Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 308: debated on Tuesday 18 February 1936

House of Commons

Tuesday, February 18, 1936

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

Private Business

Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Gas Light and Coke Company (No. 1) Bill.

Gas Light and Coke Company (No. 2) Bill.

South Essex Waterworks Bill.

Cleethorpes Trolley Vehicles Bill.

Llanelly District Traction Bill.

Uckfield Water Bill.

Colne Valley and Northwood Electricity Bill.

North Wales Electric Power Bill.

Bills committed.

Post Office (Sites) Bill [ Lords ],

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill pending in the Lords, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Post Office Sites Bill [ Lords ].

Oral Answers to Questions

Trade and Commerce

German-Built Tonnage

asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of tonnage ordered by British enterprises from German shipbuilders, not for their own service, but as a means of withdrawing credit balances from that country; and whether His Majesty's Government propose to take any steps to safeguard British shipping and shipbuilding from the effects of the sale of vessels so built?

With regard to the first part of the question, no official statistics are available. I have received representations on, this matter, but I know of no action which it is within my power to take.

Trade Agreements

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is intended to conduct simultaneous negotiations with the foreign countries, commercial agreements with whom terminate during the present year; and whether in all cases there will be consultation during the negotiations with representatives of British home industry and British home agriculture, and with representatives of the Dominions, India, Southern Rhodesia and the Colonies?

There are a number of commercial agreements with foreign countries which can be terminated by either party during the present year at varying periods of notice, and it is not yet known which of them will, in fact, come to an end in 1936, and necessitate negotiations. In the event of negotiations being decided upon, consultations where necessary will take place with the United Kingdom interests concerned, and the United Kingdom Government will follow their usual practice in informing other Governments of the British Commonwealth.

Will the Minister have regard to the great importance of these agreements with foreign countries being brought to an end this year?

I understand that that view is held in some quarters, and we shall bear it in mind.

Did the right hon. Gentleman say that he would inform the governments or that he would consult them, because there is a very big difference?

The right hon. Gentleman said that there are a number of agreements. Can he tell us how many there are?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the British delegation which visited Rumania to conclude a new agreement has yet returned to London; whether any agreement has been concluded; and what, at the present time, is the total indebted ness to British traders in respect of British exports to Rumania?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any and, if so, what arrangements have been made with the Rumanian Government for the payment of debts to British creditors; and whether such a settlement includes the putting into operation of a clearing system?

No agreement has yet been concluded, but I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly. According to returns received from United Kingdom traders, the amount of debt outstanding on the 30th November in respect of exports of goods to Rumania was about £3,000,000.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any shipments of grain from Rumania to this country have been made since 15th December last; and, in that case, whether he can state their number; whether they were actually sold for sterling; and what was their value?

The precise information for which my hon. Friend asks is not available. Forms received in connection with the loading of grain cargoes show that one vessel at least loaded grain in Rumania for this country subsequent to 15th December last.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the statement sent from the Federation of British Industries, showing that the Ottawa Agreements have provided greater benefits for Empire countries than for Great Britain, and requesting that in future agreements more satisfactory results should accrue; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

I have received the statement to which the hon. Member refers, and I will give it careful consideration.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now make any statement as to the negotiations with the Peruvian Government respecting the conclusion of a trade agreement; and whether, if any agreement has been concluded, it includes any provision facilitating the import into Peru of British cotton textiles?

Negotiations for a trade agreement with Peru have reached an advanced stage, and will, I hope, be concluded shortly.

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, whether consultations are taking place with the Dominion Governments in connection with the negotiations for a revision of the commercial agreement with the Argentine Republic?

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether consultations are taking place with the Dominion Governments in connection with the negotiations for a revision of the commercial agreement with Denmark?

In accordance with their usual practice, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have informed the Dominion Governments of their intention to conduct trade negotiations with Denmark so as to give those Governments the opportunity of expressing their views, if they think that their interests may be affected. The same procedure will be followed in connection with any negotiations that may take place for a revision of the Anglo-Argentine Convention.

Production and Distribution (Census)

asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in the census of production; and whether he intends to institute a census of distribution; and, if so, what steps have been taken in this direction?

The issue of the forms to be filled up in connection with the Census of Production for 1935 was completed last month. It is hoped that some preliminary results of the census may be available for publication at about the end of the current year. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative and the third part does not, therefore, arise.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that, in view of the chaos in distribution, we might have a census of distribution?

There does not appear to be any weighty demand for that census, and we could not embark upon a census of distribution without the necessary powers.

Would it not help our trade efficiency if we could get an analysis of the various items that compose costs of distribution?

STATEMENT showing the quantity of cotton piece goods of United Kingdom and Japanese origin, imported into the various British Colonies and Mandated Territories during the first quarter of 1935, and the latest period of three months, so far as particulars are available.

County.

Unit of Quantity.

January to March, 1935.

Latest period of three months. 1935.

Period.

Quantity.

Gambia:

From: United Kingdom

Th. sq. yds.

569

July—Sept.

751

Japan

Th. sq. yds.

27

Sierra Leone:

From: United Kingdom

Th. Sq. yds.

2,261

Sept.—Nov.

3,377

Japan

Th. sq. yds.

Gold Coast:

From: United Kingdom

Th. Sq. yds.

9,875

Sept.—Nov.

14,991

Japan

Th. Sq. yds.

264

130

Nigeria:

From: United Kingdom

Th. sq. yds.

18,863

May—July

20,774

Japan

Th. sq. yds.

1,065

692

Zanzibar: ( a ))

From: United Kingdom

Th. lin. yds.

546

Sept.—Nov.

215

Japan

Th. lin. yds.

905

919

Kenya and Uganda: ( a ))

From: United Kingdom

Th. lin. yds.

1,401

Aug.—Oct.

1,046

Japan

Th. lin. yds.

14,946

10,073

Tanganyika: ( a ))

From: United Kingdom

Th. sq. yds.

768

Aug.—Oct.

1,428

Japan

Th. lin. yds.

8,387

10,991

Somaliland: ( b ))

From: United Kingdom

Th. lin. yds.

88

April—June

200

Japan

Th. lin. yds.

114

138

Mauritius:

From: United Kingdom

Th. lin. yds.

891

April—June

1,072

Japan

Th. lin. yds.

618

487

British Malaya:

From: United Kingdom

Th. lin. yds.

9,137

Sept.—Nov.

7,630

Japan

Th. lin. yds.

15,811

9,706

I am afraid that legislation would be necessary for that step to be taken.

Textile Industry

asked the President of the Board of Trade the latest statistics showing the imports now, as compared with six months ago, of British and Japanese cotton textiles, respectively, into British colonies and mandated territories?

As the answer is in the form of a tabular statement I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Would my right hon. Friend be good enough to indicate whether the figures are favourable or otherwise?

They are favourable in a good many instances, but there are some directions in which, I regret to say, trade has not improved.

Following is the answer:

County.

Unit of Quantity.

January to March, 1935.

Latest period of three months. 1935.

Period.

Quantity.

Ceylon:

From: United Kingdom

Th. lin. yds.

7,641

Oct.—Dec.

10,162

Japan

Th. Lin. yds.

2,071

1,794

Hong Kong: ( c ))

From: United Kingdom

Th. lin. yds.

3,602

Sept.—Nov.

262

Japan

Th. lin. yds.

9,167

12,751

Grenada:

From: United Kingdom

Th. sq. yds.

182

April—June

167

Japan

Th. sq. yds.

13

Jamaica: ( d ))

From: United Kingdom

Th. lin. yds.

5,186

June—Aug.

4,928

Japan

Th. lin. yds.

6

Antigua:

From: United Kingdom

Th. lin. yds.

78

April—June

67

Japan

Th. lin. yds.

*

Montserrat:

From: United Kingdom

Th. lin. yds.

38

April—June

40

Japan

Th. lin. yds.

*

1

Virgin Islands: ( e ))

From: United Kingdom

Th. lin. yds.

7

April—June

3

Japan

Th. lin. yds.

St. Lucia: ( e ))

From: United Kingdom

Th. lin. yds.

84

April—June

109

Japan

Th. lin. yds.

6

3

British Guiana:

From: United Kingdom

Th. sq. yds.

1,210

April—June

1,623

Japan

Th. sq. yds.

61

39

( a ) The figures for British East Africa are in the aggregate overstated owing to duplication of quantities passing in trade between British Countries comprised in the area, and recorded in the trade returns according to country of origin.) The figures for British East Africa are in the aggregate overstated owing to duplication of quantities passing in trade between British Countries comprised in the area, and recorded in the trade returns according to country of origin.

( b ) Figures represent grey sheeting and white longcloth only.) Figures represent grey sheeting and white longcloth only.

( c ) Cotton piece goods other than bleached and unbleached.) Cotton piece goods other than bleached and unbleached.

( d ) Exclusive of Government stores.) Exclusive of Government stores.

( e ) Inclusive of rayon piece goods.) Inclusive of rayon piece goods.

* Less than 500. Less than 500.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is prepared to consider the granting of loans at low rates of interest to those cotton manufacturers who are desirous of converting their machinery to deal with wool?

When coming to that reply and conclusion, did the right hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that if we are to regain, or even to maintain, our exporting level, we shall require to redirect a great deal of our energy, labour and machinery into new trades and different channels?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the woollen industry of Lancashire is up-to-date in every respect, and that its machinery is quite capable of producing any amount of material for the demand?

I am strongly in favour of publicity being given to Lancashire's efficiency, but I hope that Yorkshire will not be left out.

Has the right hon. Gentleman received any application from the cotton manufacturers of Lancashire for loans?

I believe that resolutions have been passed by some organisations in favour of granting a loan, but they have not reached me.

Why the preferential treatment in the case of shipping as against the cotton trade of Lancashire?

asked the President of the Board of Trade what percentage on average prices, taken on the figures for 1935, he would be able to grant as an export bounty to cotton goods exported from this country, by making available the same amount of money for the purpose as is now granted collectively by way of subsidies to agriculture?

As my hon. Friend has been previously informed, no export bounty for cotton, goods is in contemplation. Nothing would therefore be gained by attempting to make this calculation.

I have put this question down for three years. If I put it down next year does the right hon. Gentleman think I may get a more favourable answer?

New Industries (Lancashire)

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any records to show the number of new works established in Lancashire within the last year; and whether there is in existence a complete list of empty factories in Lancashire with a reliable description of their potentialities for new industries?

Full particulars relating to factories established last year are not yet available. Information as to factories and sites available for new industries in Lancashire can be obtained through the Lancashire Industrial Development Council.

Does my right hon. Friend consider that everything possible is being done to give publicity to the benefit to be derived by manufacturers in starting new industries in Lancashire?

I believe that the Industrial Development Council have shown great activity, and are working in conjunction with the Travel and Development Association.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inform industrialists in the other parts of the country that the Cotton Spindles Board will soon be emptying a lot of mills in Lancashire?

Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House and the rest of the country what new industries are looking for sites for factories?

I could not do that without notice, but if the hon. Gentleman cares to put down a question about any district in which he is interested, I will do my best to get him the information.

Can the right hon. Gentleman do anything to secure that operatives in Lancashire, who are already working a full 48 hours per week and get pitiful wages, have their wages increased?

Denmark

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the Danish-published statistics of the trade between this country and Denmark; whether, in the forthcoming negotiations, he will bear in mind that the Danish trade returns do not reveal accurately the countries of origin of imports into Denmark, having regard to the fact, for example, that, in the Danish trade returns, the imports into Denmark during 1934 of seeds and fruits for oil-pressing from the United Kingdom were valued at £695,000, whereas the exports and re-exports of oil seeds and nuts from the United Kingdom, according to our trade returns, amounted to only £402; and whether any part of the difference is accounted for by transhipments under bond through the United Kingdom?

I am aware that the United Kingdom and Danish official trade returns which are compiled on different bases, give different results for the trade between the two countries, and that fact will be kept in mind during the forthcoming negotiations. While precise particulars of the value of seeds and nuts for expressing oil which were transhipped under bond to Denmark in 1934 are not readily available, it is clear from the information I have that such transhipments, if any, could account for only a small part of the difference to which my hon. Friend refers.

Imports and Exports

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any explanation to offer for the fall in British exports and imports in the month of January as compared with the previous month; and whether the decline has been accompanied by a similar reduction in other countries?

The decrease in the value of British exports during January as compared with the previous month was due to a seasonal decline in the exports by parcel post; increases were recorded for food, drink and tobacco and for articles wholly or mainly manufactured, while there was a slight decline in exports of raw materials. The decrease in imports was largely in food, drink and tobacco; raw materials also declined owing to a fall in the imports of raw cotton from the abnormally high value recorded in December. Similar particulars for foreign countries are not yet available, but in any case the suggested comparison would have little value, as no great importance can be attached to movements of trade from one month to another.

Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the decline in the imports of raw cotton is a seasonal decline?

Did not the right hon. Gentleman say that the fall was partly accounted for by a seasonal decline in directions which he proceeded to specify? Does he say that the reduction in the imports of raw cotton was due to a seasonal decline?

What I said was that the decrease in the value of British exports during January as compared with the previous month was due to a seasonal decline in the exports by parcel post.

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) the figures of the export and import trade balances between this country and Sweden for 1934 and 1935;

(2) the figures of the export and import trade balances between this country and Finland for 1934 and 1935;

My hon. Friend will find particulars of the total value of the imports and exports of this country in the trade with Finland, Sweden and Norway during 1934 and 1935 on page 188 of the Trade and Navigation Accounts for last month.

Are the Government satisfied with the figures, and do they consider that they are fully up to the obligations entered into by the different countries under the trade agreements?

I cannot say how far they have come up to the standard required by the agreements, but certainly the result has been a growth in trade.

Has not the Department sufficient resources to answer an hon. Member's question here, instead of referring him to some obscure place in some obscure document?

If the information can be obtained by all hon. Members by referring to the particulars which I have indicated, it is unnecessary to publish it in answer to a question.

Should not the Clerk at the Table tell a Member who is proposing to put down a question that he need not put that question because he can get the information in other ways?

Coal Exports

asked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity of coal exported from this country to countries within the British Empire and to foreign countries, respectively, during 1935?

During the year 1935, 5,268,000 tons of coal were exported from this country to British countries, and 33,446,000 tons to foreign countries.

Russia

asked the Prime Minister whether the recent speech of the President of the Board of Trade, at the opening of the new Rubber Exchange, regarding the reasons for supporting trade with Russia, represents the policy of His Majesty's Government?

Yes, Sir. It is the Government's policy to encourage trade with Russia.

Would the Prime Minister take steps to convey the very excellent reasons for trading with Russia to those of his supporters who seem to be unaware of them?

Is it the policy of the Russian Government to encourage trade with us, seeing that they sell us seven times as much as they buy from us?

That is the policy that was laid down in the framing of the existing temporary agreement.

Italian Goods (Seizure)

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many consignments of goods and produce of Italian origin have been seized by the Customs authorities at British ports, and of what nature and to what value?

Four consignments of goods of Italian origin have been seized by the Customs at British ports since 18th November last, when the prohibition on Italian imports came into operation. With my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, I will circulate particulars in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Can my hon. Friend say whether these goods of Italian origin come from neutral or sanctionist countries, or direct from Italy?

I should require notice of that question.

Following are the particulars:

Approximate Value.

£

400 cases of lemons

300

33 cases of lemons

30

783 crates of cauliflowers

120

8½ gallons of wine

4

Molasses (Duty)

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the price of molasses for cattle feeding is 6s. per cwt., but that molasses when used as a corebinder by ironfounders has to bear a tariff which drives up the price to 12s. per cwt.; whether he is aware that, as a result, an inferior substitute is being used by ironfounders; and whether he will take steps to reduce the excessive tariff on this commodity?

I have no information as to the first two parts of the question, but I see no reason to doubt the right hon. Member's figures. I would remind the right hon. Member that under special statutory provision of long standing molasses used solely for the purpose of food for stock is exempted from duty. No such exemption exists in respect of molasses used by ironfounders.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman receive a deputation from Scottish ironfounders on this subject?

If the right hon. Gentleman has any representations to make on that matter I will gladly consider them, but I should like to reserve for consideration the question whether a deputation is the best means of making these representations.

Is it not a fact that exemption is given for reasons of increasing trade, and why should it be withheld in this trade?

Cast-Iron (Government Orders)

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether any Government orders have been placed for cast-iron in the foundries of Birken-head; and, if so, what is the tonnage for which orders have been placed in the course of the last 12 months?

I am informed that no Government Department has placed direct orders for cast-iron with any firm in Birkenhead during the last 12 months.

Canadian Wheat

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what steps the Canadian Government have taken to remove restrictions on the freedom of trade in Canadian wheat?

I am not aware to what restrictions on the freedom of trade in Canadian wheat my hon. Friend refers. If he will give me further details I will endeavour to obtain the information which he desires.

Mercantile Marine

Steamship "La Crescenta."

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the fact that the time limit for the lodging of an appeal has expired, he now proposes to take action against the owners of the steamship "La Crescenta"?

As I stated in Debate on 11th February, the matter has been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Since that was done, a request under Section 475 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, for a re-hearing of the formal investigation has been received from the owners of the "La Crescenta." This is under consideration.

Sickness

asked the President of the Board of Trade the figures of sickness and ailments among British-born seamen engaged in tramp shipping?

Is it not the fact that in the case of every ship a return has to be made of any cases of illness among the crew, and especially of cases of tuberculosis, which seem to be common? We are anxious to get some idea as to what the Department mean to do. If they have no method at present for giving these returns, are they going to adopt a method?

Under the Merchant Shipping Act it is necessary to log certain ailments, and returns are made for each voyage.

Are they not compiled in some way, so that the Government can say what has happened? If not, will the right hon. Gentleman see that they are compiled in such a way that people can be given the information?

Coast Erosion

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the coastal erosion caused by recent gales at Freshfield, Lancashire, and Overstrand, Norfolk; and whether the Government contemplate taking any action which will prevent erosion and provide healthy and useful employment?

The Royal Commission on Coast Erosion reported in 1911 that, in their opinion, there was no ground, from a national point of view, for assistance being given from public funds towards the cost of sea defence as such. Since that date the circumstances on which the recommendation was based do not appear to have changed, and no action by the Government is contemplated. Defence against coast erosion is a matter primarily for the local interests concerned.

Has the right hon. Gentleman been approached by any of the county councils or municipalities concerned, for financial assistance from the Government?

Cinematograph Films Act, 1927

asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of cinematograph exhibitors or renters who have failed during the previous three years to comply with the quota provisions of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927; whether any of these have been prosecuted; and with what results?

The number of exhibitors in Great Britain who failed to meet their obligations under the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927, in the three years ended 30th September, 1934, was 448. In a large proportion of these cases, however, the default was in respect of part of a year only, while in many of them the deficiency was small or was due to special circumstances. After consulting the Advisory Committee set up under the Act, proceedings were considered necessary in 14 cases, in all of which fines were imposed. Information as regards the year ended 30th September, 1935, is not yet available. The number of renters who failed to meet their obligations under the Act in the three renters' years ended 30th March, 1935, was 17. After consultation with the Advisory Committee, proceedings were considered necessary in one case, and these were successful.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether applications were made to him for exemption certificates under the Act in the case of the 14 exhibitors and in the case of the one renter?

I think the hon. Gentleman had better put that question on the Paper; I could not answer it without notice.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the quality of the films produced under the Act, and will he bear in mind that aspect of the case when it comes up for review, as it will in the near future?

British Army (Rations)

asked the Secretary of State for War whether butter or margarine, or both, is part of the regular daily rations of men in the Army?

The daily ration scale for officers and other ranks includes 1 oz. of margarine. This item is, however, one of those which are commuted into cash, and the cash may be expended on varying quantities of the same or other items.

Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that the rationing in the United States of America, Norway, Sweden, all the Dominions, and even in Russia—

Information on those matters cannot be given in answer to a supplementary question.

Scotland

Township Road, Bornasketaig, Skye

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the township road at Bornasketaig, Skye, initiated in the year 1922, is not yet completed, and that hardship and inconvenience to the 43 tenants is occasioned thereby; and whether he will take any steps to expedite the completion of the road in question?

As an exceptional measure of assistance, a grant in aid of the construction of this township road was made available in 1922, the Township Committee giving a guarantee of maintenance. I regret that I am unable to consider any further offer of assistance unless the county road authority will undertake to place the road on the list of highways.

Arable Farming (Oats)

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Government propose to take any steps to help the oat grower; and, if so, when he will be in a position to announce their proposals?

I regret that I am unable at present to add anything to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on 19th December, of which I am sending him a copy.

As the right hon. Gentleman has been considering this question for three years, can he state when he is likely to be in a position to announce the proposals of the Government?

As I have informed my hon. Friend, the question bristles with difficulties. We are not satisfied with the present position, and are still looking into the matter, but I am unable to give any definite undertaking on the subject.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the prices which farmers are receiving for oats are still dropping almost week by week?

Herring Fishing Industry

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered a communication submitted on behalf of the Scottish herring fishermen on the subject of a minimum wage; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Act passed last year, which provided financial assistance for the herring industry, has, I am glad to say, been followed by improved results, and I am hopeful that there will be further progress so as to yield a reasonable return to the fishermen. Such financial assistance cannot competently be used to guarantee a minimum wage, and I can hold out no prospects of legislation for that purpose.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Government propose to give any financial assistance for the replacement of obsolete craft in the herring fishing industry; and whether he is in consultation with the Herring Board on this matter?

The Government have included in the Herring Industry Vote provision for loans to the Herring Industry Board to assist them in carrying out any approved schemes for the purchase of redundant boats, or for making loans for the reconditioning of boats, or the construction of new boats. Any proposals which the board may make for any of these purposes will be sympathetically considered. I understand that the board are at present considering proposals, including a reconditioning scheme.

Nurses' Training (Committee's Report)

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has received the report of the committee on the training of nurses; and, if so, when this will be published?

Yes, Sir. I hope to arrange for the publication of the report before the end of the month.

Prisons Service (Pay)

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the new scales of pay announced for the English prison staffs will eventually be extended to the Scottish staff?

Yes, Sir. New scales of pay for the Scottish prisons service will take effect on the same basis and from the same date as the new English scales.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving Scottish prisoners the same scale of dietary as English?

I have had no complaints about the dietary of prisoners in Scotland.

They are not allowed to make complaints; I am making the complaint for them.

Kelvin Valley (Flooding)

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to state when it is proposed to begin operations for the prevention of flooding in the Kelvin valley?

I regret that consideration of this matter has not reached a stage at which I can add usefully to the reply given to the right hon. Member on 10th December.

When is the right hon. Gentleman likely to be in a postion to give us a straightforward answer on this very important question?

I intend to go into the matter and, when I am in a position to give an answer, I will do so immediately.

Has one of the commissioners appointed to go into matters of great urgency put this question forward in regard to Kelvin Valley?

Will there be any use in putting down a question on the subject in the next fortnight?

I shall be happy to let the hon. Gentleman know the earliest date when I can add to the answer that I have given.

Housing (Overcrowding)

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authorities have completed the survey of overcrowding under the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1935?

I am not aware how many local authorities have completed their surveys, but up to the present date 181 local authorities have submitted reports on the result of the surveys made by them.

Is the right hon. Gentleman doing anything to secure the return of these surveys to his Department at the earliest date?

I think the local authorities, speaking generally, have acted very promptly.

Is it the intention of the Government to summarise and publish these surveys?

Certainly we shall inform the House directly we are in a position to state the facts.

Lenzie Academy

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Dumbartonshire County Council have yet taken steps to reinstate Mr. George Murray as rector of Lenzie Academy, since the Scottish Courts decided that their action in removing him from his position was illegal.

I understand that Dumbarton Education Authority are at present actively reviewing the circumstances of this dispute and that they hope shortly to receive the report of a special committee which they have appointed to consider the matter. I shall be glad to communicate with the hon. Member when the authority's decision has been made known to me.

It is five months since the court decided that it was illegal. Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take no steps to stop the Dumbarton authority proceeding with this illegal action?

The hon. Member must be well aware that this matter rests with the Dumbarton Education Authority. Until they have taken a final decision on the matter, my hands are not free.

Does the right hon. Gentleman tell me that the local authorities can continue acting illegally and that he has no power and no duty to take steps to rectify it?

This has been a complicated matter. It rests with the Dumbarton Education Authority. Until that public authority, elected by the ratepayers, makes a final decision, I have no power to intervene.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he and his auditors are now permitting the local authority to pay two headmasters' salaries for one job.

Education (Statistics)

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of pupils in the elementary schools in Glasgow; and the number of pupils over 14 years of age?

The total number of pupils in primary schools (including advanced divisions) in Glasgow is 173,300, of whom 5,300 are over 14 years of age.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in the opinion of a considerable section in Glasgow, the lack of an adequate Government maintenance grant is the reason for the smallness of the number of pupils over 14?

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of school children in Glasgow receiving free meals as necessitous cases?

The number asked for is 8,194. In addition, 51,700 necessitous children received free milk under a scheme approved under the provisions of the Milk Act, 1934.

Is it not on these grounds that these children have been granted necessitous milk?

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of primary schools in which children of between the ages of 13 and 14 are being taught; the number of such children; in how many of these schools there is a separate class for these children; and how many children are being taught in these classes?

The answer to the first part of the question is 2,560; to the second 60,000. In addition 2,900 children of 13 to 14 years of age are taught in the primary departments of 204 secondary schools, and 1,308 in 60 special schools. The information asked for in the third and fourth parts of the question is not available in the Department, classes being organised according to the pupils' attainments and not according to their ages.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of primary schools in which wood-work, metal-work, or gardening instruction is being given to boys of 13 to 14 and domestic science to girls of the same age?

As the answer involves a number of figures I propose, with the Noble Lady's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The figures are as follow:

Schools.

Benchwork (wood-work and metal-work)

868

Gardening

643

Cookery

1,220

Laundry work

656

Housewifery

325

Dressmaking

332

Needlework

1,358

Fort William (Proposed Carbide Factory)

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, with regard to the carbide factory which it is pro posed to establish at Fort William, whether any preliminary inquiry is to be held; and, if so, will he state the time and place, in order that people in the neighbourhood who object to the proposal may have an opportunity of putting their case?

The Lord Chairman of Committees and the Chairman of Ways and Means decided last week that the legislation for this hydroelectric scheme should proceed as a private Bill. If it obtains a Second Reading it will be examined by a Committee of this House and objectors who have lodged petitions praying to be heard will be entitled to be heard by the Committee.

School-Leaving Age

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the various ages for compulsory school attendance would have been fixed from 1872 onwards and the years in which those ages were fixed; and on which of these occasions, if any, the school-leaving age was raised without provision being made for exemptions?

By the Education (Scotland) Act, 1872, education was made compulsory between the ages of five and 13. The Act of 1883 raised the upper limit to 14; and the Act of 1918 contains a section, which is not yet in operation, raising it to 15. On each of these occasions the Statute made provision for exemptions.

Contributory Pensions

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of widows who claimed pensions under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts last year; the number granted and the number refused owing to stamp disqualifications; and whether he will consider the introduction of legislation to obviate the hardship of such refusals?

I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement of claims for widows' pensions dealt with by the Department of Health in the year 1935 which I hope will give the hon. Member the information he desires. Special concessions to mitigate hardship arising from unemployment of insured persons were made in the Amending Act of last year. Further legislation is not contemplated at the present time.

Do not the figures show to the Minister the need for further amending legislation?

I am unable to add to the last part of my answer, but perhaps the hon. Member will study the table which I am giving him before he draws a conclusion.

Following is the statement:

The number of claims for widows' pensions under the Contributory Pensions Acts received by the Department of Health in 1935 was 9,808. From the previous year there was outstanding a total of 843 undecided claims. The total number of claims dealt with in the year 1935 was therefore 10,651. Of these 8,438 were allowed and 1,402 were disallowed, 77 were withdrawn or cancelled and 734 were not finally disposed of at the close of the year. Of the 1,402 claims disallowed 858 were disallowed on account of non-fulfilment of the statutory conditions as to insurance and 544 were disallowed on other grounds.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of claims for old age pensions last year under the Acts of 1925 and 1929; and the number refused owing to stamp disqualification?

The number of claims for old age pensions under the Contributory Pensions Acts received by the Department of Health in 1935 was 22,564. The number disallowed on account of non-fulfilment of the statutory conditions as to insurance was 609.

As this shows that 25 per cent, or more have been refused, does not the Minister see the necessity for amending legislation? Is there not as good a case here as the case for the Colonial Governments?

The causes of disqualification are numerous, and the hon. Member will be aware that it is not possible to meet a great number of these difficulties.

United States (Battleships)

asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability, with a view to securing the agreement of the United States Government to a reduction in the size of battle ships, of offering to the United States navy the use of British naval bases, with a view to meeting the objection that, owing to the lack of American bases, long distance cruising battleships are necessary?

In view of the fact that it is inconceivable that the two navies should ever be found in conflict, is it not worth giving serious consideration to the matter as a practical proposition?

Is it not a fact that all battleships are capable of long distance cruises?

I do not think the hon. Member's proposal would achieve its object.

Treaty of Peace Act

asked the Prime Minister whether the undertaking given on 21st July, 1919, by the then Prime Minister on the Committee stage of the Treaty of Peace Bill, OFFICIAL REPORT, Volume 118, column 1081, that time would be given before 11 p.m. for debates on Orders in Council made under the Act is accepted as still binding?

I find that on 21st July, 1919, the Prime Minister of the day stated that if, when an Order in Council under the Treaty of Peace had been made, the House was sitting and there was evidence of serious desire on the part of hon. Members to challenge the Order, a reasonable opportunity for discussion of the Order would be given. His Majesty's Government are prepared to abide by this undertaking.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to reiterate the pledges given by his predecessor on 21st July, 1919, during the Committee stage of the Treaty of Peace Act as to the character of the penalties to be specified in any Order in Council made under that Act?

In the only passages in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 21st July, 1919, where I have been able to trace any reference by the Prime Minister of the day to penalties under the Treaty of Peace Bill, the Prime Minister gave no pledge as to the character of any penalties to be specified in any Order in Council; but merely stated that it was not proposed to have a general system of penalties as in the Defence of the Realm Act, and further, though he could at that moment only think of two cases where penalties would be required, the Government could not pledge themselves that these would be the only two cases.

Is it not a fact that these powers were originally asked for and granted in order to clear up certain outstanding difficulties resulting from the War, and that there was never any suggestion made in debate that they should be used to impose sanctions or anything of that kind?

I quite agree with my hon. Friend's view that the Prime Minister of that day could not foresee the situation in 1936.

Imperial Defence (White Paper)

asked the Prime Minister whether the White Paper on defence will contain as much information as it is compatible with the public interest to give of the capacity of existing works, both in public and private hands, to supply the ships and material required for the improvement of our defences, together with the measures to be taken to expand and co-ordinate those resources in time of war?

The White Paper will, I anticipate, give such information on these aspects of the subject as can conveniently and properly be included.

National Finance

Elevations to Peerage (Payments)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the accumulated debt due to the national revenue in respect of Stamp Duty or letters patent arising from elevations to the peerage; whether he will indicate the names of the peers from whom such duty is still due; and what steps he intends to take to recover this sum for the Treasury?

All payments due in respect of the matters in question which have not been specifically remitted by the Treasury have, so far as I am aware, been duly received. The second and third parts of the question do not therefore arise.

Football Pools

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the imposition of a special tax upon the commission charged by the promoters of football pools for the express purpose of giving assistance to the British barley grower, such tax to be no higher than is necessary to enable the price of beer to be reduced by 1d. per pint?

No, Sir. I am afraid my hon. Friend has not studied the grave objections to the system of assigned revenues and that he has not estimated very closely the yield of the tax which he proposes on the one hand and the cost of a remission of taxation sufficient to enable the price of beer to be reduced by 1d. a pint on the other.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that such a tax, if imposed, would meet with the approval of a great many ministers of religion in Birmingham?

Spirit Duties

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the continuous fall in the revenue derived from spirit duties of approximately £5,000,000 per annum, since 1920; and whether he will now recognise the necessity of reducing the duty of 72s. 6d. per proof gallon imposed in 1921 so that this continuous fall in revenue from this source may be stopped?

With regard to the first part of the question, I pay constant attention to the yield of the spirits revenue, and I would point out that it does not show a continuous fall, since 1920, at the rate of £5,000,000 per annum, but at about only half that rate; with regard to the second part, I cannot add anything to what I have previously said on this subject.

Even if the right hon. Gentleman is correct, does he not think that the same reasons apply for dealing with this tax as induced him to reduce the Beer Duty, namely, that the Revenue is suffering?

I made some very illuminating remarks on that subject in the last Budget, and I would refer my hon. Friend to that.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the considerable increase in the number of convictions for drunkenness that followed the reduction of the Beer Duty?

Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind the increase in the number of convictions for drunkenness on methylated spirits?

Mint (Gold Refining)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the refining of gold for the Mint is done by contract; will he give the name of the present contractors; how long has the contract been held by the same people; and how long the contract has to run?

The Royal Mint has not for many years past undertaken the refining of gold; and the remainder of the question does not therefore arise.

Entertainments Duty

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider, in formulating his next Budget, the great amount of unemployment there is in the theatrical and variety industry; and, with a view to assisting employment in these industries, will he consider making a readjustment of the Entertainments Duty so as to give these industries an opportunity of competing with cinematograph exhibitors' theatres by exempting all places of theatrical entertainment where performers or artistes personally appear on the stage from duty?

I have noted the hon. Member's suggestion, and I can assure him that in framing the coming Budget all relevant considerations will be taken into account.

Has the right hon. Gentleman had brought to his notice the similar remissions in other countries?

So many things have been brought to my notice, I cannot recollect that particular one.

Coal Industry

Horses and Ponies

asked the Secretary for Mines the number of horses and ponies per million tons of coal raised in each of the 21 areas in England and Wales in 1934, as tabulated in the annual report of his department, and also in Scotland; whether he can give any reason of a technical nature as to any disparities in the areas contiguous to each other; and whether he can suggest any action to bring about a greater uniformity in those areas with fewer ponies employed as a basis for such uniformity?

With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table giving the details asked for in the first part of the question. As regards the second part, the answer is to be found in the variations in natural and other conditions which favour or hinder the use of mechanical haulage. As regards the third part of the question, increased mechanisation has had the effect of reducing the total number of horses employed in 1935 to 58 per cent, of the number employed 10 years previously. This decrease is continuing and there is no other action that I propose should be taken.

Is it not a fact that when these ponies are taken out of the pit they are treated better than the miners?

Is it not a fact that in certain districts the electrical inspection of mines is making it almost impossible to put in these electrically-propelled haulages which are necessary to displace the ponies?

Following in the table:

District and Number of Horses and Ponies employed per 1,000,000 tons of coal raised in 1934.

Northumberland

243

Durham

344

Cumberland and Westmorland

95

Lancashire and Cheshire

16

Yorkshire, South

89

Yorkshire, West

236

Nottinghamshire

143

Derbyshire, North

215

Derbyshire, South

326

Staffordshire, North

12

Cannock Chase

249

South Staffs and Worcester

277

Leicestershire

251

Warwickshire

37

Shropshire

339

Forest of Dean

201

Somerset

116

Bristol

248

Kent

South Wales and Monmouth

254

North Wales

69

Scotland

31

Great Britain

171

Re-Organisation Commission

70 and 71.

asked the Secretary for Mines (1) whether his attention has been drawn to the Report of the Coal Mines Re-organisation Commission; and, if so, whether, in view of the statement that the work of the Commission is practically at a standstill, he will say what action he proposes to take;

(2) when he will be able to announce the considered opinion of the Government on the position and powers of the Coal Mines Re-organisation Commission?

The Report of the Coal Mines Re-organisation Commission is under consideration, but I am not at the moment in a position to make any statement.

In view of the fact that the work of the Reorganisation Commission stopped on 28th July of last year, can my hon. and gallant Friend give any indication how long the Government will take to make up their minds and say what the policy is to be?

I have just said that I am not in a position to make a statement at present.

When does the hon. and gallant Gentleman expect to be in a position to make a statement?

Are we to understand from, the reply that, although the work has stopped, the expense goes on?

The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to assume that; there is a reply to that question later on.

asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has seen the Report of the Coal Reorganisation Commission in which it is stated that in July last the Government advised the suspension of their activities; whether members of the Commission have received any payment since the date of suspension; and, if so, how much?

The hon. Member has misread the report. No request was made to the Commission to suspend work on any proposals which they are already investigating, and they did not do so. The second and third parts of the question do not therefore arise.

Is it not true to say that since July last the Commissioners have not undertaken any specific inquiries into the subject upon which they were called to investigate?

If the hon. Member will study my reply carefully, he will see that the matter is dealt with.

Does the hon. and gallant Member think it is a good thing to do a great deal of work on the matter, and then, because there are no powers, that the work should become ineffective?

Coal Dust

asked the Secretary for Mines the number of samples of coal dust taken by the inspector of mines, under the stone dusting regulations, in 1935; giving the number that did not comply with the requirements provided in the regulations and stating the volatile content of the coal seams in the cases where the samples taken were not in accordance with the stone dusting regulations?

The number of mine road dust samples taken by inspectors of mines in 1935, under the regulations relating to precautions against coal dust, was about 6,500, of which 520 did not comply with the requirements of the regulations. I regret that the information asked for in the last part of the question is not available.

asked the Secretary for Mines the minimum and maximum quantities of coal dust per cubic foot necessary to propagate an explosion of coal dust; and at what weight per cubic foot is the maximum explosiveness produced?

This is a highly technical question on a very complicated subject which I find it impossible to deal with adequately in an answer of reasonable length. I will write to the hon. Member on the subject.

Seeing that the question with regard to mine explosions is of general interest to the public, is it not within the province of the Secretary for Mines to say, from his own personal knowledge, what number of cubic feet of air are necessary in an opening six by six to carry away the dangerous element known as coal dust? He ought to be able to do that; we are paying him a salary for a job he cannot do.

Explosives

asked the Secretary for Mines the number of collieries at which the use of explosives in bringing down coal and roof, etc., has been discontinued and other means substituted; and whether he can indicate what means for bringing down the roof and coal have been adopted?

I regret that the information asked for in the first part of the question is not available: at most of the mines where mechanical alternatives to blasting explosives are used, the substitution is partial and not complete. The chief mechanical alternatives available, where the conditions are suitable for their use, are pneumatic picks, mechanical and hydraulic wedges, the cardox shell and the hydrox shell recently approved.

Statistics

asked the Secretary for Mines the average declared value per ton f.o.b. of the coal exported from Great Britain and South Wales, respectively, during 1935?

The average declared value per ton, f.o.b., of all coal exported from Great Britain in 1935 was 16s. 4d. The corresponding figure for the Bristol Channel Ports was 19s. 7d.

asked the Secretary for Mines the number of coal-cutting machines in use; the number of conveyors in use; the total output of coal obtained by machines; and the percentage of the total output cut by machines in 1935 in the mines of Great Britain and South Wales, respectively?

This information will not be available until about the end of March.

Gresford Colliery

asked the Secretary for Mines the Department's intention with regard to the removal of the stoppings at the Gresford colliery with a view to the recovery of the bodies of the men who lost their lives in the explosion of 1934?

asked the Secretary for Mines whether the experts of the Ministry have come to any decision concerning the reopening of the sealed portions of the Gresford pit; and whether he is now in a position to give any indication as to when the adjourned inquiry will be reopened?

There are still excessive leakages of air into the sealed-off district despite the measures which have been and continue to be taken to reduce such leakages and thereby minimise the risk of fire breaking out again when the district is reopened. I am advised that the conditions in the district are still such that there would be undue risk to life in attempting to reopen it yet. In these circumstances the adjourned inquiry into the disaster will be reopened as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made.

As I have said, it is intended that the inquiry should be reopened, and that will be as soon as possible.

Are we to take it that the inquiry will be completed without any delay and the report published?

Central Selling Agencies

asked the Secretary for Mines what progress, if any, is being made in the setting up of central selling agencies for the coal industry?

asked the Secretary for Mines whether the scheme for the central selling of coal has been prepared; and, if so, when will it be available to Members?

The preparation of schemes for organised selling involves a great deal of detailed work, which is now being carried out by the Central Council of Colliery Owners and the district executive boards, in consultation with my Department. It is not yet possible to say when the necessary Orders under the provisions of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, to cover these schemes will be laid before Parliament.

Waterlogged Mines

asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can give an assurance that every precaution is being taken underground in coal mines when men are working towards waterlogged areas?

The statutory responsibility for taking all necessary precautions rests on the owners and managers individually of the mines concerned, and from the investigations which are frequently made by the inspectors of mines into the cases of which they have knowledge, I have no reason to believe that the responsibility is not properly appreciated and discharged.

Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that in the waterlogged districts of Lanarkshire, there is at present a 30 feet by one inch diameter bore in front of the men working on the coal face?

Those are details of a particular place in a coal mine which should be put on the Order Paper.

When the hon. and gallant Member says that this is a matter for the owners, is it not the duty of the mine inspectors to see that the regulations under the Coal Mines Act are carried out, not only to take action when they are broken, but in order to prevent the death of men?

Empire Settlement, Dominions

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any negotiations are in progress between this country and Canada and Australia financially to assist emigrants from here to those Dominions; and if he has any information to give the House?

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will actively follow up the recent declaration of Mr. Stevens, Premier of New South Wales, in which he expressed hopes of an early resumption of immigration into Australia, and in the formulation of his plans for migration will he see that the right proportion of capital and labour are made available, which, in Mr. Stevens's opinion, would enable Australia to go forward in a big way?

I have seen the Press reports of the statement recently made by the Premier of New South Wales. The points to which my hon. Friend draws attention would be matters for examination, in the first instance, by the Oversea Settlement Board which is about to be set up. I have no doubt that they would receive the careful consideration of the Board.

Will the right hon. Gentleman have his plans ready for migration schemes when Mr. Stevens comes to this country in the summer?

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs how many prospective settlers he has on his lists at the Dominions Office who are willing now to go overseas?

No register of prospective settlers is kept at the Dominions Office. I have no means of estimating the numbers of persons in the United Kingdom who would now be prepared to migrate overseas.

Empire Marketing Board (Films)

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs how many sound films have been produced by the Empire Marketing Board for the purpose of propaganda; will he give particulars and the cost; and whether any further films are in preparation at the present time?

The Empire Marketing Board was dissolved on 30th September, 1933. Previous to that it had produced two sound films at a total cost of approximately £16,000.

Was the whole of that expense thrown on the British Government or did the Dominions subscribe towards it?

Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that this money was spent on some of the finest of films?

Unemployment

Allowances (Glamorganshire Andmonmouthshire)

asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons in receipt of allowances under Part II of the Unemployment Insurance Act in each area in the counties of Glamorgan and Monmouthshire, with the weekly cost of the allowance during the three months ended December, 1935?

The payment of unemployment allowances is made at the local offices of the Ministry of Labour and information as to the number of persons who have received such allowances and the cost is only available in respect of those local office areas. I am circulating a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT showing, in respect of each local office area in the counties of Glamorgan and Mon-mouth, respectively, the average number of payments of unemployment allowances and the average amount paid weekly in the three months ended 27th December, 1935.

Following is the statement:

STATEMENT showing the average number of payments of unemployment allowances, and the average amount paid weekly at local offices of the Ministry of Labour in the counties of Glamorgan and Monmouth in the three months ended 27th December, 1935.

Average Number. (1)

Average. Amount (2)

GLAMORGANSHIRE.

£

Aberdare

3,836

4,743

Aberkenfig

545

717

Bargoed

3,153

4,137

Barry

1,159

1,378

Bridgend

736

954

Bute Docks

2,134

2,392

Caerphilly

2,889

3,859

Cardiff

5,551

6,677

Clydach

222

250

Cymmer

487

659

Dowlais

2,457

3,224

Ferndale

3,036

3,915

Gorseinon

966

1,121

Llantwit Major

126

153

Maesteg

2,118

2,797

Merthyr Tydfil

4,971

6,260

Morriston

1,003

1,159

Mountain Ash

2,285

2,888

Mumbles

123

146

Neath

2,255

2,650

Ogmore Vale

646

834

Penarth

424

520

Pontardawe

467

536

Pontardulais

438

506

Pontlottyn

1,243

1,603

Pontyclun

541

664

Pontycymmer

800

1,021

Pontypridd

4,826

6,272

Porth

2,720

3,502

Porthcawl

134

180

Port Talbot

1,790

2.105

Resolven

213

228

Swansea

4,660

5,660

Average Number. (1)

Average Amount. (2)

£

Swansea Docks

888

1,082

Taffs Well

403

504

Tonypandy

4,136

5,302

Tonyrefail

1,040

1,375

Treorchy

3,670

4,578

Treharris

413

513

Ystalyfera

503

557

MONMOUTHSHIRE.

Abertillery

2,327

3,042

Abergavenny

366

458

Blackwood

1,220

1,596

Blaenavon

685

850

Blaina

1,180

1,505

Caldicot

116

139

Chepstow

203

252

Crumlin

1,262

1,714

Ebbw Vale

2,375

3,083

Monmouth

254

310

Newport

1,823

2,250

Newport Docks

1,079

1,164

Pontnewydd

921

1,118

Pontypool

2,704

3,322

Risca

1,165

1,511

Tredegar

1,601

2,054

Usk

72

89

Domestic Service (Training)

asked the Minister of Labour how many girls and women have passed through the domestic training centre as trainees at Appleton Hall, near Warrington, Lancashire, since it was opened in 1931; how many have been placed in domestic service; how many have remained in domestic service for six months or over; and is he satisfied that the expenditure on this training centre has been and will still be justified?

1,495 girls and women have passed through this centre of whom 1,305 completed the course and 1,231 were placed in domestic service on completion of training. Figures are not available showing how many of these remained in domestic service for six months or over but a test made in 1933 showed that 73 per cent, did so. The answer to the last part of the question is "Yes."

South Wales

asked the Minister of Labour what progress, if any, is being made in providing a large trading estate for South Wales?

The present position of this matter is stated in paragraph 47 of the second report of the commissioner for special areas in England and Wales, which was presented to Parliament last week.

Juveniles, Glasgow

asked the Minister of Labour the total number of boys and girls, between the ages of 14 and 16, who are unemployed in Glasgow?

At 20th January, 1936, there were 1,408 unemployed boys and 1,501 unemployed girls, aged 14 and 15 years, on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Glasgow.

Naval and Military Pensions and Grants

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will consider the introduction of legislation whereby pensions paid on behalf of the sons and daughters of soldiers killed in action may be extended to persons over the age of 21 in the event of their being invalids incapacitated for all normal employment?

Suggestions for amendment of the Royal Pension Warrant in the direction proposed have already received careful consideration from myself as well as from past Ministers of Pensions. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the very full reply given by my right hon. friend the present Postmaster-General, to which I have nothing to add.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the case of a family, in which the son is a helpless cripple and the daughter completely incapacitated through defective eyesight, whose pensions have been cut off? If this case is brought directly to his notice will be give it his consideration?

Yes. If the hon. Member will have a word with me, I will go into it and see if any action can be taken.

All Hallows Church, London

asked the hon. Member for Central Leeds, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the present position with regard to the scheme made under the Union of Benefices Act, 1860, involving the sale of All Hallows Church, Lombard Street; what objections have been raised to the carrying out of the scheme; and what action is being taken?

The scheme to which the hon. Member refers has not yet been submitted by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to His Majesty in Council, though I expect them to pass the necessary Minute at their meeting on the 20th. An individual claiming to be a parishioner and a conference representing certain archaeological, artistic and other societies have sent protests to the Commissioners which will be sent on to the Privy Council with the scheme. It is understood that the Corporation of London have also sent a protest direct to the Privy Council.

Pigs Marketing Scheme

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether bacon-pig curers or producers can exercise a free choice of transport for their pigs within a radius of 25 miles without any additional cost other than that of the road transport, should they select that method?

Under the flat rate system which has been adopted for the transport of pigs sold in accordance with the Pigs Marketing Scheme, the curer is required to pay to the railway companies a flat rate of 1s. 8d. per rail-borne pig and 2s. 3d. per road-borne pig. The curer, or the producer, on notification to the railway companies, may elect to transport the pigs by road in his own vehicles, in which case a rebate, varying with the distance, is allowed to the curer from the flat rate of 2s. 3d.

Can the hon. Gentleman say why a man should be compelled to pay money to a railway company if the railway company gives him no service in exchange?

The flat rate was designed to enable producers anywhere to send in their pigs without the handicap of long distance from the factory.

Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the flat rate system is not working an injustice to those producers who live far from railways?

asked the Minister of Agriculture what was the total number of bacon pigs actually conveyed by the railway companies under contract for the 12 months ended 31st December, 1935; and what was the total sum paid to them for carriage under the flat-rate agreement for the same period?

I am informed by the Railway Clearing House that the total number of pigs transported by the railway companies under the flat rate agreement during 1935 was 1,455,732, and that particulars of the total sum paid to the railway companies under the agreement are not yet available.

Prisons (Books)

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will cause inquiries to be made as to the reason why the authorities of His Majesty's prison at Cardiff refused permission to a prisoner, Patrick Dooley, to receive as books from friends outside two volumes, "Portraits and Pamphlets," by Karl Radek, and "Problems of Soviet Literature," both of which are issued by reputable British publishing houses and are on sale at equally reputable bookshops throughout the United Kingdom?

So far as I can ascertain, the books in question were among a number sent for the use of the prisoner in question and these two were withheld on the ground that they were unsuitable. It is necessary that the prison authorities should have a certain discretion whether or not to accept any particular book.

Is the Minister aware that prisoners are refused books which are of the greatest political value, and that, on the other hand, they are given books which are trash whether from the point of view of literature or subject; and will he take steps to put a stop to the pernicious system of censorship that goes on in British prisons?

Is it not against the prison rules and regulations to permit the torture of prisoners?

Does the hon. Gentleman not think that without any risk to the safety of the British Empire the Home Office might take a more enlightened and intelligent view on an issue like this?

Is it a fact that these books are extremely popular to-day in the Foreign Office?

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether books dealing with the particular brand of Socialism of the Lord President of the Council have also been placed on the Index?

House of Commons (Refreshment Department)

asked the hon. Member for Ipswich, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, whether he is aware that Cornish pilchards are now canned in this country; and whether he will consider providing these in the refreshment rooms in preference to imported brands?

These Cornish pilchards, tinned in oil, are now obtainable in the dining-rooms of the House of Commons.

Permanent Court of International Justice

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the amendments to the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice contained in the Protocol, dated the 14th September, 1929, have now come into force in accordance with the decision of the last meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations, and, if so, from what date?

Yes, Sir. The Protocol entered into force on 1st February.

Questions to Ministers

On a point of Order. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether you can give me some indication of why the Private Notice question to the Prime Minister, sent in by me today, concerning the leakage of information in regard to the White Paper on naval development has not been accepted?

Questions by Private Notice sent to me are always considered by me from the point of view of their urgency and it did not appear to me that the right hon. Gentleman's question was urgent enough to come within that category.

With regard to urgency, was there not urgency in regard to a leakage of confidential information on matters so vitally important as to affect the conduct of an important international Naval Conference at present sitting in London and in respect of a White Paper long promised to this House but not delivered—that such information should be allowed to leak into the Press beforehand, against the privilege of Members of this House?

It would be quite impossible for me to carry out my duties if I argued with hon. Members as to my Rulings.

Business of the House

May I ask a question on business? I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether there is any special reason why the Eleven o'clock Rule is not being suspended to-day?

Members Sworn

Several Members took and subscribed the Oath.

Message from the Lords

That they have agreed to—

Unemployment Assistance (Temporary Provisions) (Extension) Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to carry out certain draft International Conventions relating to the employment of women during the night and to hours of work in automatic sheet-glass works, to amend the law relating to the hours of employment of women holding responsible positions of management who are not ordinarily engaged in manual work, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid." [Hours of Employment (Conventions) Bill [ Lords. ]

Consolidation Bills

That they propose that the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills do meet in Committee Room C, on Tuesday next, at Twelve o'clock.

Unemployment Assistance (Temporary Provisions) (Extension) Bill

Lords Amendments to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 56.]

Consolidation Bills

So much of the Lords Message as relates to Consolidation Bills considered :—

Ordered, That the Committee appointed by this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships.—[ Sir G. Penny. ]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Public Accounts

First Report from the Committee on Public Accounts, brought up, and read;

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day

Education (Scotland) Bill

Order for Second Beading read.

3.50 p.m.

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

This Bill represents an important contribution to the work which the Government hope to accomplish for education in Scotland. Let me recall to the House the aim of the Government. It is by legislation and administration to carry out a constructive and forward-looking policy. We intend to promote the intellectual and physical well-being of our children so that they may be enabled to undertake with resource, intelligence and courage the responsibilities of life and citizenship. The post-War world demands a proper balance between the education of the mind and of the body, and also training for the better use of leisure. The Government's programme has been based upon these guiding considerations. It is a comprehensive one, designed to secure a substantial advance along a broad front.

We propose to raise the school leaving age to 15, subject to certain exemptions. We intend to make a big effort to improve the health of the children by physical training and medical attention. We aim at an increased provision of nursery schools and a further development of both technical and adult education. We shall accompany these steps with a drastic review of the courses of instruction and of school arrangements generally, so that there shall be available for each child a well-balanced and progressive course suited to his age and ability. The Government propose to carry out this programme partly by legislation and partly by administrative action. It is with the legislative side of this work that we are concerned to-day. But I have thought it well to sketch briefly the picture as a whole, for it is within the framework of that picture that the proposals of this Bill must be viewed.

The outstanding feature of the Bill is Clause 1, which provides for the raising of the school age as from 1st September, 1939. It may be asked, "Why select 1939 as the year for this change? Why not raise the age in 1937, or, if some longer warning is needed, why not in 1938 at the latest? "There are several good reasons in Scotland why we have chosen this particular date. First, everything must be ready for the proper instruction of the children who would be kept at school for the added year. Secondly, a number of the larger areas will need the full time for providing the extra accommodation, the extensions to existing schools, and especially the rooms for practical instruction. All this takes time. Between the local decision to build a new school and the time when the school is ready for the use of the children, there is generally a gap of at least 2½ years. Thirdly, if the age limit were raised before 1939, a certain amount of extra accommodation, equipment and staff would have to be called into being which would shortly after become superfluous. Let me explain what I mean by that. The number of children born in each of the years from 1923 to 1925 that would fall into the 14–15 age block, if the age were raised in 1937, would be 112,000; if in 1938, 110,000; if in 1939, only 104,000. The decline in these figures —especially marked between 1938 and 1939, some 6,000 in number—illustrates the point I am making.

I turn to the question of exemptions. In certain quarters the view is held that there should be no exemptions, that all children should be kept at school till 15, and that to allow them to enter into beneficial employment below that age is a mistake. Let me deal with these points. If parents of limited means want their children to have further education, generous facilities are available in Scotland. They can secure for their children free secondary education; they can take advantage of the ample provision of State and endowment bursaries at technical colleges, training colleges and universities if the children show capacity for benefiting thereby. It has been said, and I think with truth, that the path of the lad of parts has never been easier. The education authorities spend £185,000 a year from public funds in assisting deserving young people in courses of higher education; the endowment funds provide a further £250,000 a year; and in our Scottish universities we have £57,000 a year provided by the Carnegie Trust for fees of students. There is also an Exchequer grant of some £330,000 for the general assistance of the Scottish universities. A total of over £800,000 yearly is given directly to assist the continuance of education.

Having regard to these figures, the House will admit that in Scotland the broad road is open to those who after the age of 14 wish to continue their education. In fact, of the children between 14 and 15 alone, about one-third at present after the age of 14 voluntarily remain at school for periods of varying length. It is not generally realised what is being done at the public expense for the education of our youth. In 1910, some £4,500,000 was spent on public education in Scotland. To-day nearly £14,000,000 is being spent. This increase by 200 per cent, is surely proof of the determination of the State to make the best education available to the children of our land. Over the whole field of education there has been a remarkable expansion in quality and quantity. As to the latter, the figures I have quoted speak for themselves. As to the former, hon. Members who have seen our modern schools—and no doubt most hon. Members have been paying numerous visits to these schools on recent occasions —must have been struck with a comparison between them and the schools of the nineteenth century. I would like to pay a tribute, in which I am sure the House will join, to the fine and sympathetic work which is being done by our teachers in Scotland to-day. I have had many opportunities of acquainting myself with their work, and their ability, initiative, and human understanding command our respect and win our admiration.

These qualities will, after 1939, be of special value in securing the essential co-operation of the teachers and parents. It is gratifying that this contact, which I have urged on many occasions, shows definite signs of progress. It will, indeed, become of vital importance when the school age is raised, when questions will arise as to what may be justifiably called beneficial employment. The parents will more readily consult the teachers, and the teachers will advise the parents as to the ability and character of their children. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am speaking of the vital necessity in future of close contact between the parents and the teachers.

Let the House consider the case of those children between 14 and 15 who would not voluntarily stay at school. In the first place there are those for whom the parents are able to secure what the Bill describes as "beneficial employment." The Government take the view that children should stay at school until 15 unless the education authorities decide that it is to the interest of any particular child, under proper safeguards, that he should be allowed to leave school and start his life's work. The authority is directed in Clause 2 to consider the prospective as well as the immediate benefit of the child. They have to consider the nature of the employment, the wages to be paid and the hours of work, the opportunities to be afforded to the child for further education, and the time available to the child for recreation. They may embody these conditions in the certificate of employment. They will now be armed for the first time with the power of imposing conditions under which children shall work, and thus help to mitigate a defect in our industrial system. As the House knows, breach of these conditions will involve penalties on the employer.

The education authority may also require the child, as a condition of the exemption, to take advantage of one or other of the many opportunities for part-time education, and in this I hope that the physical side of education will receive a great increase of attention. Such conditions of exemption are the established practice in Scotland under the present system, and the education authorities are well able to make these things successful. Hon. Members will see in Clause 2 a special provision designed to meet the case where adjacent authorities take a different view of what constitutes beneficial employment. I hope that these bodies through their associations will consider and adopt a uniform standard of machinery so that any difficulty about border-line cases will be reduced to a minimum. Under sub-section (1) of Clause 2 a child may be required to complete the school term before he or she leaves for beneficial employment. This is obviously not a provision in which hard-and-fast rules can be laid down in an Act of Parliament. It may be that one child will lose and another gain by taking advantage of a chance of employment. In some cases the work offered must be taken at once or the opportunity will be lost. Such cases we have thought it well to leave to the decision of the education authority.

There is one other and quite exceptional type of exemption. The education authorities in Scotland have for many years had power to grant exemption between 12 and 14 for a variety of causes. We propose to abolish that power completely; but children between 14 and 15 may be granted exemption for the purpose of doing certain things, such as housework, or where there are hard cases in the home, and the House will agree that some such exemption is essential. All these cases of exemption will be considered by the education authorities on their merits. I had hoped to discuss this Bill and the administrative provisions which will follow with representatives of all the education authorities in different parts of Scotland. I was, alas, unable to do so, but I am sure they are fully alive to what we propose and that they will carry out the new policy with the zeal and devotion which mark all their work. These bodies to whom we are to entrust these large powers—what are they? They are bodies representative of the ratepayers. They consist not only of men and women drawn from all classes of society, but keen educationists. They are animated by a vigorous educational outlook.

The 35 education authorities in Scotland are indeed animated by a vigorous educational outlook, and the House may be assured that the educational interests of the children will receive paramount consideration and that the authorities will exercise wisely their new duties. The House, I am sure, will join me in paying tribute to the self-sacrificing work done by the 35 education authorities in Scotland.

Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point will he say what kind of employment he has in his mind as coming under the term "beneficial employment" for these girls and boys?

The decision as to that, as is provided in the Bill, will rest with the local authorities in their own discretion, having regard to each case on its merits.

But surely the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to let us know from his own point of view what is "beneficial employment," seeing that he is Secretary of State for Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman ought to give some lead, because this is a new idea. There is to be consideration of the child. It will not be as formerly, when the child went to work because it had to go. The Bill says that the employment has to be beneficial for the child. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what such employment is?

We shall have an opportunity during the Committee stage of discussing that point. Hon. Members will then be anxious, and rightly anxious, as to what is the meaning of the terra "beneficial employment."

Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many of the self-sacrificing and vigorous authorities he has mentioned are supporting the exemption Clauses of the Bill?

I have not that information by me. I feel sure that after this Measure has been considered in all its details, even if some of the provisions do not meet fully the views of the different education authorities, they will accept, as they have always accepted, the decisions of the House of Commons and will do their best to carry them out. I have referred to the case of the children who can profit by higher education, with the willing consent of their parents, and also of those who can secure, with their parents' consent, beneficial employment. There remains an intermediate class—the children who do not secure beneficial employment but who under the present law would be neither at school nor at suitable work. There is no question that this group should remain at school till 15. Let me summarise the situation so far as exemptions are concerned. There are, first of all, the class who voluntarily stay at school to-day. There are those who leave school to-day at 14 and are unable to find work. They will remain at school under the Bill. There is the remaining class of those who will in future be able to secure beneficial employ- ment and be enabled to leave school before 15.

Before I pass from the question of exemptions let me remind the House that the grant of exemptions has always been included in all Education Bills to raise the school age. It is no new principle. It was an essential feature of the Acts of 1872, 1883 and 1901. Those Acts all included powers of exemption. Then, as now, difficulties both of an administrative and educational character were raised in opposition to those Acts, but as time passed the difficulties disappeared in practice. I have no doubt that after this Bill has been on the Statute Book a few years the difficulties which hon. Members opposite anticipate will not mature. We are indeed following the characteristic British method of building on the foundations of earlier efforts, when it was recognised that some provision for exemption was needed to meet the circumstances of a new venture. In view of these general considerations I submit that the sound method of advance at the present stage is not to compel all children to stay at school irrespective of the condition of industry and the wishes of their parents, but to raise gradually the average school-leaving age and to ease the abrupt transition into industry. Wholesale compulsion might well retard the forward march of education.

I now turn to Part II. The provisions of this Part are designed to improve the arrangements for the deaf and the physically and mentally afflicted, and to enable education authorities to provide play centres, vacation schools, holiday camps and other amenities which I am confident will be welcomed. I lay great stress on the value of these proposals. All must admit that more could and should be done in our schools for the physical training and development of our young people. Life in towns under modern conditions makes this imperative. Already we have opened up this great question with the education authorities, and we propose to follow it through with energy and determination, providing physical exercises, games, developments in medical inspection and treatment, and an increase in the number of trained instructors.

Clause 12 provides for those who need help to attend continuation classes; and there are a variety of minor points in the Schedule. The Bill clears the way for the consolidation of the Education Acts applying to Scotland which I am sure will be welcome to administrators throughout Scotland. I will emphasise once more that the Government programme must be regarded as a whole both on its legislative and administrative side. In conclusion, I would remind the House that Scotland is proud of her education system. Scotland has been for many years a pioneer in educational advance. Others are now challenging Scotland in her educational supremacy. I appeal to the House of Commons, to each member of the 35 education authorities, to each of the 30,000 teachers and to the parents to co-operate in furthering not only the letter but the spirit and ideal of this Bill, so that our education system in Scotland shall continue to command the admiration of the world.

4.16 p.m.

I beg to move, to leave out from "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:

"this House declines to assent to the Second Reading of a Bill which, whilst purporting to raise the school-leaving age, will be rendered substantially inoperative by the nature and extent of its provisions for exemptions, and which fails to make any provision for giving fuller effect to section four of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, for facilitating attendance at secondary schools."

The "admiration of the world," of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke, is singularly absent in Scotland. He could not tell us of a single education authority in Scotland which is backing Part I of this Bill. He said he had not brought any of the resolutions in his pocket, and there is a very obvious reason for that —they are not in existence. This Bill, as he has indicated, deals with two sets of circumstances. We' on this side of the House cordially welcome Part II, in so far as it amends and extends the powers of education authorities to provide nursery schools, holiday camps, and so on, but it is to Part I that I would draw the attention of the House. Since the Education (Scotland) Act of 1918 it has been the law that the school-leaving age should be 15, subject to its having been left to the Secretary of State for Scotland to fix an appointed date for the operation of that provision. Now, after nearly 20 years of inoperation, the Secretary of State comes down here and calls for "the admiration of the world," to use his own phrase, because the Government are going to postpone its operation for another three years, and then to permit wholesale exemptions and evasions. In effect, that is what this proposal amounts to.

In the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum we are told that one of the reasons for having a separate Bill for Scotland was to bring in the amendments dealing with nursery schools and so on contained in Part II, but why did not the right hon. Gentleman introduce other tidying-up Amendments which are urgently required in the Scottish education system? There is no reference in his speech or in the Bill to the iniquitous and indefensible co-opting system for education authorities, "under which men who have not received, and in many cases cannot receive, the assent of their fellow electors are still, in large measure, controlling the administration of education. In our judgment, on this side of the House, the co-opting system is absolutely indefensible and ought to be abolished.

At Question Time to-day the right hon. Gentleman was asked about the Lenzie Academy case. I am not going into the merits of that matter, but there would have been no Lenzie Academy case had it not been for the co-opts. There was no local representative of the area on the education authority. The whole thing was devised and controlled from many miles away, without any local consultation whatever. It needed an action in the Court of Session to prove the hopeless illegality of the proceedings, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) showed at Question Time, five months after the decision was taken in the Court of Session they are still fiddling about in open violation of an Act of Parliament, and have degraded the headmaster without authority. To-day we are paying two headmasters' salaries for one job in the one school. That kind of thing may be "the admiration of the world," but it does not command the admiration of Scotland or of the pupils, the teachers, the parents or the Law Courts in Scotland, and how the right hon. Gentleman and his Department can permit the continuation of that state of affairs I do not know. At any rate, there is no reference to the possibility of abolishing the co-opting system and the evils which flow from it.

I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to point out what that has to do with this particular Bill.

With deference, I would point out that Part II of the Bill amends in some respects the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, and that the right hon. Gentleman indicates in his Explanatory Memorandum that the reason why it is necessary to bring a Bill at all is that he is amending that Act; and I am drawing attention to the fact that major evils in the administration of education in Scotland receive no attention in this Measure. But if it is your desire, Mr. Speaker, I will not explore that point in detail.

According to the right hon. Gentleman's explanation the particular subject which he is raising is not dealt with in this Bill.

With deference, I would again say that the Secretary of. State is amending the Act of 1918, and I suggest that I am entitled to draw attention to the fact that major evils in the administration of that Act have been ignored by him and his advisers.

The right hon. Gentleman cannot go into everything that is contained in that Act.

If that be your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I will make no more than the passing reference I have made to the matter. I think I am entitled to draw attention to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government have taken no steps to save the public funds and to preserve a semblance of democratic control of education by a greater decentralisation of power to local districts. The more we move in the direction of bureaucracy, and county bureaucracy at that, the less control there is locally, and the more utterly impossible it is to get the average citizen to maintain his interest in the education system. I suggest that it is wholly bad to divorce localities from adequate control of the machinery of education. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor and the present Lord President of the Council promised an inquiry into this matter, and I trust that before this Bill gets through the Scottish Grand Committee we shall have pretty firm pledges from the right hon. Gentleman that there will be an inquiry into the effect of abolishing democratic control in our education system in Scotland, and that we shall be told when that inquiry will be undertaken.

I come to Part I. There is, of course, an air of unreality about this Debate. Parliament has already approved of the raising of the school-leaving age without maintenance allowances in the case of the English Bill, and in so far as we can only spend eleven-eightieths of the money allocated to England we are more or less tied up to the decision taken by this House a week ago. But there is a limit within which this House and the Scottish Standing Committee can still control education administration and expenditure in Scotland. We have two fundamental objections to this Bill. One concerns the wholesale nature of the exemptions which are to be permitted. The right hon. Gentleman skated very lightly over that question to-day. It is estimated that about 50 per cent, of the children in Scotland over 14 years of age will be exempted under the provisions of this Bill, but where are those children to find employment? The right hon. Gentleman never addressed himself to that problem. If he will look at the "Ministry of Labour Gazette "for January, taking the case of boys from 14 to 18, he will find that already there are 12,402 of them on the unemployed register and outside the school system, and, similarly, there are 9,794 girls. That is a total of 21,000 juveniles who have left school but have no employment. Ten per cent, of all the boys and 7 per cent, of all the girls aged 16 to 17 who have left school are unemployed.

If the right hon. Gentleman will look at particular instances and not simply take averages, he will see that his exemption system cannot work in the more depressed areas of Scotland. How does he propose to get it worked in Stornaway, where 60 per cent, of the juveniles who have left school are unemployed? How does he propose to get it worked in Peterhead, where 63 per cent, are unemployed? Is there any sense in talking about a system which will exempt 50 per cent, of the children who are still left in school and thus add to the confusions of the present unemployment market?

If there is all this unemployment, no beneficial employment will be available.

I will deal with that point in a moment. I see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) is present, and I would remind him that in his constituency 47 per cent, of the children who have left school are unemployed. There is no possibility of operating an exemptions system in such an area-My hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) says that in such places as Stornaway, Peterhead and so on, there will be no beneficial employment—but that is not the point. An employer has only to come forward with a job for which he wants a particular child who is at school and that child will be taken from school irrespective of the enormous number of children already outside the schools who are unemployed. There is nothing in this Act to prevent that.

Why should there be? If the job is a good one, gives continuity of employment, and affords excellent prospects, why should the child not take it?

Let me examine these splendid jobs of which we hear so much. Boys aged 14 plus are not able to get into apprenticeship jobs because the trade unions will not take them.

That has been the case for 25 years, or at any rate since the War. I do not think there is a single trade union having an apprenticeship system under which boys are permitted to start work at 14 years of age. Consequently, the only employment that is open to these boys consists of blind-alley occupations, and on that matter we are able to find some information in the Sixth Report of the National Advisory Council for Juvenile Employment in Scotland. I do not suppose any hon. Member opposite will sneer at the names or the work of the members of that Advisory Council. The report gives a table concerning the kind of jobs that are to be found at the age of 14 and for which exemption will be given by this Bill. Errand and messenger boys and girls form the biggest category. Then there are van boys, warehouse boys, warehouse girls, cinema attendants (boys and girls), petrol pump boys, ice cream sellers (boys), bill distributors (boys and girls), firewood choppers (boys and girls), and so on. Does the right hon. Gentleman or anybody else pretend that the granting of exemptions for beneficial employment in jobs of that type is in the interests of education at all? We should not get the admiration of the world for that.

This Bill is really a Ministry of Labour Bill. The Ministry of Labour is going to secure that a number of children—perhaps 40 per cent, perhaps 50 per cent, perhaps more—will remain at school, will be kept off the labour market and will thus give the Ministry a chance of saving money on unemployment benefits; but to say that this system of wholesale exemptions has anything whatever to do with education or with the admiration of the world for the Scottish educational system strikes me as nonsense. Let the House consider how the exemptions system will work. Doubtless there are hon. Gentlemen opposite who, as I have done, have sat as chairmen of exemptions committees. In the first place, let us be clear that this system has to be operated locally. It must be operated with a local knowledge that can only be obtained from local administration. Something must be known about the conditions of the applicants and consideration must be given to the pressure that is brought to bear on the local administrators and committees. The committees hear applications from Tom Jones or Bill Smith that his son or daughter should be allowed to leave school on grounds of poverty. If there are any exemptions at all, it is almost impossible on grounds of poverty to make discriminations. So far as I know, every local authority in Scotland which is administering exemptions under previous Acts is opposed to discriminations under the exemptions system. Let us suppose that a child leaves school at 14 plus and obtains a job in some beneficial employment. Let us suppose that by a turn of the wheel of fate he loses that job. He then has to return to some approved system of education, if there be any. At the present time there is only a very small number of juvenile training centres in Scotland, but if there were a great many in existence, what would be the result if a boy returned on losing his job? Quite apart from the effect on his education and the effect on the other children, I submit to the House that it is educa- tionally impossible for any headmaster or education committee efficiently to organise the system of administration and education in schools unless they know with a fair degree of accuracy the number of children who will be in regular attendance. Again, I say that in taking this point of view we have the support of every body responsible for educational administration in Scotland.

I am not allowed to discuss in detail the question of maintenance allowances, but I would point out that in Scotland we have had power, which we have exercised, under the Education Act of 1918, to give bursaries or maintenance allowances to children, both boys and girls, who show prospects of educational advance. There are two conditions, the first being that the child receiving the allowance should be able to benefit from the education which is provided, and the second being that the parents should require assistance. Given those two conditions, I think I am right in saying that every county in Scotland has provided bursaries or maintenance allowances running into many thousands of pounds. Clause 11 of this Act extends the conception or the category of secondary education to which these bursaries and maintenance allowances apply, but although the number to whom bursaries or maintenance allowances may be given is increased, the money to enable us to make adequate allowances is not forthcoming. It is true that under the Bill we shall still have the power and shall be able to spend money on maintenance allowances in exceptional cases, if we like to strip the buildings and cut down expenditure in other directions.

I take it that everybody in this House knows something about the Income Tax Acts. If we have children, we have an allowance of £50 per annum deducted from our Income Tax assessment for every child of school age or every child who may be receiving education at a university or anywhere else. Every child in the educational system yields us a deduction of £50 on our Income Tax.

The right hon. Member is stating categorically that a certain deduction is allowed in respect of every child, but that is not so if the child has an income of its own.

Unless the child has an income of its own. Generally speaking, we are allowed a deduction of £50 from our total assessable income, and the Income Tax on that £50 allowance amounts to nearly £10 per annum: an actual money payment received by the children of the Income Tax paying classes as a maintenance allowance for the child.

It is a maintenance allowance. So long as that child is maintained in the educational system we get £10 given back to us by the State. If it is not given as a maintenance allowance, I should like to know what it is.

The right hon. Gentleman knows that in these cases fees are being paid by the parents. Would not the £10 help to pay the fees?

There is no question whatever about these children being required to be in a fee-paying school.

There would not be many parents who pay 4s. 6d. in the pound Income Tax who would be sending their children to free schools.

Any number of them. I should say that three-fourths of the children who are attending non-fee-paying schools are the children of parents who are getting Income Tax relief.

If the hon. Lady will listen I will give her an answer. I say that about three-fourths of the children in Scotland whose parents are receiving relief through the Income Tax Acts—

We can thresh out the details later. It is common knowledge in every place, except, I suppose, Dundee, that when the Budget comes before this House there is a constant attempt to get a deduction for parents of children who are attending school, and the allowance per child that is given amounts on the average to about £10 per annum. We may quarrel as to the precise reason for which that money is given but the fact is that it is given. In this Bill the Government are saying to the children of the poor: "You shall get nothing." To the children of the Income Tax paying class, they say: "Yes, you will get £10, but the children of the poor will get nothing." How right hon. and hon. Members opposite, and the hon. Lady opposite are to go to their constituents and justify a provision to pay benefits for the rich which they refuse to the poor, I do not know.

The right hon. Gentleman has made an extraordinary statement. Surely, there is a difference between the case of a man who contributes to the upkeep of the State by having to pay Income Tax, and the case of the man who does not.

The right hon. Member is now raising a controversy on a subject which is not in order on this Bill.

I accept your Ruling, and I will not pursue the point further. It will add grievously to the difficulties of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends when they come to explain the Bill closely in Scotand that they have to explain that the children of the rich are to get benefits which they deny to the children of the poor. For the reasons which I have adduced we on this side— although we are all in favour of raising the school age to 15 on educational grounds—regard the handicaps, the loopholes and the divisions in the Bill as of such a nature as to compel us to vote against it on the Second Reading.

4.52 p.m.

In rising to address the House for the first time, I am glad to be in a position to give my full support to the Education Bill before us. We are all agreed in recognising the immense benefits that Scotland has received during the last century and a half from the education which her children have received. We know that Scotland in years past has suffered and at the present time is suffering from certain disadvantages, geographical, climatic and possibly because she has more than her fair share of mountainous areas. Largely because of those facts, tens of thousands of the ablest young Scots have had to leave their own country and seek their fortunes abroad. We realise full well that those young Scots have in a very large degree met with success when they have been abroad. Although we take pride in the fact that that was due to certain inherent qualities in the Scottish race, I think we recognise that it was as much due to the invaluable education which they had received in their own country.

We can attribute the success of that education to four main causes, (1) the natural aptitude of Scottish children towards study, (2) the very intense desire of the parents to give the best possible education to their children, (3) the facilities which for certainly the last century have been placed before the children of all sections of society in Scotland to assist them in their education, and last, but by no means least, the wonderful teachers which Scotland has always been able to produce from the time of the old dominie down to the present day. We can be reasonably sure that there is the same latent talent in the children attending schools in Scotland to-day and will be in the immediate future, as there has been in the past.

The question before all of us this afternoon is whether the Bill gives the facilities for the education of these children to enable them to compete both at home and abroad, to enable the industries of Scotland to maintain their position in competition in the markets of the world, to enable the Scottish children who will go abroad, as a large percentage of our best for many years will, I am afraid, be forced to go, to hold their own in competition with the students of other countries, and to enable another generation to win and to hold those high posts in banking, engineering and other situations throughout the world which they have been able to secure in competition with the people of other countries in the past. I believe that the Bill does produce those facilities.

The chief point of controversy undoubtedly centres round the difficult and vexed question of exemptions. We all know the general views of teachers' organisations and of those individuals who are intensely enthusiastic about educational questions. They are nearly all united in the belief that the exemptions will not prove of benefit to the children. On the other hand, we in this House know that if we had a national union of Admirals they would undoubtedly ask for more and larger battleships and the sailors to man them, A national union of Air Marshals would doubtless ask for more and bigger aeroplanes, and the necessary staff. It is only natural that we should expect teachers' unions and kindred organisations to press for larger and bigger schools, and the children to fill them. As regards the danger of the exemption Clauses being used for purposes for which they are not intended, we have two great safeguards, which are not mentioned in the Bill. The first safeguard is the desire of the parents to do the very best for their children. I am speaking for en area in Scotland which is peopled predominantly by those of pure Scotch descent. There are large areas in the lowlands where within recent history there has been a considerable influx of persons not of Scottish descent.

It may be that in some of those areas the parents do not possess the same intense feeling for education as they do in the Border counties, but I do know, speaking for my own area, that we have two safeguards which would prevent the exemptions from being the cause of abuse. One is the parents and the other is the education authorities, which have shown themselves every bit as keen on giving the full benefit of all educational facilities which have been offered to them and passing it on to the children. But even among those parents who realise the full benefits that education can bring to their children, and especially in the country districts, there are many who are doubtful whether, under modern conditions, their children will receive any considerable benefit by staying on in school after their fourteenth year, and I would remind hon. Members, if they will cast their memories back to their own schooldays, that their teachers probably complained about all of them that they were lacking in a peculiar quality called application. Of course, there are exceptions, but we presume that the exceptions are among right hon. Members on other benches. If the parents in Scotland do see that after the age of 14 their children are evidencing more and more the lack of that quality of application, it may be that they—and very likely they are in a better position to judge than we are— will realise that the future progress of their children is likely to be more benefited in the outside world than by continuing at school where they have ceased to be happy. [An HON. MEMBER: "Did you get exemption?"] Unfortunately, I did not.

It has been suggested in some quarters that this extension of the school age is going to be a definite burden on some of the parents, and although undoubtedly there will be cases where parents will be called upon to make a sacrifice, at the same time those parents know full well that any sacrifice that they are called upon to make or any burden to carry is trifling compared with that which was carried by the parents in Scotland of the last two or three generations. Further, we in this House know full well that any sacrifices that were carried by the parents in Scotland were only of a temporary nature in the large majority of cases and that the unqualified success which attended their efforts on behalf of their children, the successful results of the education which they gave to their children, far more than made up in the long run for any temporary burden or sacrifice. I believe that this Bill produces all those facilities which the parents and the education authorities require, and I have a feeling that in the course of time, when it is working, the only complainants will be those particular children who dislike being kept at school for an additional year.

5.5 p.m.

It is my first duty to express, on my own behalf and on behalf of all my colleagues in the House, in whatever part of the House they may sit, our admiration for the very clear and interesting speech which the Noble Lord who has just sat down has delivered, and to express the hope that he will contribute to our discussions on many future occasions. I do not wish to discuss at length the powerful speech of the right hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. T. Johnston), but I would just say in one sentence that I agree with his remarks about the administration of education in Scotland by the education authorities and about the loss which the people of Scotland have suffered by the withdrawal of the control of education from smaller areas to these larger areas in many parts of the country the loss, too, of ad hoc election, and in particular with what he said about co-option; but I do not feel that I ought to pursue his remarks on that subject, because reforms would, of course, involve an amendment of the 1929 Local Government Act, which does not come within the Title of this Bill. Moreover, I do not wish to discuss another very large subject, which was raised by the Secretary of State for Scotland, when he said that it is impossible justly to appreciate the Government's policy unless we take into account not only its legislative but also its administrative aspects. If we all did that, we should make very long speeches, and very few of us would be able to contribute to the Debate.

I think we must, as I certainly shall, concentrate upon the proposals in this Bill, and we should be ill-reflecting the opinions of our constituents if we did not feel in our bones that this subject of education is, in the long view, the most important of any of those great issues which we shall discuss in this Parliament. No country in the world has a greater record of educational achievement than Scotland. It was only a century ago that the English Parliament provided for a school in every parish in England, but it was in 1696 that the Scottish Parliament made provision for a school in every parish in Scotland and for the payment of the schoolmaster's salary too. Since then, right down to the present day, Scottish education has developed along our own historic lines and in accordance with the circumstances and ideals of our own people, and a system has been evolved differing substantially from the system which prevails in England. It is not the characteristic British method, as the Secretary of State for Scotland said, that I want to see applied by the Government, but the characteristic Scottish method.

So it was that the Munro Act, introduced by Mr. Robert Munro, now Lord Alness, in 1918, differed in many important particulars from the Fisher Act, and in many particulars it was more progressive than the Fisher Act, because public opinion in Scotland was still in advance, in matters of education, of public opinion in England. Under that Act the school age in Scotland was raised to 15, and power was given to the Secretary of State, by Order, to fix the school age at 15 at any time. The power was given by this House of Commons, and so far as legislation was necessary the school age was raised in Scotland in 1918. If the real object of this Bill is to raise the school age in Scotland, it is quite unnecessary. What then is the real object of the Bill? It is not to raise the school age, because the right hon. Gentleman has the power to do that to-day. It is not to effect all those little Amendments of previous legislation contained in Part II, because, of course, they could be included in a Consolidation Bill, for which I think it would be possible to get the assent of all parties in the House or at any rate could be introduced in a separate Measure, which would be sure of a far more swift and easy passage than the Bill which we are now discussing. No, the real object of this Bill is to make an immediate legislative gesture while postponing action until 1939, and to reduce the cost and, incidentally, the effectiveness of that belated action by at least one-half and more probably by three-quarters through a system of exemptions. In short, it is not a Bill for raising the school age, because the necessary legislation for that purpose is already on the Statute Book; it is a Bill for postponement and exemption.

Now what is the case for postponement? The right hon. Gentleman, in introducing the Measure, gave us three arguments for postponement. He said that everything must be ready for the proper instruction of the children. But what have the Government been doing? Several of us have asked questions of the Government about the raising of the school age, and we have always understood that a great deal of preparatory work was going on. In fact, we know that a number of aspects of the matter have been inquired into by committees, and what becomes of the Government's assurances on these points if indeed they are not prepared? Is it lack of buildings? That is not true of a great many districts in Scotland. At any rate, in the rural districts of Scotland there are plenty of buildings. I am sorry to say that in the Highlands of Scotland there are plenty of buildings and, through the falling off in the school population, there is ample accommodation for the children in the extra year. At any rate, now, when money can be cheaply borrowed, and when men are idle, is the time to set about providing these buildings. Indeed, if they cannot be ready, let us say, by 1937, next year, I would say that a little overcrowding would be better for a year or two than to deny the benefits of this extra year to the children who would otherwise be able to enjoy them.

The right hon. Gentleman said—this was his third argument—that we must remember the falling birth-rate and that if the school age was raised before 1939, there would be a certain amount of equipment and staff which would become superfluous. It is true that the falling birthrate is a phenomenon, the ominous significance of which it is impossible now fully to appreciate and of which public opinion seems scarcely to be aware. The falling birth-rate, however, ought not to be used as an argument to postpone educational advance. It makes it indeed the more urgent. The educational use which we should make of the falling birth-rate is not to justify the postponement of the raising of the school age, but to reduce the size of classes, which are in many cases very much too large, and as the birth-rate falls, as the number of children in the schools becomes smaller, so the size of the classes ought to be reduced. So much for the arguments in favour of postponement.

Now let me put briefly to the House four arguments against postponement. The first one that I would stress is juvenile unemployment. It is idle to deny the effect of raising the school age upon that question. You do hear it denied sometimes. I have heard hon. Members suggest that the effect would be much smaller than its advocates maintain. I do not want to go into that argument now. I would rather quote an authority which I am sure the whole House will recognise as an impartial and important authority, namely, the Scottish Advisory Council for Juvenile Unemployment, who declared, in their fifth report upon the supply and demand for juvenile labour in the years 1932–40, that the raising of the school-leaving age would be a step more immediately effective than any other in reducing the number of juveniles available for employment. There are 25,000 boys and girls of from 14 to 18 years of age unemployed in Scotland, and many more who are just over the age of 18. Now is the time, or, at the latest, 1937, to keep the boys and girls of 14 off the labour market and off the streets. Let us not postpone action until 1939.

I have mentioned juvenile unemployment. My second reason is juvenile employment, or at least the employment of boys and girls in their 15th year. I have been getting figures, which are not easy to get, of the number of boys and girls actually in employment and who are aged 14 and 15 years. The figures relate to July, 1935, and are the latest that are available at the Ministry of Labour. I find that no fewer than 95,000 boys and girls aged 14 and 15 years of age are in insured employment in Scotland, or were, in the middle of last year. They ought to be in the schools equipping themselves for life. They should not be crowding into the labour market in their 15th year. They ought to be leaving those jobs to the boys and girls who are older, and who are among those unemployed whom I have mentioned. It is the boys and girls of 17, 18 and 19 years of age now unemployed who ought to be in the jobs which are being filled by boys and girls in their 15th year. This sacrifice of character and intelligence to industrial inconvenience and short-sighted economy ought not to continue until 1939. It ought to be stopped next year at the latest.

A further important consideration which might well carry some weight is the position of the teachers. We shall need the teachers in increasing numbers as we reduce the size of classes and as we increase the variety of the curriculum, which are parts of the scheme. Those teachers are waiting, unemployed, for their chance of employment. Here is useful work waiting for them to do. Let us get them on to the job.

My fourth reason is that the whole country expects action. I do not believe that the country interpreted the Government's manifesto to mean that action was going to be postponed until 1939. They thought that we were to have action at once and that the school leaving age was to be raised, as soon as the Government received their majority, or as soon as was practicable. I do not believe that the country thought for one moment that there would be postponement for four years. There is no balance whatever between those pros and cons. The case against postponement till 1939 is overwhelming.

Hardly less strong is the case against exemptions. It has nothing to do with the broad road to the university. I would say, incidentally, that that road is not so broad as the right hon. Gentleman was making it out to be. I have had to bring at least one case to his notice quite recently of a promising boy, the headmaster of whose school wants him to go to a university, but who cannot get a bursary of sufficient size to enable him to go. There are a great many other cases in other parts of Scotland. I will not pursue this line because we are not dealing with university education to-day but with a great mass of children who are going into other employments and who, if they are to have the equipment which is necessary to enable them to make a success of life need, by common consent, another year in the schools. The Government agree with this, or they would not be introducing this Measure.

It is a remarkable, relevant and formidable fact that teachers, who ought to know a little about this educational matter, and the local authorities who are responsible for its administration, are unanimous against this plan for exemption. The Noble Lord said that if you went by the advice of Air Marshals you would have fleets of aeroplanes, and by the advice of Admirals you would have fleets of battleships, that the teachers naturally wanted the age raised quickly and without exemption, and that we could safely disregard their advice. Is he going to use that argument when the Government's proposals for defence are brought before us? Will he dismiss the advice of Air Marshals and Admirals and say that their defence proposals are irrational and exaggerated, and that we need not pay any attention to them? Not at all. He will not do anything of the kind. I ask him not to dismiss the advice of the teachers and of the local authorities so cavalierly. We must look at the merits of the case.

What are the merits of the case for exemption? The Noble Lord says that after the age of 14 boys lose their application. He said that most boys at school at that age were considered to be idle and not to show sufficient application to benefit from education. I cannot help reflecting that the Noble Lord's parents did not take that view, and that he ought to share with his parents our gratitude for the speech which he has delivered to us this afternoon. Unless his parents had been firm with him I doubt whether he would have found his way into the House of Commons. It rather reminds me of a story which was told of Sydney Smith about an irate squire who had been worsted in argument by Sydney Smith and who said: "Sir, if I had a son who was an idiot I would send him into the church." To whom Sydney Smith replied, "Sir, I can see that your father was not of the same opinion."

I would, therefore, ask hon. Members to consider how many of us would take our children from school at 14, however beneficial the employment. There are a good many of us who could obtain for our children employment at least as beneficial as any that will be offered to these children of 14 years of age, but which of us would take our boys and girls away from school in their 15th year? Not one of us. The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) said, "Supposing there is a good job with continuity of employment for a particular boy; why should he not be allowed to go to it?" Supposing there were such a job, why should that particular boy, whose age is only 14, go to that job? Why should he not continue to obtain the advantage—the Government think there is an advantage or they would not be introducing the Bill—of the extra year at school? Why should that good job not go to some unemployed boy or girl who has completed his or her educational training?

The Government suggest no definition of beneficial employment and the only definition I can think of is that it is employment through which the child will derive more benefit than he would through a year's education. If that definition be accepted I would reply that I do not think such employment exists at all, or at any rate it might conceivably apply to 5 per cent, and not to 50 per cent, of the boys who are leaving school at the age of 14. Will the Government leave the whole interpretation of this vague and, to me, meaningless phrase to the local education authorities, subject as they will be to pressure from industry and from some of the parents of the children? I do not know how it will be possible to arrange a useful curriculum for this fourth year when from 50 per cent, to 80 per cent, of the children will be liable to exemption. The right hon. Gentleman has a splendid staff at the Scottish Department of Education. In passing I would like to express my great regret at the retirement of Sir William McKechnie from the position which he has so long adorned as Secretary of the Department, to which he has brought such rare and remarkable qualities of wit, humanity, enthusiasm and inspiration. The right hon. Gentleman has a splendid staff there. He has a corps of school inspectors of which any nation would be proud. He has splendid teachers, to whom he has paid a tribute in the House this afternoon. He is, with these lop-sided classes of fluctuating size, putting them all on the defensive against recalcitrant parents and the grasping employer demanding labour for his industries, instead of encouraging them to advance into a new educational era with a comprehensive scheme of primary and secondary education for all the children of Scotland. The scheme is ready. The framework was prepared by Mr. Robert Munro, and it has since been worked out by the Department and by educational authorities. The right hon. Gentleman does not need to bring forward his Bill. He has only to press the button, Section 14 of the Act of 1918; but, instead, he wrecks the scheme by a Bill for postponement and exemption.

It is only since the War that we have fully realised the importance of the breadth and variety of the curriculum at the post-primary stage. Writing a poem, painting a picture, playing an instrument or making a machine, the whole wide fields of joinery, craftsmanship and domestic science, are now seen to be the suitable training grounds for the serious business of life, and also for what the right hon. Gentleman referred to in his speech—the leisure and recreation which the people will enjoy in the machine age to a greater degree than ever before. Variety in a curriculum brings many blessings, and provides different stimuli to different kinds of children, but it brings dangers if it is not properly spaced; if it is, for example, overcrowded and too much com- pressed into a short time. There is the danger that work may be rushed and that the grounding may be unsound. It is very largely due to that that in many parts of Scotland—I know that this applies also to England—there are many complaints from employers and others about the lack of sound grounding which many of the children show in the three R's, as they are commonly called. In times past too much emphasis may have been laid upon the three R's. They are not the Alpha and Omega of education, but there is perhaps a danger that in recent years we have laid too little emphasis upon them. I believe that the remedy is not to diminish the variety of education but to give time and space to the education of the child, and to make the most of that precious fifteenth year when the higher intelligence of so many children is developing.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the importance of the co-operation of the parents, and it is a vital principle of education in Scotland that the responsibility for the education of the child rests, not upon the right hon. Gentleman, or upon his Department, or upon this House, but upon the parent. That is a vital principle, and the co-operation of the parents with the teachers and the Department is indispensable for the best results. But now the minds of the parents, which should be concentrated on education, are being distracted; for, in this vital fifteenth year of the child's age, they are being given another objective, the objective of getting a job for the child; and they will have a feeling of injustice if in one street a father who is in good work and has a good income, whose children are well fed and have every advantage, will be able to get jobs for them, while the poor man who is out of work and has great difficulty in keeping his home and family together, and whose children do not show such a good appearance when they go to the employer, cannot get jobs for them and they are kept at school.

The parent will not think how lucky his child is to get another year's education, but will only think of the fact that he cannot get a job for his child while the other man can. In that way there will be rivalry and jealousy, and the minds of the parents, instead of being concentrated on making the most of this fifteenth year, will be distracted by thoughts of getting jobs for their children in competition with the children of other parents. This fifteenth year is vital. It should be the culmination of the whole period of education, apart from university students. To treat it as a kind of appendage, with ragged, fluctuating classes and with parents and teachers and children distracted by rivalries and jealousies in trying to get jobs, is to cheapen it and to take the life out of it.

Nor is it true that, if you were to raise the school age to 15 with no more than the present level of exemptions, but of course with a suitable scale of maintenance allowances to meet cases of hardship, you would be going in advance of public opinion. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench pointed out that one-third of the children over 14 remain at school for shorter or longer periods. That shows the value which parents attach to some additional time at school. The Noble Lord who has just spoken said that in his county they were very keen on education, he thought keener even than in other parts of Scotland, but he added that even there some parents were doubtful about the value of this extra year. All I can say is that his county must be falling behind in the educational race. There are no doubts in my county. In the county of Caithness the average school-leaving age, under the present dispensation, is 15¼ years, and if the Government would bring the laggards up to the average they would have the full support of public opinion in Scotland.

The fact is that, for the first time in the sphere of education, the Government are putting a brake on Scottish public opinion in order to keep pace with England. For my part, I think that the safety of the State, the enrichment of its spiritual values, the increase of its material wealth, and the development of its culture and civilisation, demand the service of every citizen—a service which he can only render through the perpetual activity of his disciplined mind. Never was that discipline more needed than now. With every year that passes I feel a sense of increasing urgency. The Government are wasting precious time. I refuse to be a party to that waste, and, therefore, shall cast my vote against the Bill.

5.36 p.m.

I am sure that the House has listened with great pleasure, as it always does, to the eloquence of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair), and for my part I would venture to express a great measure of sympathy with much that he has said. Indeed, I am in complete agreement with some parts of his speech with regard to the aims and objects of education, particularly as envisaged in Scotland. We have been for a long time, or, at least, we were for a long time, in advance of the rest of the world in education, and I think it would be quite fair to attribute much of the success which Scotland has enjoyed to the excellence of the early education to which we were all accustomed in the old parish and village schools—institutions with which in the past I was acquainted by personal experience.

Although I should in some respects have liked to see a larger measure of advance, I am prepared to welcome the Bill which has been presented to the House by the Secretary of State. I was particularly attracted by the disquisition which he gave in the earlier part of his speech regarding the value of mental and physical education. I am glad to see that this country is now taking up seriously the question of looking after the welfare of the bodies of the children as well as of their minds. There is not very much that I admire in the regime of dictatorships, but at least two of the dictators of Europe have taught us all a lesson by the way in which they are looking after the physical condition of their people. With what object they have been invigorating the youth of their country I do not presume to say, but, whatever their object, it has made the population both of Germany and of Italy far more alert than they were, and far more fitted to cope both with the mental problems that face them and with whatever physical demands may be made upon their strength. I am glad to think that we are now to have some co-ordinated scheme of education which will embrace both of these aspects.

I turn to the particular matters with which we are dealing in this Bill. Apart from the raising of the school age to 15, there are some considerations upon which I would venture to dwell for a moment, as a preliminary to the first point to which I would refer. I should like to express my agreement with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness in deploring that we are not able to bring this reform into operation before 1939. I agree with him that there is an immediate advantage in bringing it into operation as soon as ever it is possible. One thing which has struck me in recent times, and which we must deplore, is the fact that there are children who have emerged from school and for whom no employment is available; for, if we have a vast number of young people who are under no form of discipline whatsoever, either in school or in employment, and who at a very impressionable age are completely irresponsible, it is not good either for them or for the community. One of the objects sought in this Bill, and one of the reasons for which I should like to see it put into operation at once, is that at that time of their lives children should be at school or under the discipline of employment. It seems to me that we are suffering grievously, and probably shall suffer more in the future, from the fact that so many children to-day are under no form of discipline whatever.

I fail to follow the point of view which was asserted by the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment. He gave us a very deplorable account of the number of children who are unemployed, and said that the Bill would be quite ineffective because in some communities there was no employment for the children, and therefore it would not be possible to operate the exemptions. I thought, however, that his objection to the Bill was on account of the exemptions, and, if the exemptions do not apply, the children will under this Bill be compulsorily at school, which I understand to be the object which he desires. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman did not quite show that capacity for logic to which we used to be accustomed from him in this House.

The second reason why I welcome the Bill is the fact that there will be a very careful scrutiny of the capacities of children between the ages of 14 and 15 for whom exemption may be sought. Many children go into employment simply because of need, and without any very careful thought as to what their future may be. But if, on behalf of any child, exemption is to be sought under this Bill, a careful scrutiny must take place by the education authorities with the aid of the teachers, and I anticipate that, if any child showed such promise of capacity for future intellectual effort that it would be better that he should stay at school than that he should leave and go into employment, obviously that child would be kept in school under the arrangement which the Bill provides. Its terms are of the most general character. In the first of the Sub-sections of Clause 2 it is provided that the child's future prospects shall be looked to, and not merely the immediate benefit, and I cannot imagine that any teacher taking a pride in his class would fail to advise and urge upon the education authorities that every child who showed promise and capacity for further learning should be retained at school and have the advantage of another year's education. It seems to me that in that way we shall have in operation a sieve which will prevent children from slipping through into employment if on the face of it they would be able to take such advantage of education as would benefit their future life.

While I agree in the main with what my right hon. Friend said a moment ago as to the advantage of children continuing at school until the age of 15, I do not go quite all the way with him. There are children who undoubtedly get no further advantage from education after the age of 14, and who, if they are going in for a craft, would be far better learning how to use their hands than continuing at school in a position in which they would not be likely to take advantage of further education. There are many children at school at the age of 14 who yet are very eager to get at the mechanical contrivances for which they have some gift, or who wish to take part in some particular employment in which they are interested, and it seems to me possible to say in such circumstances that those children will gain no benefit from remaining longer at school, but that it would be better that they should go out into the world of employment. The right hon. Gentleman put a rhetorical question which it is very difficult to answer and to which it seems unsympathetic to reply in the negative. He asked which of us would allow our children to leave school at 14—which of us would not wish to continue their education.

I am not in the position of having such a decision to make. If I were so fortunate as to be a father and if my boy was an unwilling scholar and eager to be a craftsman all his life —if the use of his hands was what he most desired to take up, I do not think I should object to his leaving school at the age of 14.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that you cannot send a boy to be a skilled craftsman until he reaches the age of 16?

At any rate, there is nothing that prevents a boy beginning to learn the use of his hands at 14.

There are not a great many schools where facilities are afforded in any way equal to practice in a shop.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any skilled trade which gives an opening for the employment of young persons in the way of training as apprentices under 16 years of age?

I am not in a position to answer that question, but it is true that up till now the great bulk of our people have left school before 16 and have nevertheless found uses for their hands. If the opposing argument is followed up to a logical conclusion, there is no reason for stopping at 16, 17, 18 or 19 in so far as the object of continuing compulsory education is concerned. But we have to deal with the matter in a practical aspect, and for that reason I am prepared to accept the Bill. It is said that the exemptions are a blot on the Bill and that in some cases they cannot be made operative. I do not agree that they cannot be put into full operation. We have had exemptions in various Bills in regard to Scottish education in the past. There have been exemptions for children between 12 and 14. In one year alone, 1901, as many as 9,000 exemptions were granted, although they subsequently became less. As our experience shows there is no difficulty in making exemp- tions operative and I do not see the slightest reason for failure in respect of the present Bill.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give any single Act of Parliament where the exemptions have been granted to the employer and not to the child?

My criticism of exemptions was directed against the new scheme which, instead of allowing of exemptions for something like seven per cent, of the school children, is going to allow them for at least 50 per cent., and there is every reason to believe for something even more substantial than that.

I will say what I have to say with regard to that in a moment. I see no difficulty whatever with regard to exemptions. In the second place, if it is said that these exemptions are going to destroy the quality of the Bill altogether, that could only be through some extraordinary urge on the part of the parents which overcomes the reluctance of the education authorities and the teachers. Imagine the situation. In order to warrant exemption beneficial employment must be provided, and that beneficial employment has to cover questions of wages and hours of labour, conditions under which the work has to be carried out, time for recreation, and conditions as to part-time education. All these things have to be considered and it is only after the educational authorities, advised as I have no doubt with regard to the particular individual by the teachers, have come to the conclusion that it is better for the child to go into employment that to remain at shool that the result will be arrived at. In my view it would require some amazing persuasion on the part of the parents which could get them through that mesh and, from my knowledge of the people of Scotland, I do not believe you will ever find such a state of feeling on the part of the parents or anxiety to get their children out of school and into employment when they are entitled to free education for a further year, as would prevail against the conditions of the Bill. Our whole experience of Scotland has been quite contrary to that kind of suspicion. In the earlier times, as I very well know, people sacrificed themselves in order to allow their children to continue at school.

I remember the days before free education was enacted when parents did their utmost not merely to keep their children at school, but to send them to the universities. We all know of families in very humble homes who have contrived to give their children an education which has put Scotland in the forefront of education in the past. Testimony that has been given to-night also affords a complete denial of this kind of suggestion that parents are going to be unwise in the matter of their children's education. The Secretary of State has told us that a third of the children who reach the age of 14 continue at school thereafter; and that at least is testimony to the fact that parents appreciate the value of giving their children the best education they can. The way is now open to this continued experience of school and, when public opinion has been reinforced by the measures that are being taken to keep children at school, I think you will find a very large addition to this proportion of a third who remain at school. I have no distrust of the parents. I do not suggest that the Bill covers the whole ground or achieves the whole of the objects that we should like to arrive at, nevertheless, I welcome it and I hope for it an easy passage.

5.55 p.m.

I associate myself with the right hon. Gentleman in one point that was made by him and also by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) as to the date of the Measure coming into operation. I should like to put this question to the Secretary of State. When in December, 1930, a Scottish Bill for raising the school age was introduced, it was to come into operation on 1st September, 1932. I take it that the permanent advisers of the Department saw the possibility of carrying it into operation in that short time and I ask why now it is almost four years instead of the 21 months that it would have taken in 1930. I should like to refer also to the point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home) as to distressed areas where there was little employment and they would not therefore be likely to get exemptions, and that our complaints and fears would not be realised. I dare say the right hon. Gentleman knows that there is a habit among employers of dismissing young people about the age of 18 and taking on those who are still younger.

A question was asked of me by the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite as to why the certificate was given to the employer. As I read the Bill, the reason is that the employer has to show the case for the child, and he is under penalties if he does not conform to the conditions laid down by the education authority.

At any rate, the practice so strongly persists that I should doubt if it could be removed by any such regulations. Now I come to the Secretary of State and his Measure. My main objection is that he shows so little originality in it. It is a Measure of plagiarism. He has lifted three or four of the main Clauses from the English Bill, and I do not think that was necessary or that it was meeting the situation. If he had been introducing a Bill into a Scottish Parliament I do not think he would have framed it as he has done. It has been well said that Scotland has a system and traditions of her own and a perfervid genius in regard to education. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness made reference to a Bill of 1696. I think it was on 17th April, 1847, that Lord Macaulay said of that Measure that an improvement which was unknown in the history of the world then took place in the moral and intellectual character of the people of Scotland. Soon, he says, in spite of the rigidity of their climate and the sterility of their soil they became a country which did not need to envy the fairest portions of the globe. I did not quote that in order to try and contrast the difference between English and Scottish education. While I certainly value our traditions and what education was in the past, I am bound to say that there has been a good deal of exaggeration, first in regard to the parochial schools, and then in regard to other schools in Scotland.

If hon. Members desire an entertainment, they cannot do better than go to the report of His Majesty's Commissioners in 1867 and read the account there of the private adventure schools in Scotland. Of all the scholars in the city of Glasgow at that time, 19 per cent, attended private adventure schools. I will give an indication of three that are mentioned in the report. The first was in Calton. It met in a small room 27 feet by 31, and there were 170 boys and girls crammed into that space. The teacher was not even assisted by a monitor. The Commissioners reported that he had failed in business, and certainly he did not succeed in the field of education, except in the matter of collecting school pence. The second was in Hutchesontown. It was a two-roomed house approached by means of a dirty lane and an outside stairway. There were 47 children undergoing tuition in those two rooms. The Commissioners stated that several of them were sitting in the kitchen bed and that the teacher brought out one who, he said, was the "qualifiedest" boy in his school. He told the Commissioners that he was willing at all times and accustomed to teach either Protestantism or Roman Catholicism, in turn or together, according to the tastes of the parents. So in Scotland in those old days did they solve the religious problem and meet the modern demand for religious teaching according to the faith of the parents.

The third one was Barrowfield Toll. It met in a cellar, and the teacher reported to the Commissioners that he issued certificates—I do not know whether he called them education certificates or employment certificates—at 6d. apiece, and confessed that his school had fallen into some disrepute because it was reported that he issued far more certificates than there were pupils in his school.

This brings me to the question of exemptions. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead and the Minister himself spoke of the fact that there had always been exemptions in the past in connection with changes in these matters. These exemptions were very carefully guarded, and it has been the tradition to keep them at the lowest point. The House will be interested to know the minimum exemptions in the city of Glasgow at the present time. We have a school population of 190,000. I take the exemptions from the 31st July, 1933, to the same date in 1934, and find that the total exemptions were only 144, and the temporary exemptions 269, which were exemptions, say, for a week or a fortnight at a time of some distress in the home or the like. Last year 1934–35 the total exemptions were only 85, and the temporary exemptions 148.

That is not to be compared at all with what is proposed in this Bill and the results that will accrue from it. The whole incidence of education has changed in Scotland. We used to be proud of the old tradition that was associated with John Knox, but it went further back. It was considered that the boy from the elementary school should be enabled to climb to the highest position—the brilliant boy who made a name in the University. We are not so much concerned about the brilliant boy to-day. We do not want to rear brilliant boys, or what are called great men. If I may say it reverently, our prayer is:

"Oh God make no more giants,

Elevate the race."

We see a nobler idea than that the teacher should spend time on the brilliant boys and girls. Let them come alongside those who are poorly provided for in body and in mind. The teachers should spend their care upon those children. It means smaller classes, greater cost and more time, and it is that which relates to this Bill. We see the idea of the noble vision, which, I regret, is not being fully implemented by the right hon. Gentleman, of the broad stairway in which all children of the land of all ranks will walk abreast to positions of honour, service and power in the days to come.

I come to the question of beneficial employment. There is no difficulty in proving that any kind of employment is beneficial. When children of very tender years worked in factories there was abundant evidence to prove that it was most beneficial. There was a report in 1732 on workhouses, and with regard to the work of the children it said: question. The evidence submitted by medical men and others all went to show that it was a most wholesome occupation and was as healthy as any work that any other class of the community could do; in fact, in the last hour of the day, so far from showing fatigue, they did their work with greater activity and zeal, and were stronger than in the morning hours; and that labour for long hours in a stifling room was a sovereign specific for certain complaints, of which scrofula was one. Dr. James Ainsworth gave evidence as follows:

"The labour they undergo, and the exercise they take, would, I think, be more of a relief and more conducive to health than if they stood still."

In another connection, John Campbell, of Galashiels, a countryman of mine, gave this evidence:

"There can be no training of the volatile mind of youth equal to that which is maintained by the factories."

So, therefore, there would be no difficulty in proving that all our occupations are beneficial occupations. I object to this mode of exemption for the reason that it is a new psychology which is being brought in. Our great idea, especially for the last year of study, has been to introduce into the schools the love of learning. This is to teach the children that work rather than education is the supreme ideal; to have their eyes not on the book but on the door. This Bill is turning the school house into a prison house. It makes the shades of the prison house begin to close upon the growing boy whose one desire is to be out of the prison house and at work. I gathered from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Billhead, and more definitely from the speech the other night of the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour), that, after all, there are some of whom one could really make nothing in the school. It is a counsel of despair. Work was better than education? When I listened to that speech my mind went back to an issue of "Blackwood's Magazine" in the year 1839. I took the trouble yesterday to read the article again. It is entitled "Secular and Religious Education." It speaks of the poison which lurks in the tree of knowledge, declares that the spread of intellectual knowledge to the middle and working classes must obviously be attended with the greatest danger, that it makes them dissatisfied with their conditions and gives them a feverish restlessness and a desire for change, and adds that they would find their ideas elevated to a standard inconsistent with their station in life.

I am disappointed that more has not been made of this Bill and that it has not been more actuated by the idea of an educated democracy and all that that means for our country. There are those who say that the parents do not really desire an additional year, and they point to the fact that when their children reach a certain age and the school period closes they are immediately withdrawn. I remember a case under the School Board of Glasgow when a parent came with a birth certificate to show that the child had been born in the forenoon and therefore should be freed for the afternoon. Why is it that parents immediately withdraw their children? It is because of economic pressure that they are obliged to do it, and if you could get beneath that and into the heart and mind of your English as well as your Scottish parents you would find the noble ambition, so finely expressed by Wordsworth, to give their sons and daughters a better bringing up than theirs had been. I wish that the right hon. Gentleman had responded more to those finer instincts and had given us a greater advance in accordance with what was sketched out in the Act of 1908 and of 1909. As has been pointed out by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness, you have had the power for 18 years to bring this sort of thing into operation, and the Education Department and the Minister had only to say the word, and it would have been done. After 18 years the Scottish education mountain in labour has only brought forth a mouse and a mouse-trap to catch the little ones and bring their school days to an end.

I do not think this is a Bill which the right hon. Gentleman himself would have brought in. He has a noble tradition. When I went to the Glasgow School Board there were everywhere traces of that pioneer of education, Sir William Collins. If there had been a Scottish Parliament this is not the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman would have brought in. It has not the generous instincts he had when I went in the days of long ago to support him in the town of Greenock. He is father from heaven to-day than when he was a boy. Recently a notable Evangelist of Glasgow published his autobiography and for some reason he entitled it "The Man who Walked Back." I am not going to apply that to the right hon. Gentleman but there are some Members on the Front Bench, not present at the moment, for whom that is not an inappropriate title for their autobiography. I recollect a story from classical history how that once when the Spartans were defeated, which did not happen often, the conqueror demanded that they should give him 50 children as hostages. They replied "No, we would rather give you 100 of our most eminent men than 50 of our children." They knew that their eminent men had brought the trouble upon them, and that they would need the children to fight their battle over again. If it is a case of hostages there are eminent men—I will not name them although I am not referring to any right hon. Member present—who can be spared; but in this case the Minister is giving these children to the captains of industry not as hostages. Hostages are often brought back, but these children once out of school are away for good from all that education means and all the great possibilities of that fifteenth year in school.

6.20 p.m.

Hon. and right hon. Members opposite who have addressed the House have been at considerable pains, and have spent a good deal of time in trying to belittle the Bill and to show that it marks little if any advance in education. I submit that it is really impossible to judge what a Bill does by way of advance unless it is compared with the situation which obtains in countries abroad, or with the situation which obtains at present under our existing law. If we take the position in foreign countries we find that although some 43 out of the 48 States of the United States of America have raised the school age to 15, and in a considerable number beyond that age, when we come to the Dominions of the Empire, only South Africa as a whole has raised the school-leaving age above 14, and six out of the nine Provinces of Canada, that is, only two-thirds of the Canadian Provinces. It is also interesting to know that five years ago a seventh Province, Manitoba, had raised the age above 14, but, apparently, to-day Manitoba has thought better and now only six Provinces have a higher school-leaving age than 14. In two of them, moreover, the higher leaving age applies only to the towns, not to the whole of the Province. That completes the tale of the countries of the Empire which have raised the age above 14. Neither Australia nor New Zealand has done anything of the sort.

In Europe, again, in which perhaps we are more interested because the countries of Europe are our chief industrial competitors, only one country, Norway, as a whole, has raised the school-leaving age above 14. The only other European country that has taken any step in this direction is Switzerland, which has raised the school age in 10 cantons out of 25. Again, it is interesting to find that the number 10 is four cantons less than the number which raised the age five years ago. Therefore, part of Switzerland, for some reason unknown to me, like Manitoha, has thought better and gone back to an earlier school-leaving age. But the main fact to realise is that no single one of our great industrial competitors has taken the step which the Government are now proposing to the House. In Germany the school-leaving age is 14, but I am told that it does not apply in all areas. In France, another great industrial competitor, the school-leaving age is only 13. Therefore, I think we must keep the picture before us of the very small proportion of countries which have taken the step which is now proposed. It is also important to know that with few exceptions the countries which have raised the school age have retained the power to grant exemptions and, therefore, what the Government are proposing is only in line with the vast majority of countries in which this change has been made. There is a further point which it is well to observe, that in none of the countries in which the age has been raised above 14 is the date of compulsory entry into school as low as in this country. We are already, therefore, without this Bill giving in this country as long a school life as—in some cases a longer one than —those countries which have raised the school age. In these countries the age of entry into school is sometimes as high as seven or eight years. These are three important factors which we must keep in mind as a background on which to view the Government's proposals.

The second consideration to remember is the present condition of the law as regards exemptions. The existing situation in Scotland to-day is that exemptions are being granted in all areas of the country from the age of 12 upwards and without any of the conditions by which it is proposed to limit exemptions under the Bill. Then there was a remarkable omission from the speeches of the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. T. Johnston) and the right hon. and gallant Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) in regard to the 1918 Act. Although that Act gave power to the Secretary of State, by administrative action, to raise the school-leaving age as from the appointed day, it also gave power to local authorities to give exemption from the age of 13. Therefore, it is entirely incorrect to cite the 1918 Act as if it were more strict, and aimed higher in education than the Bill now proposes. It is clearly laid down in Section 14 that there is power to give exemption, without any limiting conditions, from the age of 13. Let us be quite clear, therefore, that in proposing that exemptions should be allowed from the age of 14, with conditions, we are raising the age for exemption a year higher than that proposed in the 1918 Act and two years higher than the present position, and that the Bill also proposes to attach important conditions which have not been suggested previously.

Can the Noble Lady give us any indication as to the percentage of exemptions under the 1918 Act?

It is quite impossible for me to give that percentage. I would suggest that the hon. Member puts a question to the Secretary of State. The point is that the age above which exemption -would be allowed is to be raised by two years from that which obtains now and that a series of important conditions are to be attached of which we have never heard anything so far. I regard these conditions as something which will do a great deal to improve the circumstances under which juveniles will go into employment, and not only those under the age of 14. I feel that they are also bound to affect the employment of young people above the age of 15. If the co-operation of parents is to be obtained it is absolutely essential that we should retain the power of giving exemptions, and nobody can describe the powers given in the Bill as wholesale; that is entirely inaccurate. The right hon. Member for West Stirling devoted a good deal of time to endeavouring to show that the machinery for working the exemptions would be very difficult. He thought that a county committee would find it very difficult to go into individual cases. I have been a member of a county committee dealing with exemptions and no difficulty was found in dealing with such cases. There was always someone who had obtained the information locally and who could report. The right hon. Gentleman rather laboured that point, and, indeed, any criticism of the exemption proposals of the Bill would be equally applicable to the present system which has been found to work quite well. Then I come to a question which I think we are bound to consider, and that is whether we are right in assuming that the additional school year will be of real benefit to all. We have to remember that we have a wide system of bursaries in Scotland and I think we can safely say that all children of the ability to profit by the education in secondary schools are already in secondary schools.

Although there may be some exceptions here and there the hon. Member must admit that they are very few, and that in addition there are a very considerable number in our secondary schools who find a difficulty in grappling with a purely academic type of education. In the absence of any alternative course in many of our primary schools our secondary course has attracted to itself a considerable number of children who get disheartened in trying to grapple with such a comprehensive and exacting course. Again an answer which I received from my right hon. Friend a few days ago shows that nearly half of the remaining children between 13 and 14 are in classes which are not specially arranged to provide an alternative for children of varying ability. He cannot give me the number who are not even in separate classes for the age group 13–14, but I am sure he would admit that because we have so (many small country schools in Scotland that there must be a large number of children of 13–14 who are being taught along with the children of from 12–13 because there is only one teacher for the whole age range of 12–14. Many of those children must therefore be marking time.

I do not think it takes much imagina tion to realise what the effect on those older children must be. It seems inevitable that children who are active and restless and particularly boys of that type must in such circumstances lose in terest and in losing interest they may well lose confidence and develop an in feriority complex. A boy of that type if he becomes very restless and unman ageable feels that he wants something different and I think it is common ground that for the not very bookish hoy, more practical instruction than we have is wanted. To-day, I had an answer which shows what a lot of leeway must be made up before practical instruction can be provided for all boys and girls over 13 who require it. Out of 2,500 schools in which children of that age are being instructed only 1,200 have cookery instruction for the girls—that is, less than half—and only 868 have classes in bench work—woodwork or metal work— that is to say only about one-third. One can judge from those figures how many children there must be to-day in Scottish schools, between the ages of 12 and 14, who lack the kind of instruction that would interest them and help to bring out their abilities. It seems obvious that it must be a considerable time before we can hope to see all these schools provided with the equipment necessary for practical instruction.

Incidentally, there is another reason why the school age cannot be raised at once and that is the time which it takes to train additional teachers. That point was overlooked by the right hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Caithness and Sutherland in his eloquent appeal to the Government to bring this change into operation at once. Obviously any change of this kind must call for a large additional number of teachers, and in Scotland we are not accustomed to rushing teachers into the schools without giving them effective training.

But even when the means of practical instruction have been provided in all these schools, which must be a considerable time from now, it may well be that there will still be boys of an active type who will feel that they want something more definite, something that will make them feel more important. A great many such boys will gain new confidence when they go out into the world to work and feel that they are standing on their own feet, no longer liable to school discipline or to be classed with children younger than themselves. They will feel a pride in being of use to their parents and there is no finer ideal to be held before our young people than the desire to be of use. It is the ideal of service, and we can hardly ask for any higher ideal in any kind of work we undertake at any time of our lives than that we should undertake it with the desire to be of use, either to the family, to the village, to the community, to our country or the world. That desire of many boys of the non-academic type to get out into the world and to feel that they are doing something may be the very best thing for them, because many of them I feel sure lose a great deal of interest in their closing years in school.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling asked what industry there was which took boys as apprentices at the age of 14. As a matter of fact there is not exactly a system of apprenticeship in agriculture, but unquestionably that industry has a graded system of work, under which the work varies according to the varied strength and years of the young people engaged in it. There is therefore plenty of work in farms or gardens for which young people are much desired. Such work provides an eminently healthy and open-air life and I think that health is one of the first considerations to be borne in mind in regard to finding occupations for young people. I am glad to think that that consideration is safeguarded under the conditions laid down as to the hours of work to be allowed for young people and their opportunities for recreation.

Again, if, combined with allowing the active type of boy, or the girl who is much needed in the home, to go out at the age of 14, you could ensure their attendance at continuation classes then I suggest you would get a combination that might be the best for a great many children. The moment of leaving school is a very difficult moment in the life of any juvenile between the ages of 14 and 16. There is a break between the care, the discipline and the environment of the school and the greater freedom which is found on going out into the world. There is a danger that children of those ages may lose their bearings because of the complete break and for that reason I attach great importance to bridging over the gap by means of attendance at continuation classes. Such classes would, I believe, be better for a good many children than a further year of full time attendance at school followed by a sharp break. Attendance at continuation classes means that the child is still in touch with school during his first year in industry and I believe that to be very important.

Finally, I think we have to try to look at this question from the angle of indus-try. Industry is the source, from which we derive the means of having any educational system at all. If trade and industry and the general production of the country do not pay their way, there is nothing from which the Exchequer can make grants, nothing from which local authorities can raise rates. Therefore, we must have some regard to the needs of industry, and we have to realise that in several areas a shortage of juvenile labour was already reported in 1934, and that in 1935, although more children had left school in that year owing to the higher birth rate of 1920, the shortage was continuing at any rate in some areas. The Ministry of Labour Gazette in October, 1934, showed a diminishing number of school children due to leave school after 1937. If in 1939 when this change comes into operation all the 14-year-old children were left in school, it would mean 347,000 less children coming into industry. That is a very serious reduction and by 1945 there would be a further reduction of 159;000 in the numbers of children of the ages of 15, 16 and 17 who would be available. I know that in some areas such as those mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling and Clackmannan there is serious unemployment among children which we all deplore, but at any rate the Bill itself is providing the remedy that in such cases the child is to be kept in school until the age of 15. But I am sure the right hon. Gentleman with his great knowledge of industrial areas and their conditions will admit that, while there may be great unemployment in some areas, in others there may be a shortage of the young people available for employment and it is recognised to be very difficult to transfer juvenile labour from one area to another.

Would the Noble Lady oblige me by indicating any area mentioned in the Ministry of Labour Gazette which shows no unemployment among juveniles?

I cannot do so offhand, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman of this, that last year a representative of the Ministry of Labour reporting to a committee connected with juvenile welfare of which I was then chairman, said that there were many openings for young people which they were anxious to get filled by young people from the distressed areas, if only the health of those young people could be reconditioned so as to fit them for such openings and if the parents would be willing. That was about a year ago. Then in the summer of last year I was told of the extreme difficulty which was being found in getting young people for the woollen mills in the Bradford area. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I can only say that I was told by a director of a woollen mill who is much interested in the welfare of young people that they were finding it impossible to get young people at 14 for their mill.

I come from that city and I wish to ask the Noble Lady whether she is aware that it is necessary to have special schools for the children because they cannot get work in Bradford? Further, is she aware that only this afternoon the Minister gave the number of boys and girls out of work in Glasgow?

It was not in Bradford itself but in the neighbourhood, in the Bradford area, that I was told difficulty was being experienced in finding children for the mills, and it was impressed on me how important it was for this particular class of work to get young people who had small fingers. I know that many of us, indeed all of us, would prefer to feel that if children were not available for the work adults could he employed upon it instead, but those with much industrial experience assure us that we must not assume that adults can be employed where children are not available. The alternative is more likely to be mechanisation and an increase of cost which may very well handicap our industries here when they have to compete with industries abroad. The textile trade which particularly requires the labour of children for the reason I have mentioned is a great exporting industry which has to compete with industries in other countries. I would remind the House that the trade and industry of this country are only emerging from a tremendous crisis and, as I have said, we have to look to them to provide the means for education in any form. We must have some consideration for the question of the supply of juvenile labour, though I agree that that is not the only angle, or indeed the main angle, from which we ought to consider this question. From that point of view, however, I am glad that some provision is being made for exemptions.

To sum up—I regard this Measure as a distinct educational advance. It is one which will not only provide increased educational opportunities for many children but will, I believe, safeguard the health and the conditions of employment of those who do go into employment before the age of 15, in a way in which they are not safeguarded at present. I also hope and believe that because of the provision which is being made for exemptions this change will be brought about without involving an undue or even intolerable burden on the industries of our country.

6.45 p.m.

I rise to oppose this Measure. I was not impressed by the oratory of the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill. I think it was his present leader, the Prime Minister, who said that he always mistrusted anyone when he became very eloquent. The right hon. Gentleman became very eloquent in the presentation of this Measure. I wish that his eloquence had been directed towards an explanation of the Measure rather than to platitudes about the glories of Scottish education, of how it was the admiration of the world, and how everybody looked at us and said what a lot of fine fellows we were. It is time that that sort of thing was left for other people to say. We Scottish people should allow somebody else to talk about the glories of our education and the fine characters that our education has produced. The note set by the right hon. Gentleman was followed by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), by the Noble Lord who delighted us with a maiden speech, and, to some extent, it has been assented to by the Noble Lady.

When the Noble Lord the Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Lord W. Scott) was speaking, I got that favourite book of the Prime Minister, Dod's Parliamentary Companion for 1935, just to see where all this oratorical skill which was being outpoured on the virtues and wonders of Scottish education had been developed. I find that the Noble Lord was educated at Eton. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland was also educated at Eton. I find that the Secretary of State was not educated at Eton; he had his education, as was appropriate for one who was to become the Member for Greenock, on the breezy quarterdeck of His Majesty's ship "Britannia."

Will the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to tell us at what age he was on the "Britannia?"

Very young. He might have gone to a ship in his own part of the country, the well-known Clyde training ship "Empress." Then I turn to his Under-Secretary. It shows how a Scottish education can lead to the highest places in the service of the State. He was educated at Charterhouse and Trinity College, Cambridge. I turn to the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J.Stuart), the Scottish Whip who drives the Government—

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us where the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) was educated?

Perhaps you will bear with me while I deal with one or two choice cases, and then I will proceed to the closer scrutiny of the Bill itself. The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn was educated at Eton. I thought that perhaps the ladies would give me something better. I know that the Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) comes from a distinguished academic family. She was educated at Wimbledon High School and the Royal College of Music—both very distinguished places, but not in Scotland. The hon. Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) is also a strong believer in the virtues of Scottish education, and she went to St. Hilda's, Folkestone.

Yes, there was something before that—Lansdowne House, Edinburgh. Sodom and Gomorrah are saved. I know that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) had a good Scottish education. I take it, therefore, that when hon. Members on the other side of the House are passing enconiums on Scottish public education, they are not regarding it as the thing that people should have who can choose what they want. They do not regard it as the best education available. They only regard it as what is good enough for the children of the working classes. That is the whole problem with which we are faced when we confront this Measure. We are not discussing how to improve the education of the children of Scotland. We are discussing how, with the mass of the people of Scotland living in poverty, with a large mass of unemployed, we can relieve unemployment to some extent and, at the same time, having regard to the poverty of the people, slip in a little bit extra education.

I notice that the demand emphasised in many quarters on the other side of the House is for that type of education which will develop manual dexterity. Even now when the children are not wanted, they cannot say to the teachers of Scotland, "Take these children, develop their minds and bodies and their skill to the highest point, irrespective of whether they are going to use them or not." They say to them in this Measure, "We do not need them in industry just now; we cannot find a place for them in industry just now; but later on we will possibly want them, and the type of education we want for them is an educa- tion that will enable them to use their hands rather than their heads. "The obvious national problem, the problem of statesmanship in this country, is not to get a population that can use their hands. The manual workers of this country have already done more than enough, have done too much.

The problem is to get people who can use their brains to dispose of the surpluses that the manual workers have produced. Hon. Members talk about putting children to apprenticeships. To what trade are you going to apprentice them? I live on the Clyde area and I have a boy at the very age we are discussing, between 14 and 15. You cannot ask me to train him to be a shipbuilder or an engineer or a woodworker. I ask any hon. Member opposite to answer that great questions, what to do with my boy.

If the question is not rhetorical, the answer is that we are very short of woodworkers and skilled engineers.

The hon. Member with his very specialised knowledge of engineering in a very specialised industry knows that there are times in specialised branches of engineering when you cannot find a particular man to do a particular specialised job. If the hon. Member wants engineers, I will get him six out of my own range of personal friends, who are unemployed, highly skilled engineers, decent, sober fellows, with intelligence to boot. I will give the hon. Member their names and addresses before we leave the House to-night. The same applies to woodworkers. Suppose, however, that it were true that at this moment there is a scarcity of engineers or woodworkers. That does not answer my problem what I am to do with my boy, because he would not be a skilled engineer or woodworker until six years hence if he were put to an apprenticeship. If the unemployment figures in these trades are falling, who can say that they will still be falling six years hence, when my boy comes out of his apprenticeship? Nobody can look six years hence and say whether there will be secure remunerative employment for any kind of manual skill.

The thing we should be doing here is laying down an educational scheme that makes for all-round intelligent development of men and women of mind, muscle and body, instead of looking at the human material of our country with reference to what it is going to produce at some subsequent date when they may not want to produce at all. I was interested in one remark of the Noble Lady when she said that if they cannot get boys and girls in trade and industry, the danger was they would mechanise the processes. Is that such a terrible danger?

If I were in order in making one of my favourite speeches on the futility of the capitalist system, I would explain that to the Noble Lady. To-day there are certain limits, and we are trying to discuss this Bill for raising the school age, and I am trying to say that the education of children in Scotland should be faced, not with reference to what they are going to do, but with reference to the best type of human being we can develop. Suppose they are educated to the old Tory ideal of how to live a life of dignified leisure. Was not that the ideal of Conservatism before it became infiltrated with obnoxious trades? It was a good ambition. The only objection to it, as adumbrated from Conservative sources, was that it was a life of dignified leisure for the small class to which they belonged.

I want to say a word or two as a man who at one time had some experience in teaching children. I seldom talk in this House as an expert. I have been bored by other experts and I know just how far off the mark of common sense and reality the export can be. If you are going to have the half in and half out of school proposal in this Bill, you are not going to do any decent educational work. We may estimate the amount of school accommodation that is required. The right hon. Gentleman has given us three years to do that. We have some rough general idea, on which statistics can guide us, of the number of children of that age there will be in 1939. But what have we to guide us as to the amount of beneficial employment that will be available for boys then? We have not the faintest idea. We do not know whether schools will be compelled to educate the whole of the children from 14 to 15, half of the children or one-tenth of the children, in 1939. There is nothing to guide us. It is a shot in the dark, and you are going to tell the education authorities and provincial committees to build schools and train additional teachers to accommodate and look after the number of pupils who will apply for admission in 1939, but you have no knowledge whatever of that number.

That seems to me all wrong. If there were a prosperous trade in an area, there would be any amount of beneficial employment available. In so far as exemption has been used in Scotland in the years during which it has been in operation, it has obviously not been used with reference to the benefit of the child or the parents, but to the benefit of the employers. I asked the right hon. Gentleman for figures some weeks ago, and this extraordinary fact emerged. In the city of Glasgow, where there is a population of 1,000,000, a school population of roughly one-quarter of the whole of that in Scotland, and where there is 66 per cent, of the necessitous cases in the whole of Scotland, out of 5,000 exemptions for the whole of Scotland there were only 200 in Glasgow, where poverty is at the deepest, where the necessities of the parents are the greatest, where illness is much more widespread. In the four big cities there was a relatively small proportion of the 5,000 children exempted, showing that the majority of these cases of exemptions were not because of the poverty of the parents or the need of their homes, but because the farmers in their areas wanted cheap labour. That is what is going to be beneficial employment in the future. You are going to ask a teacher to teach a class of, say, 40 children, not one of whom he can rely upon having for one week ahead.

I did not know the committees would work so quickly as that in granting the exemptions.

They have to. If it is to be of any use in the case as described, when a father says to a local education committee "I have a good job vacant for my boy if I can get him off school now," surely you are not going to ask him to wait a month.

The total affects 2½ per cent, of the children in Scotland, but under this Bill you are recommending it to the public and making your estimates on the assumption that it is going to affect 50 per cent. It might involve 80 or 90 per cent, if the needs of industry call for it. I as a teacher have to confront a class of 40 on 1st September. At the end of September there may be 30; in another fortnight they may be down to 25. They are not going off in batches. The education authorities recognised this before when they established fixed leaving dates so that the children were not always dribbling off during the year. They had to continue until the appropriate date after they had attained the age of 14. But this Bill arranges for the dribbling away of pupils one by one. I taught a senior class of boys. The big fellow who knew he would be 14 in a week was a centre of sedition and disaffection, and rightly so. There was no serious thought of lessons in the minds of the class until they had given Jock a proper send off into the world. It would have been absolutely wrong from every social point of view not to see that he was sent on his way with the appropriate farewell from his friends. That was an interesting interlude for teacher and pupil when it was occurring only once in a while, but it is a condition under which the classes will in future have to work all the time. Hon. Members know what it is like in this House when we are approaching the end of a Parliament. It is impossible to do anything serious.

My endeavour at the moment is to bring the House of Commons to a realisation of the serious work it has to do. You are never taken seriously in this House unless you take care never to have a smile on your face, and always to talk twice as long as anybody else. I do not want to delay the House unduly because I realise that anything that can be done to make this Measure useful will have to be done upstairs. But I do think that it is badly considered. I do not think that any educationist can have been consulted beforehand. I do not see how it is going to do any good. I have said time and again that if I had to choose what was the best reform of Scottish education with a limited amount of money, I would choose the reduction of the size of classes up to 14 rather than the increase of the age beyond 14. If I thought that was so as between the existing position and the raising of the school age to 15 absolutely, I am more strongly of that view with reference to this indefinite raising of the school age. The more I see of education and educational affairs, the more I believe in the physical side of education. Surely we shall not be led away with the idea that going into the school yard three times a week to do physical jerks is physical education. The basic side of physical education in Scotland is decent meals for the children, is food. What is killing the physique of our Scottish children is not lack of exercise or fresh air but malnutrition, lack of food through poverty.

If we are going to look after the physical side of education we must either see that the authorities feed the children or that the parents have the wherewithal to feed them, and we are doing neither of those things. We are asking parents to keep the children at school for an extra year, a big boy of 14 to 15, who may be six feet high, as big as myself, eats three times as much, wears far more clothes and has a greater expenditure on maintaining his personal appearance as it ought to be, than was the case with his father. We are asking parents all over Scotland to keep these big boys at school for another year without any income to meet the additional cost to them. That is entirely wrong. Instead of making exemptions the bribe to parents, the proper thing to do would be to say, "You keep your boy or girl at school till 15, and we will put into your hands the wherewithal to see that that boy or girl lacks nothing on the physical side." That would be the right and statesmanlike way in which to confront this problem. This is merely a hotch-potch of a bad way of dealing with education, a bad way of dealing with unemployment, and a bad way of dealing with poverty. There is nothing in the Measure to raise either the physique or the intellectual standard or the moral tone of the Scottish nation.

7.17 p.m.

The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) is in all things too modest. He does not like to think that the Scottish people should boast of the superior quality of their own education, and has taken pleasure in pointing out that many hon. Members representing Scottish seats were not educated in our own country. The hon. Member himself is the most admirable advertisement we could have both of the value of Scottish education and of that life of dignified leisure to which he aspires. Here is the educational record of the hon. Member himself, which I think proves the superiority of education North of the Tweed:

"Son of a schoolmaster at Glasgow. M.A. of Glasgow University. Was for some years a teacher. Imprisoned in 1916."

The record goes on:

"Member of the Glasgow Education Authority. Member for Bridgeton since 1922."

In order to return the compliment more fully I have looked up the record of several of the hon. Member's colleagues, and am desolated to find that they do not appear to have had any education at all. But I am sure that the hon. Member and all the rest of us listened with delight to the speech made previously by the hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mr. Barr); and I am sure that the anxiety which he expressed that we should have more consideration for the ordinary man of moderate abilities than for the man of genius must have struck a cord in the innermost heart of every hon. Member. I think it was Abraham Lincoln who said that God likes plain men and that that was why he had made so many of them. I am sure that in this respect we do our best to be truly representative of the majority of our constituents, who are, as I think the hon. Member implied, only now beginning to eat of the fruit that was plucked from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. But perhaps the hon. Member will recolect, indeed he was perhaps thinking of, the words of King David in Psalm 119:

"I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation."

There are more than 119 verses. The Secretary of State, in the opening part of his speech, said the education, programme of the Government was partly administrative and partly legislative. I am sure he will forgive me for saying that, while I welcome this Bill, I think that the administrative side of our educational programme is of infinitely greater importance than the legislative side. When we talk about raising the school-leaving age to 15, with or without exemptions, we are sometimes a little apt to forget that free secondary education is already provided beyond the minimum age for all those who wish to avail themselves of it. By merely raising the minimum age to 15 we do nothing whatever to help that large and growing number of children—I think my right hon. Friend said they were now about one-third of the whole—who are already taking advantage of those opportunities.

All that this Bill actually does is to provide by legal compulsion that some part of the remainder shall receive some kind of academic instruction in a classroom, which they might not otherwise receive, for a period of 12 months. Whether that is going to be of benefit or not must obviously depend on the quality of the education provided, and I think it is equally obvious that the more we improve the quality of the education the greater will be the number of parents who will desire their children to take advantage of the opportunities which already exist. However much money we may have to spend on education, I would always prefer to see it spent on quality rather than on quantity. I mean on the improvement of that instruction which is voluntarily received rather than on the augmentation of that which is compulsorily administered.

Let us ask ourselves why is it necessary that there should be any compulsion at all. Is it only because a wage-earning parent, who may have great difficulty in making ends meet, may often prefer that his child shall not receive another year's education so that the family budget may be supplemented by the few shillings a week which the child will earn during one year? Remember, it is only one year with which we are dealing. No one will deny that that is a very important consideration. But is it not rather because a great number of wage-earning parents are not convinced at present that their children will derive any real and permanent benefit from sitting in a classroom for another 12 months, learning a little more history or a little more arithmetic, but think that it will be better for them to get a start earlier in life, and incidentally, of course, bring in a certain amount of money to the household income? I think that if we could succeed in convincing the generality of wage-earning parents that another year's education was of real and permanent value the additional earnings of a child during that one year would not, in most cases, be the decisive factor in determining the mind of the parent. That is perhaps the reason why, in the enlightened county of Caithness, the average school-leaving age is now 15¼; because in that county it appears that the parents are convinced—though it is not so in all of the parts of Scotland—of the real benefit of this extra instruction. No doubt compulsion will always be necessary in a minority of cases, but we can only justify that compulsion by convincing the parent that the education is of sufficient value. That is the only thing which will justify us in overriding to this extent the natural authority of the father.

Let me say a word on the Amendment moved by the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston). I confess that I do not think that the difference between the purposes of the Amendment and the purposes of the Bill is perhaps quite so great as might have been concluded from the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He has very great experience of administration in education, both from a Parliamentary and from a local point of view, which is certainly not in any way shared by me. Indeed, I think most of us are bound to recognise the superior knowledge and experience of the right hon. Gentleman in both these respects. But I was not altogether convinced by the arguments which he brought forward. He said, first of all, that the system of exemptions in the Bill could not work in areas where there were a large number of unemployed children, and when it was objected that if the children were unemployed exemptions could not be given I think he replied that there would be a danger of the few jobs available being given to children of 14, instead of to older children who had already left school for some time.

He went on to give a number of blind-alley occupations, which sounded to me to be of an obviously undesirable character, for which, he said, exemptions would, in fact, be given under this Bill. If I understood the right hon. Gentleman rightly, I do not think he was arguing that if employment were demonstrated to be more beneficial than an extra year at school the exemption ought not to be given. I think his argument was that in practice there would be hardly any kind of employment for which exemption would be given which would, in fact, be beneficial employment. As I have said, the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge of local administration is perhaps unrivalled in this House, but when we think of the history of exemptions under previous Acts I do not feel there is any reason to suppose that the system will not work smoothly and beneficially. There has always been exemption, under existing legislation, below the age of 14, but the number of cases has gradually been reduced and there are now only four to five thousand. I do not think there is any body of opinion which thinks that the exemptions that have been given were not beneficial or not given on good grounds. The right hon. Gentleman also said, or at least I thought he implied, that every education authority in Scotland is opposed to this Bill.

On that the right hon. Gentleman may have sources of knowledge which I have not, but so far as I know there is only one education authority, the Glasgow Education Authority, which has publicly expressed its opposition to the exemption proposals of the Bill. The only other information I have is from the county of Renfrew which I represent, and the county of Fife in which I happen to live, and my information is that the education authorities in both cases are in favour of the Bill and the exemption Clauses.

Does the hon. Member suggest that Fife is in favour of the exemption Clauses?

My information is that many individual members of the authority are in favour of it, but I do not know that the authority as a whole has formally expressed any opinion. We all know that the teachers' organisations are against the exemptions for obvious reasons of inconvenience, but at the moment I am speaking of education authorities. The right hon. Gentleman implied that all of them are against exemptions, but I know of no case except that of Glasgow, and the only other information I have is that the education authorities are in favour, or have not publicly expressed any opinion,

The hon. Member knows more than I do with regard to Fife, but in Renfrew the majority of those on the committee are in favour of the Bill. With regard to the second part of the Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman put forward what I thought to be a very subtle and interesting point about Clause 4 of the Education Act of 1918, which provides for certain kinds of maintenance allowances. Those allowances are clearly defined in the Act and I need not go over them now, but they do not apply, of course, to maintenance allowances given as compensation for loss of wages which might otherwise be earned. They are given in respect of other considerations. The right hon. Gentleman did not suggest that under this Bill it would not be possible and that there would not be full power to apply those provisions to the fullest extent, but he suggested that there would not be enough money, and that it would only be possible to give the maintenance allowances permitted under the 1918 Act by making undue economies on building or other items of educational expenditure.

The only reason the right hon. Gentleman gave for that argument was that our grant in Scotland is governed by the English grant, being eleven-eightieths of the latter, and that we shall not get anything extra in regard to the expenses under Section 4 of this Act. The right hon. Gentleman has been in the Scottish Office and is no doubt aware that it is perhaps unwise to advertise too much the fact that our grant is very much higher per child than is the corresponding grant in England; not that I think it is more than our fair share, but it is- more than our share on a per capita basis. I believe there is no reason to suppose that the funds which we get under this grant will not be sufficient for all the purposes for which provision is made in the Education Act of 1918.

The right hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness (Sir Archibald Sinclair) dealt with the question of exemptions rather more as a matter of principle and not so much as a question of detail. To begin with, he described this Bill as a Bill for exemptions, and said that the only new thing which the Bill does is to introduce exemptions. In point of fact I do not think that is the case, since Section 14 of the Education Act of 1918 provides for exemptions under the age of 14. The Bill now before us abolishes that and only substitutes exemptions from 14 to 15. In this Bill there is provision for less exemptions.

I pointed out that under the system of exemptions provided for in the Education Act of 1918 there were 2 or 3 per cent, of exemptions, whereas the new system of exemptions under this Bill is designed to produce 50 per cent.

But under the provisions of this Bill the exemptions under 14 years of age will be reduced from 2½ per cent, to nil. It is only to the children who are not at present attending school at all, unless they want to, that any kind of exemption is to be applied. The right hon. Baronet went on to ask who of us would take our boys and girls away from school at 14. I do not know whether the right hon. Baronet has any relations, as I have, in the Navy. I forget what is the age at which one becomes a midshipman, but certainly the age at which one stops one's general education and goes into specialised apprenticeship is very much less than 18—I think it is 13 or 14. It is true, however, that at present it is the practice among those who can afford to give their children an expensive education to keep their sons at school up to the age of 18. I wonder whether in every case that is really best for the boys. Obviously, if a boy is to be a clergyman or a lawyer he needs a long period of education in the humanities, and must stay at school until he is 18 and then go on to the University. I wonder whether that is invariably the best thing for everybody else and whether we are right in taking it as a criterion; I wonder whether it is the best thing that education at school should be prolonged as it is among the upper classes of this country to-day.

It would be straying too far from our subject if we were to try to discuss the merits of the public school system, but I would point out to the right hon. Baronet that it is only within the last 100 years or so that the practice has become general among the upper classes of sending their sons to public schools until the age of 18. I am afraid it could hardly be said that the standards of intelligence and -capacity among our upper classes are greater to-day than they were in the eighteenth century; in fact, it might be argued that the contrary is the case. The right hon. Baronet told us the story of the stupid and bucolic squire who had a conversation with Sydney Smith in which he got the worst of the argument. I suppose that was in 1820 or 1830. The right hon. baronet said that the squire had a very much more intelligent father, and I have no doubt that the squire must have been educated at Eton and that his father did not have that disadvantage.

I have not discussed this question of the age that should be fixed or the nature of the exemptions as a matter of principle, for I think it is purely a question of expediency, and I should find it exceedingly difficult to lay down ideally the age we should ultimately aim at as the minimum school-leaving age or between what ages we could ideally allow exemptions to be given. I understand that it is contemplated by the Government that the exemptions Clauses in this Bill are of an experimental kind, that the Bill fs a step forward with a view to a further step forward and that ultimately they contemplate raising the school-leaving age to 15 without exemptions, and possibly raising it eventually to a higher age. I think that the question of the ideal ages for leaving school and for granting exemptions must depend on the practical state of education at the moment, and therefore, while I accept this Bill as a useful and valuable advance in educational progress, I do regard it as a Bill the usefulness of which is wholly subordinate to the administrative side of the educational programme of the Scottish Office. I believe that it is only these administrative developments which can ensure that the Bill will be useful, will be of value to the child, and will justify us in imposing this constraint upon the parents.

7.42 p.m.

I must admit that I have listened with some concern to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew (Mr. Scrymgeour-Wedderburn) because he and I happen to have been educated at the same college at Oxford, and I remember that when I arrived there one of the first figures I saw was the awe-inspiring figure of the hon. Member, who was at that time President of the Union Society. I am sorry that he regrets the educational ladder which brought him to that high office, and I wonder whether he really feels that he and I would have been better equipped to take part in the work of this House if we had been taken away from school at the age of 14. The hon. Member went on to question whether educational authorities, other than that of Glasgow, had declared themselves to be against the principle of exemptions in this Bill. I am in the fortunate position of being able to enlighten him on that point, for only to-day I received a telegram from the town clerk of Dundee saying that the Education Committee there had declared themselves to be in favour of the deletion of Clauses 2 and 3 of this Bill. I have no doubt that as this Measure proceeds, and its implications become more fully understood in Scotland, there will be more and more protests against those particular Clauses.

The hon. Member went on to use the argument which was employed in a slightly different form by the Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl), and he spoke as if in this Bill we were somehow or other stopping up the exemptions that already exist. I have the report of the Committee of the Council of Education in Scotland, on page 12 of which it is pointed out that in the year ended 31st July, 1934, the number of exemptions granted in the whole of Scotland was only 6,136 out of a total number of scholars of 845,386—a very small fraction. If the purpose of the 1918 Act had been fulfilled and the school-leaving age had gone up to 15, surely the case would be that only a very small proportion of the scholars would have been exempted from attendance at school. The difference is that under the existing system, under the Acts of 1918 and 1901, exemptions are the very rare exceptions to the general rule. Under this Measure it is to be rather the rule than the exception.

I want to examine the wording of one or two Clauses in the Bill and to put a few questions to the Lord Advocate. I would join in the appeal that has been made for an earlier date for the coming into operation of the new school-leaving age, at any rate in those areas where it might prove to be practicable. We appreciate what was said by the Noble Lady, that the teachers have to be trained in order to grapple with this additional burden and that there have to be more teachers, but if there is an educational district where they could be ready before September, 1939, is there any reason why we should hold them back until the others are ready. Suppose in a rural district where there is not the same pre-sure on the buildings and where they are able to provide accommodation and teaching staff by, say, September, 1938, why should the Secretary of State not have power to fix the appointed day to enable the provision for the higher school-leaving age to come into force earlier in that area?

I want to deal with Clause 2, and particularly with the way in which it is drafted. I do not think that any previous speaker has attached any particular importance to the form of words in the Clause. It begins:

power to weigh the scales one against the other and decide for each child whether it would be better for it to stay at school for the extra year or go to work at 14, but there is nothing of that sort in the Clause.

If one wishes to find arguments with which to combat any Measure which the Government may bring forward one need hardly look further than the earlier speeches of some Members of the Government. Yesterday, I was reading a speech which was delivered by the Minister of Transport, admittedly on a somewhat different subject. Speaking in this House on 28th November, 1929, on the subject of unemployment insurance for juveniles, he said:

Those words were uttered on a very different occasion but they seem to me to be exactly the purpose contained in this Bill. As it is framed, the scales are weighted on the side of industry and against further education. The Clause goes on to refer to a child who has attained the age of 14. The House will acknowledge that criticisms which come from these benches are always constructive, and I would make one suggestion to the Secretary of State. He knows that there has been a good deal of criticism of the exemption Clauses. Would it not be possible before the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament to arrive at some sort of compromise and fix the leaving age at not lower than 14½ years? I make that suggestion for the reason that although the children in schools in Scotland begin the post-primary course at the age of 12 a substantial number begin that course at the age of 11½ years. Those are the brighter children whom we should like to encourage to get the full three year's course. Therefore, the Government might consider whether they could not give this concession to the demands that have come from educational opinion in Scotland and make the leaving age not lower than 14½ years.

Now I come to the vexed question of what is beneficial employment. By the introduction of that phrase the Government are throwing an apple of discord into every local government area in Scotland. It might be interesting to consider what will be held to be beneficial employment in the constituency which I represent. In the principal industry there it frequently happens that children are taken on in the mills when they leave school. In the case of the boys they are employed from the time they leave school until they are 18 and then, through the operation of the Trade Board system of wages, because of the increased wage that has to be paid, they are turned off at 18, and very often years elapse before they are able to get back into industry. Although that happens in the principal industry of the city, which employs nearly one half of the insured workers, it would be very difficult to say whether the authority would consider that to be beneficial employment, even though it does offer three or four years employment from the time of leaving school. A still more peculiar anomaly arises because what is true of the boys in Dundee is not true of the girls. It would be truer to say that the girls are able to enter the jute industry on leaving school, and for the most part they are not turned off at 18 but are able to go on in steady employment. Therefore, you have this rather peculiar situation that employment which would be held to be beneficial in the case of girls would probably not be held to be beneficial in the case of boys.

In regard to Clause 2 (2) I hope that it will not emerge from the Scottish Grand Committee in the form in which it now stands, but that in Committee we shall be able to enlarge the considerations to which the local authority may have regard. One of the things that might be added is that the local authority should take into consideration the health of the child and whether it would be more beneficial to its health to stay at school rather than go to work at 14. I would also suggest that no local authority should be empowered to grant an employment certificate unless it is satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect of continuous employment for at least 12 months. I have heard the suggestion made in Scotland that an employer who applies for an employment certificate should have to give a guarantee of 12 months employment, saving, of course, any question of misconduct. I am rather doubtful whether that would be practicable, but I am sure that the whole House is anxious to avoid the situation which might easily arise in a backward area where you might have any number of children being thrown back on to the hands of the local authority after only a few weeks employment. You might have a number of children forming a sort of panel system, like cabmen on the rank, under which the employers would be able to summon them and then dismiss them within a short time.

When the President of the Board of Education was addressing the House on the English Bill he used the phrase "quasi-judicial" to describe the function of educational authorities in granting concessions, and he informed the House that each case would have to be judged on its own merits. I agree that the local authority must have a wide discretion in deciding whether certificates should be granted, but there must inevitably be certain rules by which that discretion should be guided. I do not know whether the Lord Advocate will be familiar with a phrase which is better known in English law than in Scottish law, to the effect that:

"Discretion should not be allowed to be a roguish thing—the length of a judge's foot."

There should be rules, and it would be preferable that you should have the same rules from one area to another. But whether the rules are the same or not, the local authority should not even in theory have to decide each case without any rule. There should be power to lay down general rules as, for instance, regarding minimum wages, hours of labour, etc. There is already a precedent for that. In the constituency which I represent when an exemption is granted for a child to go to work under the Act of 1901, the condition is made by the local authority that the wage to be paid shall not be less than 8s. a week.

There was one remark made by the Secretary of State in opening the Debate which surprised me. He said that for the first time local authorities will have power to impose the conditions under which children shall work. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has entirely overlooked the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1932, Section 44. Under that Act the education authority are given power to make by-laws governing the age below which children are not to be allowed to be employed, the number of hours, the intervals for meals, half holidays and other holidays and any other conditions to be observed in relation to their employment. They already have power to make by-laws with regard to the employment of children.

But the point that I want to make is not to pick holes in the speech of the Secretary of State, but is in the following Section. As he may recollect, Section 45 gives to an education authority power to make by-laws with respect to the employment of persons under the age of 18 but not being children. That Section has not yet come into force, because it has to be brought into force by an Order of the Secretary of State, and I think I am right in saying that that Order has not yet been made. My suggestion, arising out of the Act of 1932, is that if the Secretary of State would exercise his power under Section 45 and enable local authorities from now on to lay down these conditions for the employment of children and young persons, then the ground would be prepared, and the general rule would already be in existence when this Act comes into force in 1939. I know there is a penal Clause to penalise employers who do not regard the conditions of a certificate, but the difficulty is that local authorities at present have not the machinery at their disposal for enforcing these conditions. We know from experience in this House that the way to prevent evasions is not so much to impose penalties as to make it certain that the wrongdoer will be detected. Would it not be possible for the services of factory and shop inspectors to be used in order to see that the conditions of these certificates were observed?

There is another point which seems to me of importance. In Clause 3, Subsection (4, b ) certain provisions are made with regard to unemployment insurance. By Section 2 of the Unemployment Act of 1985 the minimum age for entry into insurance is the school-leaving age; that is to say, it will rise when this Bill comes into force. By Section 75 of the same Act, where a child is kept at school by its parents after the ordinary school-leaving age, it is credited with contributions on the basis, I think, of so many contributions a year. The effect of this provision, as I read it, taken with the existing law, is that if a child leaves school just after it is 14, goes to work for a week or two, and then loses employment and goes back to school, from then on that child is to be credited with contributions, but if a parent is more interested in education and does not apply for the employment certificate, but is prepared to make the sacrifice of keeping his child at school, that child will not be credited with the contributions for the actual year during which he remains at school. If the Bill were left in that way it would be a very serious matter, because you would be providing there a direct incentive to parents to apply for these certificates and deprive their children of this extra year's education.

Finally, there have been very few references in this Debate to the expense which is to be involved. I do not suggest that the burden to be thrown on the local authorities is considerable. In some ways I wish it were greater, but we are told in the Memorandum that out of some £300,000, the estimated annual cost of this Measure, about £95,000 will fall on local funds. A request comes from my constituency, which I think is a reasonable request, that a slightly higher proportion, that is to say, 75 per cent., of the cost of keeping children at school from 14 to 15 should be paid by the Exchequer. At present it is rather less than 75 per cent. If a juvenile goes to a juvenile training centre, 75 per cent, of the cost of keeping him at that centre is already paid by the Exchequer. As a result of this Measure, instead of going to these centres, a number of children will be kept at school, which means that there will be a certain saving to the Exchequer, which will be paying a rather smaller proportion of the cost. I am sure that this Bill is not designed to relieve the Exchequer, and I ask whether some slight increase could not be considered in that respect.

We in this part of the House cannot support this Bill, for two reasons—firstly, because it will postpone the coming of the increased school-leaving age all over Scotland until September, 1939, and, secondly, because we believe it drives a horse and cart through the 1918 Act. We cannot vote for the Bill as it stands, but I share the hope which was expressed by the hon. Member for Bridge-ton (Mr. Maxton) that we may be able to do it a certain amount of good upstairs. The base metal of this Bill, if I may so express it, will shortly pass into the crucible of the Scottish Grand Committee. I do not for a moment suppose that it will emerge as pure gold, but if we can generate sufficient heat there, we may at any rate, I think, purge away some of the grosser alloys which are unfortunately present in this Measure.

8.7 p.m.

The Secretary of State made some reference to the changes which are to be brought about by administration, and I am sure we can all congratulate him in that respect. I should like to join with the right hon. Baronet opposite in expressing sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman in the loss, by retirement, of his chief administrative education officer, Sir William McKechnie, one who, by his freshness of outlook and lively sympathies, has done much to humanise education in Scotland. He has even been able to humanise to some extent the Education Department. Speaking as an old teacher, I should like to say that teachers all over the country are very grateful to him for the inspiration of his speeches and for his approachableness, his willingness and readiness at all times to help us, and I am sure we wish him a speedy recovery and many years of happy leisure.

As has been stated more than once in this Debate, we in Scotland have been waiting for a good many years for some move in England to enable us to operate the Statute of 1918, and indeed to set us free, as we ought to have been set free long ago, to prepare for the problem of education up to 18, which is also part of the 1918 Act, and also still in abeyance.

I should like to say a word or two on the more strictly educational aspect of these proposals. In the noise and dust of controversy, people are apt to forget that there is an educational side, and I should like to deal with it without going into much detail. I seem to have been speaking, writing and arguing in favour of this reform for a good many years. In arguing with people who did not see the reason for raising the school-leaving age, I have found that people of middle age and upwards have shown an inability to think of school education except as they themselves knew it. Of recent years, and very markedly since the War, we have seen a changed and a widened conception of education. I am not referring merely to the variety of courses of instruction provided for the adolescent, but rather to the realisation that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) said, it is the duty of the educator to turn out good men and women, good citizens, and to send them out into the world better fitted to stand up against evil influences, "to refuse the evil and to choose the good." I am told that there is a German proverb which says: out life, just as it is a joy to any old teacher to find a man who, as an old pupil, reminds him of some chance word, it may be, which he had let fall and which had set that man going upon some thing has been a joy to him throughout his life. I do not know whether it was any knowledge of this kind of thing and of the very complimentary, sometimes undeservedly complimentary remarks, of old pupils addressed to teachers, that was in the mind of the American poet when he said:

I have sometimes been asked if there is anything particular about the year from 14 to 15 which makes us so anxious about it. That, in my opinion, is one of the years when such seeds as I have been speaking of should be sown, because if they are not sown then they may never grow. Another point in regard to that year is that there is such a thing as late development. If there suddenly develops in any pupil at that stage an interest in the things of the mind, coming it may be, from subjects outside the ordinary range of school subjects, that interest must be very carefully watched and tended, or it may never fructify.

In regard to the kind of training which I have been outlining, my experience is that teachers are much more alive to their responsibilities than they were 30 or 40 years ago. There is one objection to the system of exemptions which teachers and administrators unite in making. The President of the Board of Education was something less than complimentary and less than just to members of education authorities when he suggested that the ground for their objection might be the inconvenience caused to the authorities and their fear of a lack of symmetry in their arrangements. This objection refers to the teaching of a class in which pupils are dropping off, not week by week but term by term, involving amalgamation of the remnants of classes, with all the difficulties arising from that. I can think, because I have seen it, of the heart-breaking task of the teacher facing a class of that kind, and of the influence of pupils who are only hanging on until they can get a job. The teacher has to see his pupils leave before the efforts of their earlier education come to fruition. The Hadow Report speaks of the

Here are a few words from the Hadow Report. I cannot improve on them. I have never seen anything better:

they not reconsider their decision while there is yet time? I see possibilities in Clause 11, as to the implications of which one would welcome further enlightenment. There are things in the Bill which I very much want to see. I shall not vote against the Second Reading. I shall vote for it, but I should like to see the Bill amended in the directions I have indicated. The Government have a golden opportunity for doing a great thing for Scottish education, and I beg of them not to let it slip.

8.22 p.m.

I have not missed many words of this Debate. I have always been interested in education, having served for some years on an education body and never having lost touch since first I became interested. I can always sit through the longest Debate and the longest lecture dealing with education. To-day we are not so much dealing with education. One thing I have noticed to-day is that the first four Members who took part against the rights of the children were, first a Noble Lord who, I understand, is not in a position of having anyone to send to school. He was followed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), who has never been in the position of having the responsibility of sending anyone to school and knowing what it meant. Then came the Noble Lady, who also has never been in the position of having the responsibility of sending anyone to school. That suggests to me that experience is the best basis of knowledge. No matter how you Keek to impart knowledge from the book or the blackboard, you depend upon the experience of the brain, the mind and the hand to which you are imparting that knowledge.

This question has become mixed up to-day with what is called beneficial employment, and with the teacher advising a child. When a teacher in a school is advising a child, what are the things which prevent his doing full service to the child? The teacher may have the highest ideas about a boy or girl, from his knowledge of the advantages that they could derive from the system of education, and would like to see that process continued, but the teacher is circumscribed by economic conditions first of all in the home. A great deal has been said to-day about the cost of maintaining a child. I sat for five years on a committee which dealt with requests of parents for exemption for their children, and from the very first I kept a record of all the parents and children that came before that committee. I never once voted in that committee for the exemption of a child. I think that to do anything that prevents a child from having access by way of education to the accumulated knowledge of the world is the greatest sin that could be committed, and, if I go anywhere for punishment, it will never be on the ground of trying to deprive any child of this right—this divine right—to education.

Everyone who can think knows that the greatest nation in the world is the nation that contains the greatest number of people who are really educated. We have heard to-day of individuals who have many letters attached to their names, but when I meet any man or woman I pay no attention at all to the letters before or after their names. Scottish minds, in physics and in metaphysics, have always measured education by the power of the individual to do deductive thinking. A mind that cannot do deductive thinking is not educated. For instance, take the educational condition of Germany from 1902 to 1911. I am well acquainted with what was taking place in the educational system of Germany during that period. In an educational debate in Glasgow in which I took part, certain Americans and Germans made a comparison, which resulted in the conclusion that, while the German worker was better instructed, he was less intelligent in the application of his instruction, and Scotland took a very high place, because of our desire always to extend the period of general education. The longer you make the period of general education for boys and girls the better are the foundations upon which you can build.

Looking at the question of exemptions from a practical and serious point of view, what happens when a child is exempted from attendance at school? It may be thought that, because the mother is ill, you must allow the eldest daughter to go back into the home in order to keep the house going, and you think you are saving money in that way. Or it may be that, if there is some economic strain on the home, you think you are saving money by allowing the eldest boy to leave school and bring in a few shillings a week. But you are not saving money. The record which, as I have already said, I kept of certain exemptions granted by the committee of which I was a member, showed that after a period of eight years—I had each case noted from the date of exemption until about the age of 21—when the cost of that exemption was calculated, and the defection in the value of the individual's education was compared with retaining him at school as against the value he was likely to be had he been continued at school, the respective costs were in the ratio of eight to one, taking grants and everything else into consideration. I have never found anyone so deeply interested in education as to be interested in a record like that; one has to be really interested in education to get down to that kind of detail work.

Suggestions have been made as to finding some uniform kind of work for the child, but there is no such thing as a uniform kind of work. There may be what one would call repetition work, but you cannot yet uniformity in work any more than you can get uniformity of height, weight, colour of hair and eyes, and so on. That is why it is so essential for a nation that wants to be great to give the longest period of general education that it can afford. We are now talking of raising the school age by one year, but even if it were raised to 20 there would still, in my opinion, be a year to go in which the maximum value to the nation could be obtained by a continuation of education.

A great deal has been said to-day with regard to possible difficulties. The Noble Lady the Member for West Perth (Duchess of Atholl) suggested that of course there was always the tendency in school, with pupils with dull, slow minds, to breed an inferiority complex. Perhaps I may give a case from actual experience. In Glasgow we once started a class for pupils with what were called backward minds. Before that they were classed as mental defectives. They were not mental defectives; some of us saw and understood that all minds do not develop alike. The smart boy or girl at school may get their names inscribed on a brass plate, but, if you go there and inquire about them 10 years afterwards, where are all the smart boys and smart girls? I once went to a boys' high school at Glasgow and asked where all these smart boys and girls were, and the answer I got was that that had been ascertained, but they would not like to make the information public.

Minds of the type which are called dull are very important. If you read the lives of all the great geniuses, with about one exception in music, you will discover that all those minds were late in development, just as in the ordinary kitchen garden the most valuable vegetables are of slow growth. You cannot chemically feed the mind, unless you want to destroy it. Many minds have been destroyed by what are called short cuts to knowledge. Why should exemption be given to any boy or girl who has shown the slightest signs of being backward in education? Is not that, on the contrary, an argument why their education should be continued, unless there is some structural defect which prevents the mind from working normally? In Glasgow we had a boy who was one of 50 or 60 classed as being mentally defective. I knew he was not mentally defective. We got him outside the mental defectives' school with the others, and we began him with an Indian frame. That boy one day designed a rose on that frame, got the appropriate colours and put the rose in with his own hands. He was called mentally defective, but to-day he is the chief designer in a big carpet factory. I keep a record of cases of minds that were said to be backward, and the best they could do was to find a job for the child. That is not the thing to do. If you have vocational training too early, you arrest the development of the general education process that has been going on and shut the mind into a groove.

It has been said that there is not the same necessity to-day, with the great mechanisation of industry, for the same amount of education. If we are going to argue in that way and allow our educational system to be dictated to us by the needs of mechanisation, it means that you are making for the production of the robot mind. You are going to produce a mass of people who are only educated to turn a wheel or move a lever. Anyone who is interested in education is not interested in it for what can be produced mechanically. Surely, education for itself is the greatest conception of the human mind. What is more pleasing than to know that everyone around you has been able to get the same educational opportunities? Yet we get this sloppy, ignorant talk of trying to fit the child as a worker into the capitalist machine. If you go back to 1842 and 1843, you see that this House even then was fighting against that condition. It seems to-day that you want to go back.

In granting the certificate, the Bill says it ought not to be given to the parent and the parent should cease to be the guardian of the child the moment he is incapable of providing for it. If you give the certificate to the father and he says he has a job for his boy or girl, suppose the job lasts two or three months. That will happen. A great many people start businesses that they cannot carry on and the boy or girl has to go back to school. You are denying the right of the child even in the question of certification. If you say the child has the responsibility economically to go out and help the condition of the home, since you are refusing to allow it to remain a juvenile in the sense of educational juvenility, it should have the right of having the certificate in its own name. Then you would give a guarantee of safety to that type of child—there are many in the country—who would refuse to do certain jobs. Can you think of anything more damnable than a kid who is fond of education being forced into a job that he does not want to do? I' want to give the child a right to say it is not going to do that job. The rights of the parents and the child would be protected by maintenance grants.

The last speaker made a reference to Clause 8. I agree with him as far as he went, but I go very much further. I believe in education by demonstration wherever that is possible. You interest the child right away. You can still do a great deal by demonstration. You go into an ordinary school and find a master trying to give a lesson in geography. You get the mind that I describe which is not so quick as others. That is the difficulty of the teacher. You have ships idle, and seamen idle and teachers idle. You will say, of course, that a floating school is going to be more costly than one on the land. Have you worked it out? Have you tried to think out -what is the cost of a ship with 100 scholars on it going from place to place getting to know the world as they would know it? Travel is the most essential thing in the child's education. You are never going to do anything in the way of building up a reliable democracy by this kind of piecemeal method. Education should be that which each individual, born in no matter what class, must have. You make mincemeat of things with a Bill like this. You have a Scottish Office with a staff which knows what it is doing but the channel of communication from that staff, with all that knowledge, sometimes gets very severely choked and we cannot get through to the ideas behind it. Those who want to keep up what they call the great historical ideal of Scottish education will require to see to it that alterations are made in the Bill in Committee.

8.45 p.m.

I am sure that the constituents of hon. Members who sit on the opposite side of the House, when they come to read the speeches of their representatives will be distressed at the inferiority complex which they have developed. They have said nothing, or very little, about the Bill, and they have been very uncomplimentary to parents, teachers, children and to themselves. They have been uncomplimentary to parents in the sense that they have asserted by their remarks that the parents of Scotland are not so much concerned about the education of their children as they are about what they will earn to bring into the household. Those of us who have worked on education committeess and authorities know that that is not true.

I will come to the exemptions. My experience is that the parents—and the more humble the home the more noticeable it is—want to do one thing above all else—to give to the child the most valuable thing they can possibly give, a sound education. I have in mind at the moment a parent in the City of Perth, who, unfortunately, has been more often unemployed than employed, who is helping his daughter to get a good education. In Scotland there is no difficulty whatever among those in the most humble homes securing the highest possible education.

There are any number of bursaries every year in every elementary school in the City of Perth.

I was speaking of the education of every child in Scotland, and not speaking of bursaries.

I think that we should get on better without these interruptions.

In the particular case I have in mind the girl has passed into the secondary school and is making good use of her education without any difficulty whatever. The remarks and criticisms of hon. Gentlemen opposite to-day are a. reflection upon the parents and upon the teachers. The teachers, in my experience, take a deep interest in tlhe children's welfare, and nothing gives them greater joy than to know that some of their old scholars have risen to positions of eminence. It is not fair to the children, themselves, because they are anxious to learn. I was reminded by an hon. Gentleman opposite, when referring to the education of youths, of a youth who scored two goals against a well-known team in Glasgow, and who spends most of his leisure time attending college in order to improve himself. That is an illustration of the people of Scotland and its youth.

Hon. Gentlemen opposite could not have made the speeches they have made to-night if they had not been well educated. They have given us an exposition of political dialectics. The Bill seems to be the only thing that has not been discussed to-night. Is there anyone in the House who says that the school age should not be raised to 15? All are agreed that it should be 15. I am very glad to see that the Bill makes reference to the important question of the intention to consolidate the Education Acts of Scotland. It is necessary from an administrative point of view that that should be done as soon as possible. It might also lead to improvement in the administrative procedure of education. The procedure is somewhat cumbersome because it has to pass through so many phases before it reaches the county council, which has the final word on the matter.

Will the hon. Gentleman explain the position of Perthshire as compared with the rest of Scotland, in view of the fact that county councils and education committees refer the power of exemption to school management committees?

I am not speaking of exemptions. I was not referring to that matter, but to the general procedure of the application of education for the general benefit of the whole community which the authority administers. The truth is that we have sufficient secondary education in Scotland. We can obtain classical and scientific education, but in Scotland we need more technical education. We want more technical education for boys and girls up to the age of 15, after which they should pass into a technical school or continue their studies in science or the classics. It is suggested that the authorities do nothing in the way of trying to find occupations for boys and girls leaving school. It has been my privilege from time to time, at the end of the school session, to meet the boys and girls about to leave school and to discuss with them what occupations or professions they would like to enter upon. They received advice. It will be noticed that it is not intended that the authority should give exemptions if there is not work. They have to consult the Juvenile Employment Committee. In my district exemptions are relatively small, and no child is exempted from school until it has been first ascertained from the Juvenile Employment Committee if there is any other child who has already left school fitted for the position in respect of which the exemption is asked for the child still in school. So that the boy or girl who is out of school still gets the first chance of any good job which is going. That is the practice; there is no wholesale exemption.

The school population in the county of Perth and Kinross and Perth City is about 18,000 altogether, yet during the past year there were only 184 total exemptions and 210 exemptions of a temporary nature. These temporary exemptions take the form of agricultural work. Many of the scholars from 12 upwards are released for the potato gathering. They do very useful work, and if the farmers were denied the right of this temporary exemption for that particular purpose, it would probably mean the influx of a great many more labourers from the other side of the Channel, a thing to which many people would object. It is not true that exemptions are given recklessly. In the county of Perthshire no child has been exempted in any circumstances, unless there was some very substantial reason, until 13 years and nine months of age, that is within three months of the period of leaving school. You must give credit to local authorities for common sense. Hon. Members opposite have suggested that local authorities cannot be trusted to perform this duty in the way they think it ought to be done. I know from experience that it is difficult to get exemption for a child for any particular job. It is said that beneficial employment is not defined in the Bill. How can you define beneficial employment? You must put it in general terms and leave it to the common sense of education authorities, unless you are prepared to say that they are incompetent.

I must remind the House that we are not in Committee and that we shall get on better if hon. Members are allowed to make their own speeches.

I have not spoken in the Debate and if the hon. Member gives way, as he has, then I submit that it is in accordance with the precedents of this House for me to put a question.

I must point out that the hon. Member has been interrupting continuously during the speech and I do not think that that is a, desirable practice.

The hon. Member gave way for me to put a question. I ask you whether you are ruling that I am not to be allowed to put that question when the hon. Member has given way? That is all I want to know. I shall know how to deal with it when I get the statement.

The hon. Member has given way and the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) can put his question, but at the same time I must point out that we shall get on much better if there are no interruptions.

There is one point with reference to home life which is troubling those who are administering education, and that is what assistance to the home exactly means. If it is the case of an older girl who is required at home during the mother's illness that is understood. It may be the case of a widower who needs someone to keep house for him, but it might be stretched to cover the case of poverty and allow a girl to keep house in order that the mother might go out to work. These are points upon which we desire some guidance. It has been suggested that exemptions for seasonal occupations will be abolished. From the agricultural point of view that would be a serious matter, and I hope we shall have some guidance as to whether the present arrangements for such exemptions will continue. I cannot understand why hon. Members should object to the date 1939. Before the Bill was thought of the County Council of Perthshire decided that from now to 1938 was the time they required to make the necessary additions to school buildings and to obtain the necessary teachers in order to carry through this work. There is not much difference between 1938 and 1939.

As regards the cost, I do not know whether hon. Members have been in close touch with their education authorities, but, if so, they might have been able to give definite figures in regard to what they have decided to do. I got in touch with the education authority of my county. Although they have not come to a formal decision they are in favour of exemptions on the same lines as in the past, which were always reasonable and in accordance with common sense. But it is not a serious matter. It will only mean an increase in the school population of Perthshire of about 440 pupils, for whom they will have to make extra provision in addition to the buildings; and the cost is calculated at about £3,000 per annum. Therefore it is not a very serious matter, and if exemptions are carried through in a common-sense fashion they will meet with success. There must be elasticity in education. If you make hard-and-fast rules they will only end in trouble. I support the Bill.

9.4 p.m.

I support the Amendment. I am rather surprised at the attitude which has been adopted by supporters of the Government on this Bill. I was in attendance during the Debates on the English Bill and there is no doubt that Government supporters who expressed themselves were not at all pleased with the Bill as presented. Therefore, I thought that Scottish Members representing the great home of education and higher education would display some resentment, even supporters of the Government, on the Scottish Bill. As far as I have heard they have all been in favour of it and have not shown that critical attitude which I saw in connection with the English Bill. I have also noticed the protestations that the terms of the Bill coincide with the terms of the manifesto at the General Election. I have in mind the fact that great details were given in certain speeches as to the qualifications covering exemptions and in the election manifesto issued by the Conservative organisation. In so far as I was able to get my ear to the ground and ascertain the statements made during the election in Glasgow, I can assure the House that it was said that never was there a time when a well-educated democracy was so necessary as to-day. That is one of the great resounding phrases one heard and read which gave the impression to Scotland as to what was going to be done, but I am inclined to think that when they see the proposals they will not like such phrases so much as they did when they were displayed.

I adopt the attitude which appeared to be taken up during the Election, by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that democracy can only be real if there are opportunities for equal education. There is another significant point in connection with this Bill. As a rule, when Bills are introduced, especially Bills dealing with Scotland, there is a parade of expert opinion in favour of the Measure proposed, but that feature has been lacking in the presentation of the Government case on this occasion. There have been no references to the views of those who are experienced in educational matters. When the President of the Board of Education introduced the English Bill he anticipated that some comment might be made on that aspect of the matter and he apologised for the absence of any such expert support as I have indicated by saying:

"The outsider, if he does not see most of the game, at least does get a wider view of the field."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th February, 1936; col. 1177, Vol. 308.]

That was put forward, apparently, as an excuse based upon the expediency of the moment and designed to checkmate the anticipated criticism that those with experience in educational matters were against the Government's proposals in this respect. What applies to the previous Bill also applies to this Bill and I suggest that on this subject if we support the attitude taken by those who have given a life's work to education we shall be on sure ground. We do not take up a reactionary attitude. We press for a reform which many of us and many others before us had hoped would have materialised before now. The Secretary of State for Scotland referred to the number of children of our elementary schools who remained at school after the age of 14. I take that to be the measure of the desire that the children should remain at school and a guide to the attitude of the parents. I regret that we cannot go into details with regard to the factors which prevent parents from keeping their children at school unless they are helped in a way which we are precluded from discussing on this occasion.

We are told that under the Bill in the consideration of a child's claim for relief from attendance at school prospective and immediate advantages will be taken into account. I do not think that is going to be easy. No doubt the immediate advantage may easily be seen but the prospective advantage is another matter and I do not know how anyone can assess what the chances of a child will be at the end of two, three or four years. That point was brought to light by the President of the Board of Education himself. He said with regard to the fears expressed as to blind-alley occupations that he could not define a blind-alley job because in the same factory and in the same trade the same job might be a blind-alley job in one case and in another case might lead to regular permanent employment. That is a fair statement of the facts as I see them and I have worked in factories and workshops myself, but I cannot see how it will be possible to assess correctly the prospective advantage of allowing a child to go to work at the earlier age.

I see in all this a prolongation of the old dismal record. The education of the child has always been hampered by this system of exemptions. We have always been told that industry would go to the dogs if there were no exemptions. I need only refer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge (Mr. Barr) who showed the dismal record of excuses made against keeping children at school for the longer period. On the question of beneficial employment, we heard the statement of the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Hunter) about beneficial employment which could not be defined. I heard a few speeches to-day which seemed to define it and as far as this Bill is concerned it appears to me that "beneficial employment" means that the child receives the employment and the employer receives the benefit. That is as near as I can get to it. I do not see any benefit accruing to a child who leaves school at the earlier age, to compare with the benefit of extended instruction. In regard to the problem which may be created in that respect I would quote from a speech made by Miss Lawson, who was President of the Educational Institute of Scotland when that body and the National Union of Teachers were considering this subject in 1934. Dealing with the labour problem she said:

"Education committees both in England and Scotland were ready to tackle the problem. They were urging the Government to look forward with confidence and other organisations interested in the welfare of young people were passing resolutions to the same effect. We were allowing other countries to take the lead, we who always prided ourselves on our position in the van. Fifteen was the school-leaving age in Germany, Portugal, Rumania and some of the Swiss Cantons. In Latvia it was 16. Several of the Provinces of Canada and the Union of South Africa and several of the States of Australia as well as the Unite States had a school-leaving age of 15 or 16."

That is the statement of the President of the Educational Institute of Scotland. I suggest that we are entitled to have regard to the fact that specialist bodies, who would not lightly put forward facts and figures that could not be substantiated, have advanced these statements. If it be the case that some of these countries since then have departed from that position there must be some explanation for it and perhaps we may have on another occasion an explanation from the Noble Lady of the departure, if any, which has taken place in those countries from the previous position. Another point which has been made today is that the child ought not to miss the chance of getting an apprenticeship. The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) made a strong point in that connection and doubted whether it was the case that 16 was the accepted year for entering into apprenticeship. I happen to have here a report of a special committee on the school-leaving age of the Glasgow Education Authority. This report was made in 1930 before there was a Labour majority, when it was still a Moderate body, and they state with regard to apprenticeships:

"Lads as a rule cannot start their apprenticeship to trades until they are 16 and this will still leave a year during which they will be at a loose end after leaving school. There is no statutory reason why a lad should not start his apprenticeship to a trade immediately he leaves school at 15 but most of the federations of employers refuse to start apprentices under 16."

I notice that exemptions have to be granted by education authority exemption committees after consultation with the juvenile employment committees, if any. I wonder whether, in circumstances where there are no juvenile committees, any similar organisation has to be created for the guidance of the education authorities. If not, why is it necessary for guidance to be given to local authorities in places where juvenile employment committees are convened? I have great doubts whether this difficult problem can be dealt with by the machinery that is set up in this Bill. Eight factors have to be taken into consideration, each having a different weight, and all of them have to be weighed against each other in each case in order to determine whether an exemption certificate is to be given. There is nothing, however, to guarantee that similar cases will be dealt with in the same way. I remember a member of a Welsh Division who comes from a locality where the 15 years of age leaving is in operation under by-law, giving an illustration of the difference in treatment in applications for exemptions. He mentioned two similar cases which claimed exemption, one of which was granted and the other was refused. As the result, not only was antagonism created between the parents, but the boy who was refused went to school with a grievance and the teacher found him fretful and generally unsuited to continue. These illustrations can be multiplied.

With regard to exemptions which have been granted and then lapsed, some may lapse after a few weeks or a few months, and I am apprehensive where the boy will go when his certificate lapses because his employment is finished. I wonder whether there will be a tendency to send him to a junior instruction centre instead of sending him back for cultural education in school. I am concerned as to what will guide the committees in deciding what is beneficial employment. The Glasgow authority, for instance, may be presented with an application for exemption in respect of a boy who wants to take a shipbuilding job. The job may be in Dumbarton and it will, therefore, be necessary for the Dumbarton authority to be consulted. They may consider in view of the activities of National Shipbuilding Securities, Limited, that it is not a trade from which a boy could get any permanent advantage. Things like that are going to happen, and I cannot see the machinery working to the advantage of education or of the boy. In the Standing Committee dealing with the Cotton Spinning Bill to-day, we were told there were five cotton mills in Scotland which were perturbed at the proposal to put the whole industry under the control of a spindles board. Are the exemption committees of the local authorities still going to look upon cotton spinning in Scotland as an occupation that will give boys a permanent advantage if they enter it?

I will not say anything about the appointed day and the fact that the Bill makes a statutory declaration about it and takes from the Secretary of State the possibility of anticipating that day. I regret an assumption that has been made from time to time in the speeches to which I have listened. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke first for this side gave an illustration with regard to the Income Tax position and the relief which the Income Tax payers got, and he was met by the attitude that this was not comparable to the details of the Bill as applied to working people. The assumption was that only Income Tax payers contributed to the upkeep of the State. I reject that entirely. I enjoyed the maiden speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Lord W. Scott), but I regretted the attitude which he adopted. It was that admirals of the Fleet always wanted more battleships, that air marshals always wanted more aeroplanes, and that teachers would always want more schools and more employment. That is not the proper attitude to adopt. It is not a fair reflection on the teaching profession, which has always taken an intimate interest in the details of their work. The trend of the discussion reminds me of what has been the guide of this Government, and was the guide of the last Government, to a considerable extent, namely, the May Committee. Certain sections of the May Committee's report sum up the attitude of the Government. With regard to education, the committee said:

9.25 p.m.

I do not think that the last speaker was fair to the Government in quoting the May Committee. All the recommendations of the May Committee have now been reversed, and the Government are spending large sums on the things that the May Committee recommended, at that time, should be cut down, and the same thing may well apply to education. The hon. Member gave us to understand that the people of Scotland would be disappointed because, he said, we promised during the election that the Bill would be much broader. I do not think the electors were under any misapprehension as to the scope of the education programme. Speaking with persons similar to myself, I have found a great deal of doubt how far it would be wise to go. I have sat here during the Debate trying to come to a conclusion, and I must say that after six hours listening without any dinner I find it very hard to concentrate sufficiently to make a proper contribution to the Debate. The hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. G. Hardie) gave little instruction to some of us who were wanting to know the merits and demerits of this Bill. I would like to tell the hon. Member that any Socialist Government in power would meet with the same problems of education under the Socialist system as under the present system.

I would like to ask the Minister who is to reply if he can say whether the Government are alive to the question of the importance of the curriculum. I find this question constantly cropping up in Scotland and people saying, "We are willing to spend money on education providing we are satisfied that it is the proper kind of education." I would like to know who it is who is to take the broad view of the requirements of the nation and to say that this or that curriculum is wise or not, because I am afraid that the subject is one that is apt to be shelved. The Secretary of State is a very busy man and I wish to know to whom he delegates this important problem. I would like some assurance that it is in the forefront of educational policy. I have heard competent persons give diametrically opposite opinions during this Debate, and it is difficult for the public and those who are not experts in close touch with education to come to conclusions when the experts on both sides differ.

I am going to vote for this Bill, although I dislike it very much. It has been said many times that democracy, to be a success, must be an educated democracy. If I had been drafting this Bill I would have taken the plunge and had no exemptions. But if you are having no exemptions, you must have maintenance. As a supporter of the Government I recognise that one cannot get everything that one wants. There is to be no maintenance, and therefore I think we have to consider the question of exemptions as a reasonable one in these days of low-paid wage earners and unemployment. During the next five or six years industrial conditions will change, prosperity may come along, and there may be inconsistencies between different areas in the working of exemptions. I want to ask the Minister whether he does not think it wise to make Part I of this Bill provisional for five years. In the hurly burly of political life this may be shelved, and I would like to see it made certain that it should come up automatically for review. It may be that if prosperity is witnessed again that exemptions should be cut out altogether. I do not look on this Bill as an achievement for education, but as a step, and I wish to make sure that the next step will at least automatically be considered.

9.33 p.m.

I have waited a longtime before attempting to intervene in this Debate because, unlike the majority of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, I have no experience as an elected representative on any Scottish educational authority. The experience I have had as an elected member has been on the English side of the Border at Carlisle. There, in a progressive education committee, I did not find any lack of enthusiasm for education, and I could not find any justification for the boast that Scotland is always far ahead in the desire for educational opportunities for its young people. This Bill might, I think, be described as being like the curate's egg, good in parts. There are some things in the Bill which we welcome, some things that we are pleased about. To get it established at long last, although it is being delayed for a very considerable time, that after this Bill becomes operative there will not be the exemptions that are presently granted in Scotland at the age of 12 years is a considerable advance. I am sure that in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland there are certain things with which we can all agree. The encomiums he passed upon the work of the teachers, and the equally sincere and deserved compliments that he paid to those who take up the voluntary work of acting on education committees, were, I am sure we should all agree, thoroughly deserved. I will go even further, and say that although I regret and deplore the fact that co-option is still operative so far as education committees in Scotland are concerned there are many people doing splendid service who did not get on to the education committees through the ordinary channels of election but were co-opted. I go the length of paying that compliment to them.

It seems to me that since we heard the Secretary of State laying claim to very great credit for our country being in advance of other countries in respect of education we have heard very little about it in the Debate, and I think we are justified in claiming that this Bill does definitely take away from Scotland that leading position which she has had up to the present time. Since the passing of the Act of 1918 we have rejoiced in the fact that it did not require new legislation to enable Scotland to make an advance in respect of the age at which scholars could leave school. It has been within the power of the Secretary of State merely by administrative action to make that important advance which is now proposed in this Bill, and thereby we have lost our leading position. We have waited until England is in the same position, and we have come along trailing at the heels of England in the matter of this advance in respect of the school-leaving age. This Bill purports to raise the school-leaving age by one year—that is the theory of the Bill—but according to the statements we heard on the English Bill and the statements we have heard to-day it appears that in practice the result will be the raising of the school-leaving age by, on the average, a period of something like six months only.

I regret, also, the long time that is to be taken to put this Act into operation—not until September, 1939. That is a very long way ahead. It is a longer period than is necessary to make the requisite provision for the change-over to the new circumstances. I wonder what it is that has caused the date to be fixed at September, 1939. I shall be accused of being partisan and unduly suspicious if I make the suggestion that it is to enable Members of the Government to be able to say, when next, in the normal course, they appeal to the country, that they have carried out their pledge to raise the school-leaving age in Scotland and in England as well. The fact that they are taking all that time seems to indicate that although they gave the pledge at the Election to raise the school-leaving age, and thereby created in the minds of the people of this country the idea that it was going to be done as quickly and as promptly as possible, they are under the suspicion of doing it grudg- ingly, and only bringing it into effect in time to escape very severe censure when next they appeal to the country for a vote of confidence.

With regard to these much discussed exemptions, the Secretary of State made it clear that they must be granted with a complete knowledge of local conditions. As a result of the Local Government Act of 1929 we have taken away a considerable amount of the close local knowledge which was possessed by education committees, and it seems to me that the county committees, which will be administering this part of the Act when it comes into operation will not be sufficiently in touch with the needs of the children who are involved to enable them to carry out what the Secretary of State indicated as being a very desirable thing, that is, to carry out their obligations with full knowledge of the circumstances and needs of the children.

There have been many and varied speeches on this Measure, and I think most of us on this side want to join issue with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) in his desire to cut short educational opportunities in respect of those who, in later life, are expected to earn their livelihood by the use of their hands. That is a point of view and an attitude which, I am sure, is not adopted by those who are fortunate enough not to require to use their hands in earning their livelihood. That is something which is reserved for the poorer section of the community. I think it is entirely wrong for hon. Members to use their opportunities of creating opinion and fostering ideas which have that tendency. It is just as necessary that those who have to earn their livelihood by the use of their hands should be well educated, from a cultural point of view, as that those who are to earn their livelihood in other ways should be.

I speak as one who had very little in the way of educational opportunity. The hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Hunter) was inclined to pay compliments to the Members on this side of the House for the evidences of education which they had shown in making their speeches. I look back to my days at school in the village near to where, if I am not mistaken, the Noble Lord the Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Lord W. Scott) was born, and I well remember my schooling there. I received it from a man for whom all my life I have had the greatest possible respect, a man who might be described as one of the old dominie type of schoolmaster. I am not aware that he ever made a scholar and he certainly did not make one so far as I am concerned, but I recollect very clearly how well he guided and inspired those who were committed to his charge in a way that enabled them to realise the importance, above mere mental education and the mere imbibing of knowledge, of being true to the highest and best that was in them—in short, if he did not make scholars that old schoolmaster of mine certainly did lay the foundations in the school children under his charge for sound men and women of noble character. I do not want to see opportunities of that kind cut short at the age at which my opportunities were. I want to- see those opportunities extended. Because this Bill does not come up to expectations, not only my expectations but I believe those of the country as a whole, I am going to take my stand in voting for the Amendment which condemns the meagre nature of this Measure.

9.46 p.m.

I have listened with great interest to this Debate. At this late hour I cannot say as much as I had hoped about Part II of the Bill, because the contentious part is contained in Part I, practically in Clauses 2 and 3; but I should like to say how much I appreciate some of the changes made by Part II. During this Debate I think those changes have in a great many cases been overlooked or not fully appreciated. In listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) I wondered, as I had while listening to speeches made by several other hon. Members, including the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sunderland (Sir A. Sinclair), whether people thought that in this Bill we are going to prevent children staying at school. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sunderland said that surely hon. Members would like their children' to remain at school after the age of 14.

The only contentious thing in this Bill is whether or not the parents may apply for exemption certificates for their children before the children actually reach the age of 15, and whether those exemption certificates should be granted by the local authorities after consultation with the local committee for juvenile employment. I notice that the Bill says

"that the employment will be beneficial to the child."

That is a very important matter. If the Bill simply contained a schedule of beneficial employments, it might be that they would not be beneficial for a particular child. I would suggest to hon. Members that it is not a question of a whole year of the child's school life, but that it might be a month or two months before the child reaches the age of 15. If I interpret this phrase in the Bill correctly, its intention is to give local authorities, after consultation with the local committee for juvenile employment, the right to decide whether it would be beneficial for a child to take up a particular employment. It is not as if the local authorities were bound to grant an exemption if there were beneficial employment or rather if the employment were good. The Bill states that the employment must be beneficial to the child. We have been told over and over again of the huge amount of exemptions under 14. That was the case in the first year after the passing of the Act, but if hon. and right ihon. Members will examine the figures, they will find that those exemptions have decreased.

I think that a great deal of praise is due to teachers and parents for the spirit of co-operation which they have shown. I am convinced that if we were to depart from the custom which we have had in Scotland of having exemptions each time the age has been raised, ever since 1871, we should at once make it more difficult for the parents to cooperate with the teachers as is the case to-day. I do see in this Measure a real challenge to education in Scotland. If the education is good and if the parents co-operate with the teachers, then the parents will realise from the teachers what the child is gaining by staying at school, and the teachers will also obtain information from the parents as to what are the parents' fears and doubts about keeping the child at school. I believe that in Scotland our system has resulted in making the parents really interested in the education of their children. I think we have been told too many times in this House that the parents have no interest in the education of their children and that they exploit them, but I think that the majority of the parents in Scotland are very keen and eager to give the best possible chance to their children. They are not convinced in every case, however, that it is better to keep their children at school one or two months more and so to lose the opportunity of some employment which they themselves want their children to have. I know very well the argument against that. We have been told that if a particular boy or girl does not get certain employment some other child will get it. But I ask hon. Members whether they really think that would appeal to a parent who has found employment which he knows to be good employment and which will give real interest to his child. He is told that the child must not take that employment and must remain at school for one or two more months, but it does not matter to' the parent whether some other child will get the employment or not.

I believe that many people who are paying for their children to continue at school might perhaps claim exemptions if they were told that they had to keep their children at school. The parents want some chance of feeling that they have some decision in the matter, and that is an advantage which parents have when they can pay for the education of their children. If they think the educa- tion their children are receiving is not good, if they do not like the type of education, or do not think the teacher is teaching properly, then they can send their children to another school if they have money with which to pay the fees. I think that if we say that children must go to school up to a certain age, the parents have a right to have some decision in the education which their children shall receive. I think they ought to have the right to express an opinion as to whether a particular form of education is doing their children good or not. They ought to have some rights even if they are not paying fees.

I believe that in this Bill we are taking a step towards stopping the exemptions under 14. I think that in the beginning the exemptions under this Bill will be far greater in number than they will be later on if we get a better curriculum, more technical instruction, an increase in this co-operation between teachers and parents, and if there is time to train teachers for this new work and not simply take teachers who have qualified for elementary school work and say that they must take the senior schools. We must see to it that the right teaching is given by the right people, both men and women, and, if the education is good, I believe the teachers will be able to convince the parents that the children will benefit by staying at school a further year. It is a test whether they can convince those people, because in most cases the parents do not take away their children simply from the financial point of view. It says a great deal for the people of Scotland and also for the education there that one-third of the children are staying on at school at over 14 years. We have to deal with the two-thirds. It has been said that one-half of the two-thirds will claim exemption. I do not believe that they will claim it for the whole year but they may claim it for half the year, if we can meet the parents. We have in Scotland in the past been able to a great extent to take the parents with us, but I doubt whether during the last few years we have taken them with us as to the value of the education given. They may speak well of the teachers but I do not know whether they think that the pupils are gaining altogether.

I should have liked to point out various other points that interest me, but the hour is late. May I suggest to the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) that the certificate is not given to the parent. He said that the certificate was to be given to the parent, but I can find nothing to that effect in the Bill.

I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I wrote his statement down while he was speaking. He said that the certificate ought not to be given to the parent of the child.

No. I said that it ought to be given to the child. I did not mean that it ought to be given to the parent.

Perhaps it was a slip of the tongue. I am very glad that the hon. Member does not think that it is given to the parent. It is to be given to the employer on behalf of the child.

I do not want it to be given to the employer. I want it to be given to the child.

I am particularly pleased that more attention is to be paid to physical training. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) is interested in that subject. I should like to ask the Minister whether in regard to continuation work, which is dealt with in Clause 2, the power will still remain with the local authority to provide that the continuation education for the child who is in employment shall be linked with physical training. I should like an assurance given on that point, because in many cases children who have been working and have had to go to continuation classes in the evening have in the past imagined that those continuation classes would be entirely academic. In most cases physical training would be of great benefit.

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) was disappointed that the date for the coming into operation of the higher school-leaving age was put off until 1939. He thought that in certain areas it might come into operation almost at once. I would suggest that in those areas which are ready for the change, where they have their teachers trained and the buildings are ready, they ought to be able to induce the children to a great extent to remain at school. Whether it would be possible to have the new system obligatory in some areas and not in others, I am not sure. I do not know whether that would work well and whether it would please the people of Scotland as a whole, but if reorganisation can take place where everything is ready in a particular area, I should imagine that it would be possible to get more than one-third of the remaining percentage of children to remain at school. I would ask the right hon. Member and the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Mathers) who feel that we ought to bring the system into operation earlier, because the people of Scotland thought that we were going to do it, to realise that we are bound to have a system of exemption, because certainly the people thought we were going to have a system of exemption. That was clear at the Election. It was put before the country in print and repeated by most hon. Members on this side of the House, and sometimes opposed by hon. Members on the other side, that the raising of the school-leaving age was to take place and was to be accompanied by a system of exemption. If the date on which the system should come into operation is to be advanced, according to hon. Members opposite, because the people thought that it was going to come into operation early, then they must agree that there should be a system of exemption, because the people of Scotland thought there was not only going to be exemption but in a great many cases they definitely voted on that understanding.

Earlier in the Debate I was bold enough to interrupt the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) on the subject of the Income Tax. He said that the rich man was getting an advantage which was denied to the poor. I suggested that where any man was getting such an advantage his children were not attending free schools. He seemed to dispute that statement and he made a calculation that on the basis of a tax of 4s. 6d. in the £ and an allowance of £50 for each child there was a benefit of £10. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to examine carefully how the Income Tax works at the present time and in how many cases you have a man who is paying on earned income the full 4s. 6d. in the £. I felt that I was right when I interrupted him but I did not dare to go any further then. I have since examined the matter and I find that a man with a wife and three children would only be paying the full 4s. 6d. on earned income if his income amounted to £4,000. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell me if there are many people in Scotland with an earned income of £4,000 who are getting free education for their children. If there are such cases, I join with him in saying that those people should pay more.

10.3 p.m.

We have almost reached the end of a very interesting Debate, and I can assure the House that I approach the subject with a certain amount of diffidence and restraint; diffidence because limited as my educational opportunities were they have taught me that the more I have learned about educational administration the less I know of it. I have listened with the keenest interest to some of the alleged experts in the Debate to-day. My experience of educational administration will amount to 27 years from the 14th day of next month. Twenty-five years ago, immediately after the 1908 Education Act had been placed on the Statute Book, I was elected to a local school board to take part in the work of educational administration. From that day to this I have had uninterrupted work in connection with education administration in Scotland. I saw the 1918 Education Act placed on the Statute Book. I am speaking with restraint now. I have a burning desire to see the ideals of education that are mine given effect to in niy lifetime, but I see no prospects of those ideals being given effect to in the anaemic, weak and indefensible Bill now presented to the House.

I used to envy those who had received their education at Eton, Harrow and Winchester, because I was denied opportunities of such education, but to-night I am proud of the fact that I escaped that disaster in my life. If I had received my education there I should not have had the real desire for education that I have to-day. Those who have received that particular class of education do not seem to prize what was theirs or to demand for others that which it was their luck to obtain.

On the other hand, having been denied the opportunities for education, I was compelled to leave school at 13 years of age, being the oldest of the family. It was not because my parents wanted to sacrifice me. It is true, as has been said from the other side, that parents do not want to sacrifice their children, but the oldest in the family has to be sacrificed on purpose to obtain the income to give a chance of life to the other members of the family. I happened to be the oldest, and I was sacrificed, and I am egotistical enough to believe that I should have benefited from the opportunities for education that were denied me and of which I was robbed merely because I belonged to the working class. I am proud of the fact that I escaped the disaster of an education at these schools. It has taught me to fight for the opportunity for the children of my own class, because I myself knew what it meant to be denied those opportunities.

I now come to the Bill before the House and to the arguments used in defence of what I have already described as an indefensible Bill. I have to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland in. many capacities. I am repeatedly meeting him, and I want to share with him those compliments that have been given to the local administrators of Scotland. I have worked along with them, and I know what sacrifices have to be made by many of them to give of their ability to carry through the administrative work of our country, but he cannot tell me of a single administrative authority—at least, I know of none—that is in favour of the exemption Clauses in this Bill. The authority of which I am a member, led by a good old Tory, refused to accept the exemption Clauses of this Bill.

Only two months ago, when we were discussing the matter in the education committee of the county of Fife, and its chairman is a good old Tory, whose ideals in the interests of education are going to be betrayed to-night by the so-called National Liberal Member for East Fife.

The hon. Member is suggesting that the Fife County Council has resolved against this Bill, or has expressed an opinion against it and its exemption Clauses. That is not true. The Fife County Council has not yet considered the Bill, and I confirmed that information by telephoning to the county clerk a few minutes ago.

The hon. Member has not yet caught me out. He did catch me out in the East Fife by-election, but he will not catch me out here. I said the education committee. The county council passes on its work for dealing with education to the education committee, and I was pointing out that the education committee, led by a good old Tory who has ideals of education, had recommended the county council, which has not yet had time to go into it, to oppose the exemption Clauses of this Bill in the interests of real administration. We have come to the conclusion that it is absolutely impossible to make the necessary calculations, either as to the accommodation we require and the expenditure that will be necessary, or to meet the other problems associated with the exemption Clauses.

In view of what the hon. Member has just said, may I say that the East Lothian Education Committee has approved of the Bill, including the exemption Clauses. He said that no authority had.

I said that to the best of my knowledge no authority in Scotland had approved of the exemption Clauses. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill has told us it is an important contribution in the stages of the educational progress of our country. He has told us that the ideals of education are to create within our boys and girls resource, intelligence, and courage. I am sure it would take the resource of a Napoleon, the intelligence of Solomon, and the courage of a Sir William Wallace to discover anything really good in the way of progress in this Bill. It has been suggested that it makes increased provision for nursery schools. Nursery schools are provided for in the 1918 Education Act, but we who were responsible for administration could not give effect to the provisions in that Act owing to the lack of financial arrangements to enable us to operate them.

We have been told by the right hon. Gentleman that the reason why the date in the Bill is 1939 is that we require to prepare well balanced courses for the children. I think that is a reflection upon the work of the local education autho- rities. It is a fact that his own Department for years now has been recognising three year advance division courses, well balanced courses, not the type of courses, provided for our children previously, but balanced courses so as to enable children, in accordance with their aptitudes and abilities, to benefit by the education provided for them; and if they have not been preparing these courses in the education authorities of Scotland, there must be some fault on the part of the Department. I can speak for one body with some authority, and that is the County of Fife. There we have got a series of courses adapted to suit the abilities of the respective children. Instead of trying to crush them through one machine, we have tried to adapt our courses to get the best out of the child, and I think we have succeeded.

If we have succeeded and the Department has not been compelling other authorities to do the same, then it is time the right hon. Gentleman and his Under-Secretary of State were waking up to their own responsibilities. I am not levelling that charge against the Department. I know the type of courses in the different authorities in Scotland. I know that in most cases—there are one or two exceptions, which I am sure are in the minds of those responsible for national education—the authorities in Scotland have been preparing themselves for the raising of the school age, and I submit that there are already, so far as the major number of authorities are concerned, well-balanced courses.

I now come to the exemption Clauses of this Bill. I must remind the House that in all the previous Acts of Parliament providing for exemption from compulsion to attend school up to a given age, the exemptions have only been granted so as to meet the poverty of the home. No exemptions have been granted for the purpose merely of allowing a child to go into employment. I have had 10 years' experience in the giving of exemptions. I want to be quite frank with this House and to say that when I first entered on this administrative work I thought it would be a good thing to get an exemption for a working-class child. I learned my lesson before I was there very long, and after a while I was appointed to the position of convener and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie), having that responsibility, I have it not on my conscience at the moment that I granted any exemption to a child merely because of the poverty of the parents. I knew of the other conditions, in the Acts of Parliament, and I used them to the full. If it was necessary to provide two or three suits of clothes for the two or three children who were younger than the child for whom application was being made, or if it was necessary to provide two or three pairs of boots, then, backed by niy colleagues, I provided the boots and clothing rather than sacrifice the education of the child.

If the Government had been facing that responsibility, there is not a parent who would want a child exempted in order that it should go into so-called beneficial employment. Parents love their children and want them to get the best opportunities for education. The parents of Scotland know that it is impossible to provide, even in the three years advanced division, the course which is prepared for their children unless the school-leaving age is definitely raised to 15 without exemption. Reference has been made today to one-third of the scholars who are voluntarily attending school beyond the age of 14 years. I wonder whether we are getting the actual facts of the situation, and whether that number includes those who are at school because of the prescribed dates, which vary in different parts of Scotland, A large number of children are compelled to remain at school for some two or three months beyond their fourteenth birthday.

On the question of exemption it has been suggested on the other side of the House that it might be possible to secure uniformity of conditions of exemption, but I believe that that would be impossible, because there is a different mentality in the different education authorities. The education authority which has power of exemption is the school management committee, and so generous have been the exemptions in the constituency represented by one hon. Member that the Department has been compelled to write to the education authority in order to draw attention to the potato holiday, which is not a holiday but an occasion for exploitation of the children in order to provide cheap labour for the farming community. There are varying conditions in connection with the granting of exemptions. There are school management committees in my own county who will not agree to an exemption unless the case is one of extreme hardship. That is dealt with in Clause 5 of the Bill. I am definitely in favour of it.

Where an application is made on behalf of a young girl of 14 and there are younger children, I have to make my choice as an administrator between sacrificing all the children and sacrificing one. I wish it were possible to avoid the sacrifice, but I realise that until I reach my Socialist ideal I have to be a practical administrator and to face the facts. I face the facts, and I know that I am addressing a House of Commons which will give full credit to an administrator who will not be taken away on a wind but will face up to his responsibilities. We cannot secure uniformity in the conditions of exemption because of the mental outlook of the school management committees that will be responsible for the granting of exemptions under the Bill, unless the Bill be amended. It has been suggested that it is in the interests of the children that exemptions are granted, but will the children not become even more efficient in industry if they receive the additional year's education?

I want to quote from one who, I think it would be admitted by the House, is an authority on education, and that is the President of the Educational Institute of Scotland who, in addressing a conference protesting against the exemption Clauses of the Bill, said:

We have been told that it may create difficulties in Scotland if we oppose the wishes of the parents, and that it may retard educational progress. I think it was the right hon. Gentleman the Mem- ber for Hillhead (Sir E. Horne) who made that statement. May I remind the House that the parents of Scotland have, through their respective organisations, been sending resolutions to Members of the House against the exemption provisons? I myself have received a communication from the branch of the National Union of Railwaymen; I have received a. communication from the Ironworkers' Union, representing 10,000 members in my own constituency; I have received resolutions from the Co-operative Women's Guild. These are communications from the parents of the children whom hon. Members on the other side are claiming to defend in fighting for exemption.

On the contrary, my hon. Friend has entirely misquoted me. I said that I entirely trusted the parents, and was certain that they would do their duty to their children.

I accept the correction, and am delighted to know that the parents will do what is right by their children; and, now that I have given the evidence that the parents object to the exemption Clause, I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will be found with us in the Division Lobby.

The exemption Clauses will become entirely inoperative if the parents do their duty.

The parents are willing to do their duty. They are making sacrifices. But I have already pointed out—the right hon. Gentleman was not in his place when I made the statement—that I at least am one of the individuals who had to be sacrificed, because my parents were too poor to allow me to continue at school. I was the eldest of the family, and I deny the right, even to the right hon. Gentleman, to accuse my own parents of being prepared to sacrifice myself.

My hon. Friend is quite wrong. I have been here since the beginning of his speech, and have heard all that he has said; and I have been very intimately acquainted from the time of my boyhood with the working classes of Scotland and with their education.

May I remind the House, after that interjection, that it has been suggested that there is a lack of discipline among our young people to-day? That is perfectly true. One of the most regrettable duties I have had to do, as a magistrate for the burgh which I represent, was to deal with the cases of juvenile delinquency which came along until such cases were taken before the juvenile court set up in the County of Fife. We have had evidence to-day that juvenile delinquency is increasing, and one of the reasons for it is undoubtedly the fact that we have such a large number of children who have left school and for whom there is no employment. It is not the slightest use blaming the parents for lack of discipline in these cases. The best place for those children is in school, but you must make provision to enable the parents to keep them at school. It is easier to allow the ragged child to run about than to provide the clothing necessary to make the child decent when it is at school. That is one of the arguments for a maintenance grant to enable our children to get a decent chance of education. There has been no Act of Parliament in the past that has given exemption certificates to the employer. The exemption has been given to the child— not even to the parents.

The Noble Lady said there must be some provision for juvenile employment. The best way to provide for juvenile employment is to see that when they enter industry—it ought not to be earlier than 15 years of age—they are equipped as far as possible for the work that they have to do. When the 1918 Act was passed we who were responsible for the administration of education saw a vista of wonderful possibilities in the way of educational progress. That Act made it possible to raise the school age to 15, it made it possible to extend our continuation class system in the way of compulsory attendance at continuation classes till 18 years of age, which would have been a better way of equipping our youth for industry than the provisions of this Bill. We are not pleading, in our opposition to the Bill, for the lad of parts. He often manages to get there, though sometimes at a terrible sacrifice. We are not pleading for those who may be the geniuses in our schools of to-day. They also often come to the top. We are pleading for the average boy and girl who will make up the great mass of the citizens of the country we love, the common, average boy and girl who require not less than ten years of schooling to lay the foundation of an education worthy of our traditions and to meet twentieth century conditions.

We oppose the Bill because it continues to allow our children to be robbed of the educational inheritance which the inventive genius and the scientific discovery of our people has now made possible. It declines to make possible the laying of a good foundation on which to build up culture and true learning, because we must never forget, to quote from a speech by Lord Hewart many years ago, that the true function of education is to teach us to learn, and the process ends neither with youth nor middle age but ought to continue through every year of our lives. When all our homage has been paid to schools, colleges, teachers and books, no small part of a man's education is that which he gives himself. To make that giving as beneficial as possible, we must give our children a sounder and a surer foundation than is provided at present. The responsibilities of citizenship are, with adult suffrage, borne now at a far earlier age which necessitates a surer educational foundation than that of 20 years ago. We are entering upon an age of leisure, but that leisure may become a curse instead of a blessing unless we learn how to use leisure. I detest this Bill, because of its robbing of our children of their birthright, and of the refusal to make possible for the children of Scotland a real forward move in the sacred cause of education.

10.31 p.m.

Hon. Members opposite in their enthusiasm and eloquence to display their dislike of this Measure might almost have persuaded anyone who has listened to them this afternoon that it was not, in fact, a real advance educationally. But that is very far from the truth. We regard it as a real, forward step which we are proud to make and for which we make no apology. I am sure that we recognise the long experience of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood) in administrative work in relation to education. We do not share his views on this point, but we are unanimous in appreciating his worth in regard to the work he has done. He said he had not been able to stay on at school, but he is a very good example of one who had exemption.

I had no exemption. The compulsory age was 13, and I attended up to the compulsory age without exemption.

The hon. Gentleman is a very good example of one who has not had the advantage which we are proposing to give, of the extra year's school. I wish to answer a few of the points raised in a number of the speeches to-day, and then, if time allows, to give again a general brief review of the purpose and the provisions of the Bill. In the turmoil of the discussion we have had in regard to it, the main principles and effect of the Bill are apt to be lost sight of. Hon. Members will forgive me if I do not deal with all the points. I have sat through a number of Debates in this House, but I have seldom sat through one in which more points were raised or more questions were asked. The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk spoke of the figure which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave as the proportion of children above the age of 14 who stayed at school voluntarily, and asked if the figure included those children who in fact had to stay. I have pleasure in assuring him that it does not include any of these children. One-third is the figure of genuine voluntary attendance. He wishes to be assured on that point, and I am happy to give him that assurance.

The hon. Member also said that certificates of exemption were not granted to employers; that in previous Acts of Parliament it was the practice to give the certificate to the child and not to the employer. There is a very good reason for giving the certificate of exemption to the employer in this case. The- main difference from the certificate which the hon. Member has in mind is that it contains certain provisions for which penalties are provided. This certificate is, in fact, a contract between an employer and the education authority,, and I should have thought that he would have been one of the first to wish to see a provision of this kind introduced which will secure that if a child goes into employment certain conditions will be observed. That is a point of some importance. Our motive in giving a certificate to the employer is to be sure that it is regarded as a binding contract between the employer and the local authority. Incidentally a copy is to be given to the parent.

The form of the certificate has not yet been made out. One hon. Member asked whether the child's name would appear on the certificate. That has not yet been settled.

You say that this is a contract between the education authority and the employer. Where does the parent come in?

The parent's authority must always remain: It means an understanding between the local authority and the employer as to the conditions of employment, and if they are not observed the local authority has the right, in the interests of the child, to cancel the certificate. I hope that such points as the actual form of the certificate can be left for subsequent discussion, and I. am sure that we shall reach a satisfactory understanding upon them. The right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston), who opened the Debate, and the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk claimed that there was no single local authority in Scotland that was not up in arms against the Bill. That is a bold claim to make, and if I had been in their position I should have verified the facts before making it. What are the facts of the position as we know them in the Department? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intended to meet members of education authorities in Scotland and discuss with them the provisions of the Bill, but was prevented from doing so by sad reasons of national importance. But local authorities have been in possession of the printed Bill for a fortnight. The position is that only two protests have been received from local authorities in Scotland by the Department—I can only speak of them, I cannot speak of the protests or letters which have been received by individual hon. Members. The only protests which have been received at the Department are from two authorities in Scotland and if hon. Members wish to know the names of those authorities I shall give them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] They are Glasgow and Dundee.

The hon. Member has sufficient experience to know the right of minorities to express their opinion and to have due regard paid to their view. Those two authorities do not, I understand, wish for the abolition of the Bill. They wish to see it altered in certain respects.

I have no doubt that when we discuss the Bill in Committee the right hon. Gentleman will have some constructive suggestion to make as to its working but I have not heard any constructive suggestion to-day from any Member of the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman said he believed that a number of authorities were ready to work the raising of the school age right away, or at any rate very soon. No local education authorities in the country have expressed the view that they are ready now to begin the raising of the age. Indeed there has been a singular silence on the question of the date as regards the local authorities, with the exception of the two already mentioned, who have said that they could undertake it earlier than 1939. I really must take the right hon. Gentleman to task for those two statements, first, that the local authorities are up in arms against the Bill and secondly, that they are ready to work the raising of the age almost at once or very soon. Those statements are rather wide of the mark in view of the facts which we have before us.

Would it be possible to give us the names of the authorities who have approved of the exemption Clauses? Has the Department been inundated with telegrams of congratulation from the authorities on those provisions in the Bill?

I can only take notice of what I have before me. If all the authorities have had the Bill before them for a fortnight and have not made any protest against it to my Department I can hardly be expected to go round among them looking for messages of congratulation. The hon. Gentleman has sufficient experience of administration to know that messages of congratulation are not so easily forthcoming on any Bill which is put forward.

Could the hon. and gallant Gentleman not get the education committees and the county councils to meet together to discuss a matter of this kind?

The right hon. Gentleman's own statement is that they are up in arms against it. He also made a statement to the effect that in a number of districts there was great unemployment among young persons of the age affected by these proposals, and he quoted figures from the local unemployment index. These figures are rather misleading, because they do not represent an accurate percentage. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the top of the index he will see that the figures are only relative. The percentage is computed by relating the number of unemployed of the ages from 14 to 17, to the number of insured of the ages of 16 to 17, and there is a warning note to the effect that they must be taken as relative figures only. However, I do not dispute the matter further with him except to say that they ought not to be taken as absolutely accurate figures of unemployment. He said that in certain areas there is heavy unemployment among children of the age group with which we are dealing. I should have thought that no better argument could be brought forward for the Bill, for it will keep these children out of the employment market and keep them in school for another year. If he was referring to the present children in that age group, of course we are not taking them, and if he was arguing that we may find blocks of unemployed persons of these years when the Bill became operative, that was an argument in favour of the Bill for keeping the children at school.

The children at present are not going into school except as volunteers.

We have provided for them under the provisions of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman also complained that only unregulated jobs will be open to the children, because, in general, the entry of boys into apprenticeship comes at a later age. There again no better argument could be provided for this Measure, for it does something to regulate jobs and to give the children more security in the work into which they go. We had an interesting speech from the Noble Lord the Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Lord W. Scott), who assured us that in the Border district which he represented this Bill would be welcomed and satisfactorily worked.

My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) raised a number of points. He objected to the postponement. Reasons were put before the House by the Secretary of State for deliberately fixing the date. We have fixed it at 1939 because we believe it is necessary to have that time in order to get the necessary premises ready throughout the country. It has been asked why it could not be done area by area. We do not say that that is impossible, because there are areas that are carrying out this scheme by by-law, but we think it is not advisable that it should be done except over the whole country at once. It is necessary to have time to get the buildings that must be required. Buildings will be required for full-time instruction and for extensions to existing schools for practical instruction, accommodation for which is lacking in a great number of districts. We shall push on with the provision of these premises.

The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) asked how an authority can have any idea of the accommodation which will be required when the children come along in 1939. To that I would say this: That provision of school buildings is made not with a view of a life of two, three or five years, but for a much longer period.

School buildings are designed not for a life of a few years. In other words, a local authority in putting up buildings has to look ahead for some time as to what the requirements will. be. Anyone studying the history of educational development will see that in our advances in age limits we have always gone by steps, with exemptions, and in time the exemptions have closed up.

Is that the type of instruction that will be offered, with regard to buildings, to education authorities— that they are to build up to 100 per cent.?

It will be a matter for discussion. Any local authority taking a prudent view of the matter will keep this in mind in deciding on accommodation.

Before the hon. and gallant Member leaves that point, there will be two expansions necessary, schools and teachers. Will he deal with the teachers question?

I have a great number of points to cover. The matter of the provision of teachers we shall fully discuss with the local authorities who are responsible for it. The other point which the hon. Member raised was a sad picture of the boy, about to leave, who was the centre of a hotbed of sedition, who was an object of disturbance and unrest in the school and one who would be of little social value.

Is it not the case that the hon. Member brought out this difficulty? But is not the difficulty which the hon. Member raised the case at the present time? If a boy is staying on voluntarily—we have one-third of the children of between 14 and 15 in Scotland staying on voluntarily—he is in the same position as the sedition monger to whom the hon. Member referred. He does not break up schools at present, as was suggested by the hon. Member. The right hon. and gallant Member for Caithness objected to this Bill because, he said, the machinery was all there, if only we would press the button to start it.

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman did not press the button when he was in office.

It was notfound possible in those years to press the button and set the machinery in motion for financial reasons, among others. We think that our method is more satisfactory than the method of pressing a button, because we attach conditions to these exemptions, for which I do not apologise. There are certain provisions attached to the exemptions which we think will be beneficial to the child in relation to the question of its finding employment. Many other points were raised during the discussion, and I should like to deal with one or two. The hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mr. Barr) asked me a conundrum. He said that if it was possible for the Government of the day in 1930 to envisage bringing into force their Act, the Act of 1930, in 21 months, how was it that the present Government had to wait for three years before they could bring this Measure into operation? My answer must be that I do not consider the Government of 1930 to have been the last word in wisdom or foresight. An hon. Member interrupts with a reference to officials, but he must know from his experience that we as a Government cannot rest on our officials and must take the whole responsibility for a decision of this nature.

The Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) made an important contribution by pointing out that in no other country with which we are in active industrial competition has this step of raising the school-leaving age been taken. That is a point which should be borne in mind, because, as the hon. Member who wound up from the Opposition side said, we must be practical men and have regard to the practical possibilities of the situation. The Noble Lady made a practical contribution by pointing out how we stand in this matter in relation to foreign countries. The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Morrison) made a most interesting contribution to the Debate and paid a tribute, which I should like to echo, to the present head of the Scottish Education Department, Sir William McKechnie, for his fine work over a period of seven years in that capacity. We have availed ourselves of his advice throughout, and those who have served with him have reason to echo the tribute.

I am afraid I have not dealt with nearly all the points which have been raised to-day, but in conclusion I should like to put this proposition before the House. To listen to hon. Members opposite one would think that this was a Bill to lower the school-leaving age and not to raise it, but I think their oratory and their enthusiasm have carried them away. If we accept the Amendment of the Opposition the responsibility for failing to secure that the age of 15 becomes the school-leaving age will rest on them, and the responsibility for not stopping the right to give exemptions to children between 12 and 14 will also rest

on them. I commend the Bill wholeheartedly to the House as one which will keep thousands of school children in school at an age when they are now going into employment, and exercise a wholly beneficial and helpful influence. It is a Bill which I confidently commend to the House as one of the forward actions of the National Government.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 220; Noes, 127.

Division No. 45.]

AYES.

[11.1 p.m.

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

Duncan, J. A. L.

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

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

Dunglass, Lord

Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)

Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)

Dunne, P. R. R.

Leckie, J. A.

Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)

Eastwood, J. F.

Lees-Jones, J.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Eckersley, P. T.

Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

Apsley, Lord

Edge, Sir W.

Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

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

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

Loder, Captain Hon. J. de V.

Atholl, Duchess of

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Elliston, G. S.

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

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Elmley, Viscount

McCorquodale, M. S.

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

Emery, J. F.

MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)

Beit, Sir A. L.

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

MacDonald, Rt. Hon M. (Ross)

Bird, Sir R. B.

Errington, E.

McEwen, Capt. H. J. F.

Blindell, Sir J.

Erskine Hill, A. G.

McKie, J. H.

Bossom, A. C.

Everard, W. L.

Maclay, Hon. J. P.

Boulton, W. W.

Findlay, Sir E.

Magnay, T.

Bower, Comdr. R. T.

Fleming, E. L.

Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

Boyce, H. Leslie

Fraser, Capt. Sir I.

Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

Braithwaite, Major A. N.

Fremantle, Sir F. E.

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

Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

Fyfe, D. P. M.

Maxwell, S. A.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

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

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

Goodman, Col. A. W.

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

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

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

Bull, B. B.

Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Burghley, Lord

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

Butler, R. A.

Grimston. R. V.

Mitcheson, Sir G. G.

Campbell, Sir E. T.

Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)

Moreing, A. C.

Cartland, J. R. H.

Gunston, Capt. D. W.

Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

Carver, Major W. H.

Guy, J. C. M.

Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)

Cary, R. A.

Hamilton, Sir G. C.

Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hannah, I. C.

Munro, P. M.

Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)

Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

Nail, Sir J.

Channon, H.

Harbord, A.

Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H.

Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

Harvey, G.

Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Christie, J. A.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Clydesdale, Marquess of

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

Palmer, G. E. H.

Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Penny, Sir G.

Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)

Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.

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

Holmes, J. S.

Perkins, W. R. D.

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

Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

Petherick, M.

Courthope, Cot. Sir G. L.

Hopkinson, A.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Craddock, Sir R. H.

Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir R. S.

Pilkington, R.

Critchley, A.

Horsbrugh, Florence

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

Howitt, Dr. A. B.

Porritt, R. W.

Crooke, J. S.

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

Radford, E. A.

Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

Hulbert, N. J.

Raikes, H. V. A. M.

Cross, R. H.

Hume, Sir G. H.

Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

Crowder, J. F. E.

Hunter, T.

Ramsbotham, H.

Cruddas, Col. B.

Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.

Ramsden, Sir E.

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

Jackson, Sir H.

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)

James, Wing-Commander A. W.

Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

Davison, Sir W. H.

Jarvis, Sir J. J.

Ropner, Colonel L.

De Chair, S. S.

Joel, D. J. B.

Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gfn)

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

Denville, Alfred

Keeling, E. H.

Rowlands, G.

Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)

Duggan, H. J.

Kimball, L.

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

Salmon, Sir I.

Spens, W. P.

Wallace, Captain Euan

Salt, E. W.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fyldc)

Ward, Lleut.-col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)

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

Ward, Irene (Wallsend)

Sandys, E. D.

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Waterhouse, Captain C.

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

Wedderburn, H. J. S.

Scott, Lord William

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)

Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forlar)

Sutclifie, H.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

Shepperson, Sir E. W.

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Wise, A. R.

Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Womersley, Sir W. J.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

Young, A. S. L. (Parthk)

Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

Train, Sir J.

Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

Turton, R. H.

Mr. James Stuart and Dr.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Wakefield, W. W.

Morris-Jones.

Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

Walker-Smith, Sir J.

NOES.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke

Grenfell, D. R.

Paling, W.

Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Parker, H. J. H.

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

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

Parkinson, J. A.

Adamson, W. M.

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

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

Hardie, G. D.

Potts, J.

Ammon, C. G.

Harris, Sir P. A.

Price, M. P.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Pritt, D. N.

Banfield, J. W.

Hicks, E. G.

Quibell, J. D.

Barr, J.

Holdsworth, H.

Riley, B.

Batey, J.

Hollins, A.

Ritson, J.

Bellenger, F.

Hopkin, D.

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Benson, G.

Jagger, J.

Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

Bevan, A.

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Rowson, G.

Broad, F. A.

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

Salter, Dr. A.

Bromfield, W.

Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

Seely, Sir H. M.

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

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Sexton, T. M.

Buchanan, G.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphllly)

Shinwell, E.

Burke, W. A.

Kelly, W. T.

Short, A.

Cape, T.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Silverman, S. S.

Charleton, H. C.

Kirby, B. V.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)

Cluse, W. S.

Kirkwood, D.

Smith, Ben (Rotherhlthe)

Cocks, F. S.

Lawson, J. J.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Compton, J.

Leach, W.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Cove, W. G.

Lee, F.

Sorensen, R. W.

Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

Leonard, W.

Stephen, C.

Daggar, G.

Leslie, J. R.

Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

Dalton, H.

Logan, D. G.

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

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

McEntee, V. La T.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

McGhee, H. G.

Thurtle, E.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

McGovern, J.

Tinker, J. J.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

MacLaren, A.

Walkden, A. G.

Day, H.

Maclean, N.

Walker, J.

Dobbie, W.

MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

Watson, W. McL.

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

MacNelll, Weir, L.

Welsh, J. C.

Ede, J. C.

Marklew, E.

Westwood, J.

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Marshall, F.

White, H. Graham

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

Maxton, J.

Whiteley, W.

Foot, D. M.

Milner, Major J.

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Frankel, D.

Montague, F.

Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

Gallacher, W.

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

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Gardner, B. W.

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

Woods, G. S. (Flnsbury)

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Muff, G.

Gibbins, J.

Naylor, T. E.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. Groves and Mr. Mathers.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Milk (Extension of Temporary Provisions) [Money]

Resolution reported,

"That it is expedient—

Resolution agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Mr. Elliot, Sir John Simon, Sir Godfrey Collins, Lieut. -Colonel Colville and Mr. Ramsbotham.

Milk (Extension of Temporary Provisions) Bill,

"to extend with Amendments certain temporary provisions of the Milk Act, 1934,"

presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 57.]

Unemployment (Northern Ireland Agreement) [Money]

Resolution reported,

"That it is expedient—

Resolution agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. W. S. Morrison.

Unemployment (Northern Ireland Agreement) Bill,

"to confirm and give -effect to an agreement made between the Treasury and the Ministry of Finance for Northern Ireland with a view to assimilating the burdens on the Exchequer of the United Kingdom and the Exchequer of Northern Ireland in respect of unemployment,"

presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday next; and to be printed. [Bill 58.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Adjournment

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Captain Margesson. ]

Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.