the Bill proposed and did was to set aside a centuries old practice of the administration of the greater part of the Poor Law, and to reverse that order for the purpose of centralising the method of dealing with masses of unemployed and people in need of relief. It is true that those who are sick and aged are left outside the scope of this Act, but it is quite clear that the standards and amounts of those who are left under popular control are indirectly affected by the operation of this Act. There was consequently very great alarm throughout the country, and the Government was obviously affected by this alarm, which had been caused by the fact that there was to be no public representation whatever in connection with the administration of the new Act and the new system. Therefore, the Minister who was responsible for seeing the Bill through was very careful to ensure that the proposal which was to palliate public opinion was put at the very forefront of the second Section of the Act. Section 3 of Part II says: of this Section of the Act. I will not go through all the answers which the right hon. Gentleman has given, but the impression has grown upon my mind that the Government do not intend to put this Section into operation. There is abundant evidence in the answers of the right hon. Gentleman for that conclusion. The fact remains that for twelve months the Government have ignored the fact that it was their legal duty to get this Section put into operation. This Section came into force a year last January, and nothing has been done in the direction of setting up the particular committees. At any rate, if anything has been done, the right hon. Gentleman has never told the House what it is. Here is the answer—the basis of most of his answers—given to the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White):

It is not that we would suggest this method; rather would we break the whole system to-morrow, if we could, and we would rather have the whole-time system of public representation; but here, at any rate, is a slight recognition of the fact that there is experience which ought to be made available to the public. If many people outside get into the frame of mind, as I have done, of believing that the administration of the Unemployment Board is in such a bad way that there is a good deal to hide, that is largely because the Government have refused to put these advisory committees into operation. Last year the board spent something like £43,000,000. The criticism which was made at the time that the Act was going through, that the House would have almost no control over that expenditure, has worked out in practice. Although £43,000,000 was spent last year, there has been very little public control by the House of Commons over that expenditure. There are 2,000,000 people at least who are affected, and 750,000 applicants. The House has been very patient about this matter, but we on this side do not intend to allow this thing to go on any longer. If the right hon. Gentleman does not give us a satisfactory answer, we shall have to take other steps to compel the Government to carry out their legal obligations in this respect.

11.12 p.m.

I am very glad that my hon. Friend has raised this matter. It has been exercising the minds of many of us and we have been perplexed to know why the Government have not carried out the undertaking to which my hon. Friend has referred. One of the first things that ought to have been done if the Board had any hope of functioning effectively was to set up the advisory committees. If they had been set up and had been consulted before the Board came into operation many of the mistakes made by the Board at the outset might have been avoided. If the Unemployment Assistance Board is to continue to work, these advisory committees will have to play a very important part in connection with the scheme. It may be that the advisory capacity will have to be strengthened in some particular. We have pressed the right hon. Gentleman for information. It may be that he has not appointed the advisory committees because the Government have decided to do away with the Unemployment Assistance Board and that he is to take over the administration into his own hands with ancillary arrangements, which would give much greater satisfaction throughout the country. If the reason for the non-appointment of these committees is that the Government have decided to make other arrangements and dispense with the Unemployment Assistance Board, I should be the last person to press him for information on the point on a question raised on the Adjournment of the House.

11.16 p.m.

I do not complain of the hon. Member raising this matter, but his speech was based on a suspicion which I will endeavour to dispel at once. I would also say to the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) that he need have no fears, or hopes, whichever he entertains, as to the abolition of the Board. I am not going to be drawn into a discussion of the whole problem affecting the Unemployment Assistance Board. A statement was made just before the General Election, and the main lines of the Government policy were then clearly indicated not merely to the House but to the whole country. The time is not far distant when the House will be asked to face the results of the Government's conclusions, but this is not the appropriate moment to deal with them.

Will the right hon. Gentleman care to say how far he is going to take us into his confidence?

I propose to deal with the topic which has been raised in regard to these advisory committees. There appears to be a suspicion that there is some desire on the part of the Government not to set them up. Centuries ago suspicion was defined in a famous poem in these terms:

Then hon. Members ask why they have not been set up? The hon. Member bases the whole of his argument on the Act of 1934. I reminded him last week that there was another Act and I was not referring to the Consolidation Act of 1935, but to a very different Act, namely, the Standstill Act of 1935. Let the hon. Gentleman continue his researches into the question of advisory committees in connection with the debates on that Act and he will discover there, not the simple statement that he read out, of a single idea on advisory committees, as expressed in 1934, when the original Bill was brought in and accepted. If he studies the various points of view put forward in the House about the functions of the advisory committees, in the circumstances of 1935, he will find that there was no such simple view. Indeed when I after wards was charged with the duty of considering the whole problem, not under the Act of 1934 but for the subsequent Act of 1935, because of the difficulties that had arisen and the doubts expressed in the House and the country, one of the first things to which I had to apply my mind was the fact that Members in the House were not at all sure as to precisely what they wanted the committees to do and that there was a diversity of opinion in the House itself.

What power did the Standstill Act give to the Minister to suspend putting them into operation? The Standstill Act defined his powers, but did not interfere with or lessen his power in that matter.

The hon. Member is anticipating the point I was about to deal with, which is, indeed, the major point raised by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street. How do we interpret the Standstill Act? As I interpret it, Parliament in passing it meant two things—first, to provide a time, not stated, in order that a thorough examination might be made of a huge problem—and the hon. Member has admitted the gravity and size of the problem—and so that those concerned in the administration of the subsequent Act of 1935 might have time to examine the whole problem in all its implications. That examination was to be not only from the point of view of the centralised administration of the Act but from the point of view of the local effects which had been shown to result from the original Act.

The hon. Gentleman has already occupied his full share of the time, and perhaps he will allow me to deal with this point, because it is the major point. As I understand, Parliament meant first to permit of a thorough examination, and I must be grateful to Members of the House who have shown a great deal of forbearance because they know, as the Government know, what a grave issue this is, and how necessary it is that when a solution is found it shall be a solution which will have regard to the facts of the situation. Secondly, not only do I think that the Act was passed owing to the desire of Parliament to allow a thorough examination of the whole problem, but, more than that, it was passed to allow for a suspension of judgment, to provide a breathing space before the new arrangements were brought before Parliament to end the standstill and make the operations of the Board a success, as we hoped they would be when the original Act was passed and as I am sure they will be when a solution has been found and approved by Parliament. That will be as soon as the Board and the Government have concluded their examination. It was made perfectly clear in the General Election that the Government view was this: First, that it had been decided that they were going to maintain the framework of the original Act and the authority of the Board, and secondly, to seek to avoid hardship they were going to have regard to previous practice and local opinion.

Let me put this to any Member who has been charged with the responsibility of facing a situation like that, involving the examination of the whole situation. What would he do when he discovered that one of the elements that had to be taken into consideration in framing suggestions for a future solution was this very point of previous local practice on the one hand and of local opinion on the other? The hon. Member opposite, said he desired to go back to the original local basis in this matter. We note that. I understand that the demand from the left for years has been, in regard to the able-bodied unemployed, that there should be, not a local but a national system with national obligations. I ask the House to look at the situation from the point of view of the need for having regard to previous local practice on the one hand and the using of local opinion on the other. Would it not have been absurd to set up a series of committees, which the board were proposing to do, and were keen to do, for one purpose, when it might be found that, in discussing the liquidation of the stand-still agreement and re-planning it with a permanent structure, committees that were freely devised in structure and in formation for the purpose of the original Act might not be of the type that you might desire to have for the solution finally arrived at by the board and the Government and ratified by Parliament?

The Government are quite entitled to say that it is for this reason: It was said quite plainly at the General Election that the final solution of this problem was not expected at the earliest before the spring. Spring has not yet arrived, and discussions are still going on about the solution. I am looking forward with eagerness to the time when I shall be able to come down to the House to produce the results of the examination of the whole of this problem and to show to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street and the hon. Member for East Birken-head, and all hon. Members who are concerned with the question of advisory committees, that not only have the Board and the Government no desire whatever to burke local opinion, but that they are only too keen to set up the most effective series of advisory local committees that the Board can establish for the purposes which are germane to the solution finally decided upon by the Government and approved by Parliament.

11.29 p.m.

I think that the right hon. Gentleman has brow-beaten the House to-night. He has not attempted to answer the point that was put by my hon. Friend, and I want to say very definitely that as my representative in Parliament he has very much disappointed me.

It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half-past Eleven o'Clock.