I want to address a question to the Minister on Sub-section (2). It says:

"Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained as to religious education, the secular instruction to be given to the pupils in every aided secondary school shall, save in so far as may be otherwise provided by the articles of government for the school, be under the control of the governors of the school."

I had an Amendment on the Paper, which was not called and on which I had proposed asking the Minister to define exactly what was meant by the powers granted in this Sub-section. In my opinion it can be read to mean that the governors of the school can if they so desire change the whole character of the school. They can alter the type of the school, if necessary. Will the Minister tell us whether that is so? If it is possible to construe it in this way, I suggest that it means a revolution in the powers given to governors of such schools. I understand that the Minister is to give us an authoritative statement as to these powers.

I think it is essential that we should have a statement on the Clause. It makes a great change in the present situation. At present secular education is under the control of the local education committee. This Clause seems to transfer that power to the managers. You may have control of secular education in the hands of a minority of the governors. I should like the Minister to explain why this change is taking place. There is a good deal of concern about it. It would be useful if the Minister would make a statement as to why the change has been deemed necessary.

I should like to reinforce my hon. Friend's request. In this Clause the whole of the secular instruction comes under the local education authority, with one exception. The secondary schools, where they are aided, are exempt, and the secular instruction there is outside the purview of the local education authority. I should like to inquire why they have been so exempt. One of the fundamentals that have been accepted, in relation to the advance which the Bill envisages, is that secondary schools should be on a level basis and should have an equal status—that the grammar schools, like the technical type and the modern type of school, should have the same status. Here you are exempting aided schools. It is impossible to envisage an aided technical school. Imagination boggles at the idea. The inevitable result will be that the only class exempt in this way will be the aided grammar school. Therefore, in any given area, you will have your county technical school and county modern school, with their curricula of secular instruction decided by the local education authority and the aided secondary school of the grammar school type, with its secular instruction under the control of the governors.

That is bound to lead to differentiation. It is found to lead to an endeavour, in a great many cases, to establish the grammar school as something necessarily superior to the modern and the technical schools. If we encourage them by exempting them in this way, that is the natural course that the governors would seek to follow. They will act independently, whereas all the others will be controlled by the local education authority. This is really inviting an invidious distinction in the secondary school field, as well as encouraging the present superior status which the grammar school type possesses. In the Debates on the White Paper and the Second Reading it was stated that the intention of the Government was to equate these types of secondary school. I should like to hear why this special type of school has been exempted, in respect of secular education, from the jurisdiction of the local education authority.

I wish to address myself particularly to Subsection (2), as I had an Amendment to it on the Paper which was not called. Under Clause 10, the local authorities are required to make a survey of the educational facilities in their area, and under Clause 11 the Minister is to make orders. In connection with this survey, the local authorities will have ascertained what are the requirements, not only of secondary education as a whole, but of the different types of secondary education, and they will have based their requirements on a certain number of modern, grammar and technical schools. This Sub-section places aided secondary schools under the control of the governors. I do not quarrel with that, but we wish for some kind of limitation on their powers to change the character of the school. Having made the survey, and having settled the different types of school, it would be possible for the governors, if they were unfettered, to change its character from modern to grammar or vice versa, which would tend to upset the whole balance of the arrangements made by the local authorities. I should, therefore, like an assurance—while not quarrelling with the control of the governors over aided schools—that some limitation will be placed on their right to change the character of such a school.

We have been talking about the question of control, and I wonder whether the President can give us some information about what it is intended to control. The Bill talks about secular instruction, and I would like to know what is to be included in that instruction. Is it to be obligatory to give teaching and training to young people on the composition and duties of the Armed Forces of the Crown? Is it intended that, as well as training young people for a purely private and selfish living, opportunity is to be given for them to prepare themselves for giving their physique and brains to the service of their fellow countrymen and, if need be, of their country? Will there be opportunity in this secular instruction for training in the arts of seamanship and airmanship and all that they involve? In fact, will there be training and preparation for our young people to be brought up so that they know how to defend their awn country? We all know that at the outbreak of the war there was a serious deficiency in this preparation and training. While we hope that there will never again be the need to defend our own country, yet to be prepared for this purpose is a good insurance in advance. Will this instruction also include training on a miniature rifle range—

Good old Hitler.

We want to know whether these things are to be included in secular instruction of our young people.

In order not to disappoint my hon. Friend, I ought to tell him that I could not undertake to give a reply on the content of education, on this Clause.

The question of control is important and we cannot discuss control without knowing what is to be controlled. That is why I raised the point.

I am sorry to find myself in strong disagreement with my hon. Friend. I agree with his point of view, naturally, because he and I see eye to eye on this matter, but nothing would be more dangerous than to attempt, at this stage of the discussions, to suggest a line to those who will be responsible in this matter. I cannot imagine a better way of defeating the object which my hon. Friend and I have equally in mind than to put the emphasis, as he has done, on certain aspects of training.

I want to raise various points in connection with Subsection (2). It seems to me that this is a dangerous Sub-section and that it goes further than my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Moelwyn Huģhes) suggested. As I read it, all education over the age of 11 becomes a form of secondary education, and schools that have been hitherto elementary schools, run by the different denominations for boys and girls up to 14, 15 or 16, as the case may be, will not henceforth have their secular education under the control of the local authority in the area. In the past, all elementary education, as far as secular education is concerned, has been under the control of the local education authority. This change, by which secondary education will refer to all children over 11, means that the secular education of children in a large number of schools will be removed from the control of the education authority. This is an enormous concession to the denominational schools. Some quid pro quo should have been given for a concession of this kind. It is a dangerous concession, because it may lead to what we see already in a limited number of grammar schools, and what we shall see in all secondary schools in future, that is, indoctrination. We do not have Baptist or Catholic arithmetic, but there is a danger in teaching things like history and civics, that there may be an attempt to indoctrinate the children with a particular view. With all respects to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), I visited his school once and was very impressed by the buildings and so on, but I noticed on the walls portraits of the various rulers of England, and I found to my surprise that Oliver Cromwell and the Common-wealth—

This Debate has strayed a good deal and we cannot go into the curriculum now.

I would like to make the point—

That is exactly what the hon. Gentleman cannot do. When he begins to make a point, and is stopped by the Chair, he cannot go on making it.

May I ask how it is possible to define secular instruction without touching on the curriculum?

It is very difficult, but the curriculum in the main comes at a later stage of the Bill.

There are further points on this Clause. Having made the point that indoctrination is a danger, I would like to ask the Minister whether the Clause will mean, as I have suggested, that secular education in the secondary schools, as well as in the grammar schools, and in denominational schools will be under the control of the denomination and not the local education authority. An important concession has been made to the denominations, and the Committee ought to be clear if that is what the Clause means. Many of us take the view that if public funds are given, there should be full public control in return. We feel that this concession means a departure from that view.

I think it would be useful if I explained the significance of this Clause, as I undertook to do yesterday. In general, I would assure hon. Members that their causes for alarm are, fortunately, rather exaggerated. We are addressing ourselves to a legal instrument, and, as set out in the Bill, the position is as has been rightly observed by hon. Members who have taken part in the Debate. That is to say, that in the case of the aided secondary schools the instrument comes down on the side of secular instruction being in the hands of the governors, save in so far as is provided otherwise by the articles of government. On the other side, in the county schools, there is a similar saving in the articles of government. We, therefore, come to the position that the Bill is so compensated, that in one case the tendency is on one side, and in the other case it is on the other side. I would ask the Committee to consider the position against the background of the speech I made yesterday on the subject of articles of government. The position is governed by the articles of government, and that is why I attach so much importance to the remarks I made yesterday when I put the Committee in possession of the main principles which the Government have in mind, for the government of secondary schools as a whole. I will come to that in a moment but meantime I take up the points which have been made by hon. Members to-day.

Some anxiety has been expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Moelwyn Huģhes) and the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Parker) lest, with the new secondary school world organised—to use the words of the hon. and learned Member—on a level basis, this provision may make some changes which are undesirable. Let me tell them that it is the Government's desire that there shall be, in fact, a broad, universal secondary system which, to all intents and purposes, shall secure equivalence of opportunity. I am expressing to them what is Government policy. They want to know whether the provisions of the Clause render that equivalence of opportunity unreal and illusory. In my opinion, they do not. It has been a remarkable feature of our discussion with the secondary schools hitherto that it was the aided schools, more than any one else, who desire to see general principles adopted for all secondary schools. It has been a remarkable feature of the negotiation that the aided schools themselves desired to see the status and liberty of the county schools assured, as much as the liberty of the aided schools.

Therefore, in view of this broad-minded attitude on the part of the aided schools, while it has been necessary to make what some hon. Members have described as a concession in this Clause, they will see that, really, it is not very much of a concession, because, in the case of the existing grammar schools, secular instruction is under the control of the governors. The Clause simply carries on the existing situation. Let me repeat what I said in my opening remarks; this simply describes the legal position, which carries on, broadly, the existing situation. I must remind hon. Gentlemen—though perhaps they will not have forgotten—of the last words in Clause 16, which lay down that we shall have regard to the manner in which the school has been conducted hitherto. If that provision in the Clause has any significance, it is that we desire to preserve the tradition of the school. If that be so, this is a concession to tradition.

Having got as far as that, I must reassure the Committee that this concession to tradition and to the high standards existing, does not mean that certain schools are to be unduly favoured. I answer that point in the following way: Thanks to the attitude adopted by the aided schools, it will be possible, in my opinion—and I hope I shall not be proved wrong—to produce a statement of general principle covering all secondary schools. I propose to assist the Committee now, by a further description of how I think this will affect secular education. I have been asked by several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), whether the general character of the school can be altered by this, as he regards it, rather alarming provision. In fact, that will not be possible under the development plan, which will be approved by an order of the Minister. The general types of secondary school in an area will be put forward by the authority under the procedure which we have discussed at great length, on the earlier part of the Bill. It will then be approved by the Minister, and the governors will not be able to alter the character of their school, unless by an amendment of the development plan. Therefore, the main fear of hon. Members that this has any great sinister significance is removed.

Hon. Members will want to know whether the governors will have an undue share in regard to secular instruction and whether certain of the alarming tendencies to which the hon. Member for Romford referred, may gather undue way, and run away with the ordinary secular instruction of the pupil. I propose to give, so far as I can, a definition, which we have in mind at present, subject to future negotiation, of the various bounds of responsibility of the local education authority, the governing body and the head teacher—who is, we must not forget, specially mentioned in Clause 16.

Is this to develop what the right hon. Gentleman adumbrated yesterday?

Yes, this is developing what I said yesterday, in the light of this Clause. When I referred to secular instruction in my speech yesterday, I said it would be dealt with more fully on this Clause, and I therefore deferred the further discussion for this Clause, which I shall give now.

Taking the three bodies—or, I must not call them bodies, because the teacher is an individual person and I had better say the three people—who will control this matter, the local authority, the governing body and the head teacher, I will begin by saying that the local education authority, as I see it, will have responsibility for the broad type of education given in the secondary schools, including the aided grammar schools and other aided secondary schools, and its place in the local system, according to the local needs. The broad picture will be governed, so far as I can foresee the future, by the needs of the district and the needs of the children. To develop that point, I would say that I imagine that, if it appeared to the authority that a certain school was particularly good in the higher ranges of scientific or mathematical study, they might agree to a tendency for that school to specialise in that direction, while other schools might specialise in different directions. The governing body would, in our view, have the general direction of the curriculum as actually given from day to day, within the school. The head teacher would have, again in our view, responsibility for the internal organisation of the school, including the discipline that is necessary to keep the pupils applied to their study, and to carry out the curriculum in the sense desired by the governing body.

Would it not be possible under the Clause as now drafted, for the local authority to make over the instrument of government or management, and if that were done, for the managers or the governors to change the character of the individual school? To put it in another way, what comprehensive power would the local education authority have, once the power of secular instruction had passed to the managers or governors of a particular school?

The whole thing would be governed by the instrument, which would be framed according to the principles, which I propose to try to produce at not too distant a date and to let the Committee see. Therefore, if the governors did what is suggested, that would involve the whole machinery of dispute, which would bring in the Minister, who would operate on the principles to which I have already referred. I think the hon. Gentleman's point is fully met.

I was just coming to another aspect of the matter, having described the various spheres of influence of those three types of persons. It has been felt that, in certain areas, there is a danger that the Secretary, or director of education, may fancy himself in certain subjects, or in some branch of study, and may go into a school and, by an obiter dictum, try to direct the secular instruction of that school more, as he would say, according to the wishes of the authority. That sort of interference with the individual life of the school is undesirable. What we have in mind, while not seeking to deprive any worthy person who has educational ideas of opportunities of attempting to influence the education of his area, is that some more formal method of altering the curriculum of a school is desirable. We therefore suggest that, in future, major changes in the curriculum should be brought formally before the local education authority and the governors; and not done in some chance way. I believe that, if that practice is followed, it will be in the interests of all concerned and will fully safeguard the position of the local education authority.

If we can get this sort of principle arranged, hon. Members opposite will see that the only danger to them, of letting the Clause go as it is, is the tendency for the legal instrument to be so drafted that it does not have some regard for the traditions of the past. It does not mean that the legal position destroys the power of the local education authority in the case of the aided secondary school of influencing the curriculum or influencing the type of school. The type of school is laid down by the development plan, and the general lay-out of the curriculum must be a matter for the locality.

The Committee will want to know what chance there is of seeing those principles within a reasonable time. They will rightly say that if these principles are to come in the Greek Kalends there is no great point in my observations. I would like to make this further observation, as the result of a study of yesterday's Debate. I cannot guarantee that the negotiations with the various bodies will be over by a certain date, but I hope they will be. If they are over, I shall attempt to lay a Paper indicating the general principles for the governance of secondary schools, before the Committee has lost sight of the Bill. In view of what I said yesterday about rushing negotiations, I would then if that is not possible, endeavour, on my own responsibility, to set out what I think the lines should be. In either case, I would not be delaying the Committee but doing my best to offer that guidance for which they have been so kind as to ask.

I wish to ask one or two questions on the Clause It is my ambition to see the Bill carried into law but it seems to me amazing that we have reached this stage and are about to pass a Clause which deals with the education of the children of this country in the most formative period of their lives, up to school leaving age, and there is not a single word said so far in regard to anything even remotely like the Amendment in my name, which has not been called—I agree in view of the wisdom and experience of the Chair—dealing with instruction in the work of the Forces. But it must have come to the notice of the two Ministers, and I want to ask them how it is that something of that kind has not been embodied in the Bill at any point. I also wish to ask the Ministers how it is that when they see an Amendment of this kind, which is absolutely fundamental to the safety of the country, they do not approach the Members who have put down such Amendment. I wish to keep in Order if I possibly can.

I am afraid I must tell the hon. and Gallant Member that the Minister could not possibly answer that question.

There are one or two other points about which I want to ask. How does it come that we use in this particular Clause the words "secular instruction"? Am I to understand that "secular" in the Bill means "sceptical of religious truth" and "opposed to religious education"? That is the definition of "secular." I think I am in Order in reminding the Minister that that is so. It also has one other meaning, that is "profane." I also want to know how it is that we are able to use the word "education" when it concerns religion and we are able to use the word with respect to further education, but when it comes to the question of the youth of the country up to school leaving age, we speak of "profane" instruction. I would like to know, and I wish to receive the assistance of the Committee in this, to me, fundamental matter. I believe myself that whatever feelings people may have, in regard to their religious beliefs, deep down in their hearts they must agree that, in some way or other, this so-called secular instruction must include something of the type of training of which I speak. There is much more one could say, and I hope that I will be just in Order when I remind the Committee that this Bill is before us because of the war.

We cannot discuss why the Bill is before us. What is before the Committee is really a rather narrow matter.

I think the Minister's speech has not cleared the air a great deal. Many of us are as interested, as he is, in a school preserving its individuality. I think those who have had experience of some aided schools are bound to admit that the character of a school has followed a pupil into later life, and that something in the tradition of a school has affected such a pupil, not to his disadvantage. The difficulty in which I find myself is this, that while I desire to see the special characteristic of a particular school preserved, I do not want to see the local education authority deprived of its control of secondary education, It seems from the speech of the Minister that what he is proposing to do is something which I thought was impossible, namely, to maintain control and yet preserve that individuality. The question I want to put to him is this: is this to be done by regulation, or what statutory force will there be behind the principles to which he has referred? I do not think that it would be possible for us to say that just a recognition of certain principles will be enough; there must be some instrument that will give power to assure that the standard of education will be maintained under some measure of control, whilst preserving this valuable characteristic—the personality and individuality of the school.

Before we leave this Clause I would like to ask my right hon. Friend again, or plead with him, that we should have these general principles before we part with the Bill. What has happened to-day? We have had what is, I suppose, one of the most important statements made by the President, on this Clause. I am not sure that there is anywhere else in the Bill where we can discuss the broad question of what is supposed to be an advance in equality of opportunity but nobody quite knows what it means. My right hon. Friend said that the broad picture will be governed by the needs of the area; that the governing body will deal with the daily curriculum and the head master with internal administration. That bears very closely on the articles of government mentioned yesterday. He then went on to say that this was to be a part of the development plan and that the Board of Education would issue an Order, I think, and he also referred to the possibility of an amendment that would govern the way in which these schools were to proceed for the remaining years. I beg my right hon. Friend again, as I did on the Second Reading, not to be too rigid about this matter. I am thinking of the head master with a new idea, who wants to develop a new enterprise. We do not want him to be prevented because there is a development plan. We want to see these principles promulgated in broad terms; and before we part with this Bill we should be given a comprehensive statement.

I do not think I need add much to what I have said. I will pay attention to the point put by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay). Perhaps when we have this Paper set out, I can then discuss the question raised by the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer). That raises very wide implications. We do not want to do this by regulations. We want to allow for variety. We want to give an opportunity to hon. Members to take an interest in what is happening.

The right hon. Gentleman in his statement on the functions of the three parties or the three factors in the management of the school, brought us down to the head teacher, and said that the head teacher's responsibility would be for internal administration and discipline, whereas the governing body would be responsible for the general direction of the day-to-day curriculum. I hope that in whatever statement we are to have from him later he will make it clear that the head teacher's advice and ideas will be taken into account by the governing body in their day-to-day direction of the curriculum, because it is from the head master that ideas come as to how the curriculum is to be worked.

Certainly. I mentioned this point yesterday about the desirability of the head teacher meeting the governing body.

I beg to move, in page 18, line 38, after "every," to insert "primary."

I think this Amendment and the next two in the name of the hon. Member stand together.

In these Amendments I wish to make a distinction in practice between the primary schools and the secondary schools, because the Clause describes the practice already in existence in the primary schools, but it does not describe the practice already in existence in the secondary schools. There is a large number of secondary schools, both in England and Wales—the Central Welsh Board schools in Wales, in particular— where the appointment and dismissal of teachers is in the hands of the governing body, and not in the hands of the local education authority. This advantage—and I think most hon. Members will agree with me that it is an advantage—is to be confined to aided schools, whereas the tendency in all county schools, I take it, in spite of what the Minister has said, will be in time to come down to the same level, and for all teachers, from headmaster down to the lowest teacher on the staff, to be appointed by the local education authority, which is very largely out of touch with the school. I am quite certain that the people whose interest is in the aided schools really wish the county schools to have the same advantage as they have, and that the aided school protagonists are as anxious as we are to see that the county schools will be at no disadvantage in regard to the type of staff which will be appointed. Experience has shown that in a secondary school it is possible to appoint teachers to the staff only on the broad general principle of nomination by the headmaster and confirmation by the governors, and not by a general method of the drawing up of a short list by the local education committee and an interview of the candidates after they themselves have already interviewed the local education authority privately. Members of the staffs are often appointed without any reference to the headmaster. You may think that that is impossible. I have known it happen scores of times. It happens now in those schools in Wales and probably in England as well where there is no provision for appointment by the headmaster. My object is to prevent the secondary schools of England and of Wales which are under the old system, and some under the new system, and I think all the grammar schools of England which have not become public schools, from being at a disadvantage in staffing.

Unless this Amendment, or the spirit of it, is accepted, it will be quite clear that in future all teachers who wish to make a mark in their profession will definitely choose to be on the staff of an aided school, and not on the staff of a county school. Already the aided school enjoys the same advantages as the public school, and I want to give the county schools that advantage. That is the only way of getting a democratic standard of education in this country. It is no good talking about the public schools and their prestige: let us put that prestige into the county schools. Let us not endeavour to denigrate the public schools, which have done magnificent work for this country. Under this Bill, we hope there will be chances for the county schools to do magnificent work for this country as well, but I am convinced that unless something is done about the staffing it will be very difficult for that to happen.

I intervene from a point of view contrary to that of my hon. Friend. I do not at all share his attitude on this question. I know the teachers, and I can say quite definitely that in the secondary ranks, particularly amongst secondary assistants, for years the grievance has been that they have not had a chance of being appointed by the local education authorities. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] I know what I am talking about; I am not talking about the headmasters, but about the assistants. The men and women of the secondary schools have a deep sense of grievance that they may be at the mercy either of a headmaster or of a non-elected non-representative body of governors. This raises again a great issue of public policy. Education is a public service: teachers are public servants, not the servants of the headmaster, not the servants even on a non-elected, unrepresentative, irresponsible body of governors. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I mean irresponsible in the sense of not being accountable to anybody—non-democratic, if you like.

The governors are elected.

Hon. Members cannot, on this Amendment, go into the question of whether governors are elected or otherwise.

I was hoping to tell my right hon. Friend on some other Amendment that he would ease the situation very much and make a contribution which would be accepted by the overwhelming mass of the secondary assistants, both men and women, if he would relieve them, as it were, from the fear of headmasters and governors. The secondary assistants want to be directly under the local authority. I do not see why we should be afraid of democracy in this matter. I would rather put up with all the pains and penalties of democracy than with the autocracy of governors and headmasters, working behind the scenes. You have a chance to remedy things when you have elected authorities. I believe profoundly in the power and prestige of local authorities. It would be a splendid thing in Wales if the intermediate system and the county school system were amalgamated. Twenty years ago, I should think, the Bruce Committee recommended that there should be fusion and amalgamation, because it was a bad thing to have two parallel systems in the secondary sphere running in Wales. About twenty years ago, the Bruce Committee recommended this fusion—that there should be the abolition of the privileged, or relatively privileged, intermediate system, and that the intermediate secondary school system should be absorbed in the general municipal secondary school system in Wales. One of the things necessary is that the appointment of headmasters and the appointments of staff should be in the hands of the local elected authorities. They do the duty, under this Bill, of raising the money. They find the capital for the buildings; they—not the governors, or the headmaster, but the public authority—find the salaries of the teachers, and where the responsibility for finding the finance rests I say it should be followed by control over the staffing of the school. I am bound to intervene on this because of the great public principles involved, and because I know that secondary school teachers, thoughout the length and breadth of the land, would appreciate coming more and more under the control of the local authority, so far as their services are concerned.

I rise to support my hon. Friend and not to continue the discussion on democracy. I support the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd) because I do not agree that it is the experience of assistants that they are at the mercy of headmasters. I have a wealth of letters to show the contrary. I want to emphasise once more, as regards the principle of who is to be responsible, whether governors or local authority, for the appointment of teachers, the point that we are still in the dark as to the make-up of these new secondary schools.

I have listened with great attention to the speech of the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd), to whom I always listen with great respect, but I am bound to say that, on this issue, if I held the views that he holds about local education authorities, I should not have put down this Amendment. I should have put down an Amendment to abolish local education authorities. After all, if we are to have local education authorities, and we have taken care under this Bill to ensure that they shall be the larger municipalities of the country, we must trust them with such things as the selection of the appropriate people to conduct these schools, where they pay the whole of the salaries and where no religious test is to be applied to the teachers. I am not sure that we get rid of nepotism and favouritism by removing the appointments from the local education authority and putting them upon a body who cannot be challenged.

I once visited a school in North Wales, and, afterwards, a very responsible official of the Board told me this story. There was an occasion when an assistant mistress was to be appointed. The local Methodist minister was chairman of the managing body. At the commencement of the meeting, he led his brethren and sisters in prayer, pointing out to the Almighty how important the task was that they had to discharge that evening. It is believed that his prayer was answered, for, an hour and a half afterwards, by his casting vote, he appointed his own daughter. If the will to nepotism is there, it can more easily make itself effective on a managing or governing body, than it can when the the appointment has to be made or ratified by the local education authority. There it can be challenged in the open council meeting. I agree that there has been a difficulty in the past that, quite wrongly, on certain occasions and in certain schools of certain authorities, the head teacher has not been consulted on the make-up of his staff. That, obviously, is a thing that must be provided for, in the new articles of government, and, in this Bill, for the first time, we bring in the head teacher and assure him of a place in the scheme of things, because, if he is not to be consulted in regard to the appointment of his staff, it seems to me that the articles of government would be very strongly lacking.

Strongly lacking is one thing, but would the Board of Education reject them?

My right hon. Friend has given an undertaking that the principles on which these articles are to be laid down, will be brought before the Committee, and I do not think we ought to press on every occasion to have the curtain lifted a little higher. I believe that the great majority of local education authorities in this country, who have to deal with this issue, arrange that the appointments in this type of school, where they are entirely responsible for finance, shall be recommended to them by the governing body, who meet in consultation with the headmaster. They can challenge the position, if such instances as have been mentioned occur. I venture to suggest that it would be quite wrong to remove these appointments from the effective control of the local education authority. It is up to them to devise a scheme which shall ensure, in consultation with the management, that the school is adequately staffed, and I believe that the Amendment would, in fact, create a worse situation than that which he proposes to remedy.

I beg to move, in page 18, line 41, to leave out "and dismissal."

This Amendment is to be taken along with another one on line 44, which is consequential.

I just want to say that, as I understand the Amendment, it goes some way to meet certain of the Amendments we have put down.

I beg to move, in page 18, line 44, at the end, to insert:

"and no teacher shall be dismissed except by the authority."

This Amendment as I have said is consequential. It provides that a teacher shall not be dismissed except by the local education authority.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, at the end, to add:

"but the authority shall not unreasonably refuse to comply with any recommendation by the managers or governors of the school as to the dismissal of a teacher and any dispute between the authority and the managers or governors as to such compliance shall be referred to and determined by the Minister."

Whether we like it or not, the Committee have clearly accepted the principle that the local education authority should have the power to dismiss teachers. Nevertheless, my hon. Friends and myself feel that, in certain cases, the Minister should have an overriding authority if the recommendations of the governors concerned are unreasonably turned down by a local education authority. It might well be, from our point of view, that a difficult local education authority might refuse to dismiss a teacher on certain grounds. A teacher might be extremely efficient in his job but, as a result of contact with the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) or with the principles in which he believes, he might suddenly adopt a Communist frame of mind and a Communist outlook on religious matters. It is obvious that, if a teacher found himself in that position, he would be unacceptable to the Catholic authorities. In another instance, a nun might suddenly renounce her vows—while remaining a very efficient teacher. In that case, she would obviously not be acceptable to the Catholic authority and she could not remain in her teaching capacity. There are other cases which will occur to hon. Members, but in the case of disputes we wish to ensure, beyond any shadow of doubt, that my right hon. Friend the Minister would be consulted before such a decision was taken. It may be that the case is covered by Clause 64, but we are advised that there is a little uncertainty on that score, and, in order to make it positively clear, I hope that my right hon. Friend will find it possible to accept the words on the Order Paper. It is obvious that, if such a wrongful dismissal took place, it would have a most unfortunate repercussion on the morale and esprit de corps of the school.

I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has put it wrongly. Not a "wrongful" dismissal.

I have no doubt that the hierarchy of my hon. Friend might take the view that it was a wrongful dismissal, but as the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd) pointed out in a previous discussion, morale and esprit de corps are just as important to these aided schools, as they are to the public schools.

The hon. and gallant Member appears to be making a long and wide speech on a very narrow point.

I apologise to you, Mr. Williams, and I will content myself by moving the Amendment, without any further remarks.

On a point of Order, Mr. Williams. How narrowly do you propose to confine the Debate, and will it not be impossible for hon. Members to discuss these Amendments unless they are given full latitude?

The Amendment to the proposed Amendment was called because there is a doubt whether the point is covered. If the point is covered, as I think it probably is, then obviously we cannot go into the wide implications of that Amendment.

In drafting Clause 64, we endeavoured to ensure that all disputes between governors and the local education authority could be referred to the Minister at the wish of either party.

And teachers?

Clause 64 (1) is quite clear. If there is any doubt whether that particular Clause is sufficient to deal with the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend, we will undertake to look at it, in consultation with him, before we reach Clause 64. We deliberately drafted the Clause in order to make it as wide as possible, and I hope that those advising my hon. and gallant Friend, if they still have any doubts, will enable him to put the point to us privately, so that we can make Clause 64 wide enough, if, in fact, it is not.

I realise that the Minister does not intend to accept the Amendment to the Amendment. I consider that it is very undesirable. I have very many good friends who are Catholics and I hope that they are sensible enough, as far as politics are concerned, not to suggest that any of these teachers should, if they accepted my political views, immediately be recommended for dismissal. I hope that those who represent a particular denomination will never try to act on a basis of that kind.

I was endeavouring, I am afraid rather facetiously, to pay a compliment to the persuasive powers of the hon. Gentleman, and I did not submit that point seriously to the Committee. I moved the Amendment to the Amendment in order to get the assurance which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has been kind enough to give us, and in view of his speech, I shall be glad to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 19, line 8, to leave out "shall make provision," and to insert:

"may make such provision as may be agreed between the local education authority and the managers or governors of the school, or in default of such agreement as may be determined by the Minister."

I hope that the intention of this Amendment is clear and I do not propose to take up the time of the Committee in explaining it. I may be told that, if this proviso is not already under the overriding control of Clause 61 (1), arrangements can be made at a later stage to put it under that control. If that is the Ministerial answer, I do not think it necessary for me to argue at any greater length. If that is not the Ministerial answer, perhaps I might just say that it is clear that the greater the proportion of agreement between the managers or governors and local education authorities, and the headmaster about the composition of the staff of a school, the better. Therefore, the more, not merely the appointments to the staff, but the retention on the staff or dismissal from the staff—the continuing composition of the staff—is made, necessarily, a matter of agreement between the governors and the authority, the more efficiency will there be and the less friction and the less argument. That is the main object of this Amendment. If—as it did not seem to me, not being a lawyer—it is true that Clause 23 (2, a) is really governed by Clause 64 (1) and that that machinery can be invoked under the (a) proviso, then it would be wasting the time of the Committee to argue this any further and wasting the attention of my right hon. Friend to ask him to consider this point; but if that is not so, I hope there will be serious consideration for this point and for assimilating (a) and (b), either by my form of words, or by some other.

I should point out that this Amendment has been selected because it covers the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Brooke)—

In page 19, line 22, after "prohibit" insert "on educational grounds."

and also the Amendment put down by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin)—

In page 19, line 9, after "school" insert "after consultation with the local education authority"

which have not been selected.

I find myself in substantial agreement with the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn). Under the Clause a local authority will have considerable influence, to put it no higher, in securing the dismissal of a teacher, but it appears to have no authority in the appointment, and I agree that that position does leave the way open for considerable friction. Both parties ought to have an equal voice in both the appointment and the dismissal, and therefore I feel that some amendment of these provisions is necessary, or at any rate we ought to have some assurance that the point is covered. I am sure that it must be a bad thing that A should appoint and B should dismiss, because it gives an opening to B to exercise his authority if the appointment is not to his liking.

After consultation with the Chair I was given to understand that it would be in Order to discuss the Amendments standing in my name and the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Colonel A. Evans):

In page 19, line 12, at beginning insert: "(b) shall in the case of a primary school make provision"

and

In page 19, line 18, after "may" insert "in the case of a primary school."

Is that now not the case?

Yes, I think so.

I want to detain the Committee for a minute or two to make one or two points. Our case is that the Clause as drafted lumps elementary and secondary schools together. It re-enacts the existing arrangements for elementary or primary schools, and with that we have no disagreement, but in our opinion it interferes too much with the rights and responsibilities of the governors of secondary schools. We do not dispute that the local authority ought to fix the number of teachers and we feel that it should not be within the powers of the governors to go outside that limit, and we also agree, naturally, that it is the right of the local education authority to insist upon teachers of the right standard and quality. But we do not want the governors to become merely rubber stamps for local education authorities, and as much latitude as possible should be left with the governors in regard to the making of the actual appointments. We submit that the governors are really the best people to judge. In the previous Clause the Minister made provision to prevent injustices by insisting that the local education authority should have a say in the dismissal of teachers, and we feel that the Clause should be so amended as to permit the widest latitude to managements and governors in the actual appointments feeling that they are the best people to judge all the circumstances in their own schools.

I, too, am waiting with great interest to hear what the Government will reply upon this Amendment, because the issue seems to me to be quite a simple one. We want to ensure the best possible co-operation in the exercise of these various powers. The duty of the local authority, I submit, is to ensure that the educational standards of the teachers shall be satisfactory, and it should be for the governors and managers of aided schools to carry out their duties in such a manner as to preserve the kind of character which they desire the school shall have, the kind of character which the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) referred to earlier to-day as that which goes with a pupil for the rest of his life after he has left school, not to his disadvantage. I hope the Government will be able to give us an assurance that these are the two functions which they are contemplating and that there is not to be arbitrary interference by the local authority with the governors or managers of aided schools.

Several points are raised by these Amendments, especially by the one which has been selected by the Chair, and I think that on the whole the Committee would be wise to leave matters as they are. The position is, I think, fairly set out. This hinges on what I was saying earlier on behalf of the Government. Here certain specific points are set out in regard to the appointment of teachers. The proviso says "the rules of management … shall" and the Amendment in the name of the Senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) wishes the word "may" to be inserted instead of "shall" so that agreement may more likely be reached. In our opinion things may perhaps cut the other way. I am addressing myself to the hon. Member's Amendment with an open mind, but it seems to me that it is better here to define the two matters as they are defined in the proviso. If we do not define them I think there is more likelihood of discussion, and possibly dissension, between the governors of such schools and the local education authorities than there would be if those particular definitions are put in. Here, again, the Sub-section is so arranged that the managers and governors can feel themselves safeguarded in regard to the appointment; the local education authority, who, it must be remembered, pay the teachers, are safeguarded in regard to the numbers; and in regard to dismissal, teachers may feel themselves safeguarded against being dismissed simply at the capricious whim of the governors of the school. We have the matter carefully balanced and compensated, and it would be a pity to upset that balance. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment.

He asked about Clause 64 (1). I am advised that this would fall within the purview of that Clause, and we are examining that Clause in order to see that the various references to it which have been made not only to-day but on other days are covered. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Colonel A. Evans) has already been told that before we reach that Clause we shall examine it in the light of these discussions, and I would be glad to do so again in the light of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cambridge University. That being so, I hope that he will not press the Amendment. I will undertake before we reach Clause 64, which is the Clause dealing with disputes, that the hon. Member's point is fully considered.

Will the Minister answer my point about secondary schools and governors? Does he substantially accept the point I was trying to put forward that it is not his intention that governors and managements should develop into rubber stamps for local authorities, but be given as wide latitude as possible, so that while it is the responsibility of the local education authority to prescribe the number and the standards of the teachers the governors shall have as wide latitude as possible in their actual appointment?

Certainly that is the wide conception we have in mind. A good deal of that was referred to in the speech I made earlier to-day.

I should like to thank my right hon. Friend for his assurance, and I apologise to the Carrunittft for taking another half-minute, in order to make sure that I have understood him aright. I understand that if an authority were either prohibiting or requiring the dismissal of a teacher under paragraph (a) of Clause 23, and if that were contrary to the desire of the governors or management, that then such disagreement would be a proper subject-matter for inquiry under Clause 64 (1), or, if that is not so as the Bill is drafted, that care will be taken that that shall be the position before the Bill becomes a statute. If that is clear, I shall beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

That, I think, is absolutely clear.

I beg to move, in page 19, line 27, at the end, to add:

"() No regulation of a local authority or rules of management or articles of government of any school shall provide that a teacher shall be subject to dismissal solely by reason of marriage."

The object of this Amendment is to ensure that no teacher shall be dismissed solely on account of marriage. When my hon. Friends were considering the putting down of this Amendment they felt it would be good tactics if I were asked to move it, my one qualification, alas, being that I am a soured and seared bachelor, broken on the wheel of life. I must confess that since my name has appeared to this Amendment by a study of my letter-mail my prospects seem to have improved, and I now feel like an autumn crocus blooming in the sunshine of feminine favour. I will address myself to lofty moral arguments, for I feel that my right hon. Friend, being an ornament of that great University which the famous Erasmus favoured in ancient times—although he did not drink its beer—would be best pleased by such a course. We have been told recently in speeches that if we are to maintain our position after the war, we must concentrate on quality. If that be true of industry and commerce, it is equally true of education, and we must attempt, by all means to draw the best brains and best ability into the educational field. Take the case of parents who have an exceptionally able girl. They may well hesitate to use their savings month after month and year after year to send that girl to a university and to higher forms of education if they feel that their girl may on marriage have to give up a promising career. That girl may, on the other hand, if she has abilities, find far greater material rewards in industry than in education. From the point of view of the girl herself it is a hard choice to make, if she feels she has a profession before her, to have to give it up on marriage. Surely if we are going to raise our school-leaving age to 15, and subsequently to 16, it is in the interests of the children themselves that they should have experienced teachers.

I pass rapidly to more material arguments. Surely two problems face my right hon. Friend after the war. The first is teachers and the second bricks and mortar. If he is to get teachers he will have to try to keep as many as he possibly can in the profession. If we are going to raise the school-leaving age to 15, and later to 16, and reduce the size of classes to 30, we may need many thousands of teachers. From the last figures available, in 1938 no fewer than 6,500 teachers left the profession, and that not on account of death, old age or illness. If we lost 6,500 a year then, probably that number will be accentuated in the period after the war. I believe the education authorities in London and Manchester already employ married women teachers, and that in London alone there are no fewer than 3,000. I believe that my right hon. Friend, who has been so reasonable during the course of the proceedings on this Bill, will lend a willing ear to our arguments, but I more than suspect that the Treasury may be a little difficult in this connection, fearing that once—

I have listened to the hon. Member on autumn crocuses, and bricks and mortar, but really I cannot listen to him on Treasury matters.

I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Williams. I was only trying to convey a tentative threat that action might be taken in Parliament if some of my right hon. Friends did not concede the wisdom and moderation of our points.

I think that my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment has shown from every point of view that it is wise and right and necessary. I believe that the President of the Board of Education would not only be strengthening the Bill by accepting it but would be meeting the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the people of this country and particularly the parents. My hon. Friend has shown by very strong arguments that the removal of the marriage bar is not only desirable in itself but is also a necessity if we are to be able to recruit sufficient teachers to put this Measure into active operation after the war, with a real reduction in classes. I have heard on good authority that many young women to-day are hesitating to enter this profession because of having to resign on marriage. How much more will this be the case when, as most of us expect, the McNair Committee will recommend a three-year training period instead of the present two-year period? It simply will not be worth while from the financial aspect for young women to enter this profession.

At the present time many schools would not be carrying on at all if it were not for the willing return of thousands of married women teachers. In the days of peace we shall need every teacher we can lay hands on, married or single, full-time workers as well as part-time workers. Part-time work, I believe, is eminently suitable for married women, and I understand it is being encouraged by the Board of Education at the present time. The arguments in favour of the desirability of this Amendment are overwhelming from every point of view—of children, staff and parents. As my hon. Friend has said, the experience of marriage and motherhood are really a great asset in dealing with children, especially young girls. I think it would be very bad indeed for girls in the schools to think that teaching is a celibate profession. A mixed staff of married and single teachers is the most natural and best and would give a feeling of confidence to parents when sending their children to school. It would be just as undesirable, if my hon. Friend will forgive my saying so, to have a school staffed entirely by bachelors as to have one staffed entirely by spinsters.

As far as I can see, there are only two or three arguments which could be advanced against this Amendment. The first is that it would take away from local authorities rights which they have enjoyed for a long time. But surely this is a national matter, and not a local matter. My hon. Friend was ruled out of Order when he wanted to talk about the Treasury disliking this, so I must not mention that again but there is a difficulty with which local authorities will have to deal, when married women, as they should, have babies. They will have to provide proper schemes for confinement, as some local authorities already do. The London County Council have an excellent scheme. The teacher leaves school four weeks before the birth of a child and remains away for 13 weeks afterwards. During that time she is paid half her salary. If a teacher wishes to stay away longer the London County Council allows her to do so up to 12 months—obviously in that case without pay. I understand that this scheme and others are working very satisfactorily at the present time.

This Amendment should be judged by one thing and one thing alone: whether it is in the interests of the children. We believe it is. That being so, it would be absolutely wrong to allow some local authorities to make Regulations which would deprive some children in certain areas of the benefits of what we think is really in their interest and for their good. This question must be settled once and for all by Statute, and I cannot believe that two persons so enlightened as my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education and his Parliamentary Secretary will not be willing to accept the Amendment. If they do accept it, they may be sure it will add further to their stature.

On behalf of my hon. Friends I would like to support this Amendment and to be allowed to congratulate the hon. Lady on the clear and convincing manner in which she put her case. It is very difficult indeed to imagine what the Government reply can be if this Amendment is opposed by them. The Government, through the Minister of Health, have made a most important and solemn pronouncement on the need of doing everything to increase the birthrate, and as my hon. Friend pointed out, surely a practical mother in the school can bring an influence to bear which perhaps might be denied in some instances to a single lady. In addition to that, we have practical examples which operate in wartime. Under the stress of war women are serving in many capacities under the Crown and in munition works of all kinds and in certain cases they have retired temporarily from those activities because of the birth of children. That does not necessarily interfere with the efficient conduct of the establishment where they are engaged. It only means that for a time they are not available to the authorities who employ them. It has been pointed out there is going to be an acute shortage of the right kind of material of both sexes which the Government can draw on for teachers in the immediate after-war years. I doubt, too, whether we can afford to lose this excellent material because some of the teachers follow a course which is natural to nine out of 10 women. Therefore, I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to accept this Amendment.

I want to say a word or two in support of this Amendment. When I look around me I sometimes wonder why women get married at all, but it seems to me that if they take on that responsibility, in certain respects at any rate, they become even more valuable for teaching in schools, particularly in infant schools. One of our gravest problems has to do with domestic science and nutrition. Teachers should develop the greatest understanding of domestic science and nutrition, and association with the kitchen and the work of the home would be of the very greatest value in helping to provide that understanding. Of course, there is the difficulty of these teachers becoming mothers, and it is obvious that a teacher who is a mother engaged in the process of rearing a child will have her time taken up to a considerable extent in that way. I cannot help feeling, however, that while there would be considerable disadvantages in having a home and a husband to look after, those disadvantages are outweighed by the greater knowledge and experience in connection with domestic science and the care of children possessed by married women.

Then, of course, there is the question of principle. How is it that men can get married and keep their jobs, while women are supposed to look after the home? When a woman gets married there is no suggestion that she should keep her job and the husband do the work at home. It is a wrong attitude. It goes right back to the time when a woman was considered to be blindly subject to her husband. It goes back to the old period when in the Army women were classed as bag and baggage. I think that, when we are considering an Education Bill that is so far reaching in its character, we should strike out completely the old tradition of the inferiority of women and the idea that certain tasks ought to be allotted to women as theirs and theirs alone, that all the time they must be more or less subject to the male animal. We should take this opportunity of saying that married women should be treated in the same way as married men as far as jobs in the schools are concerned.

I will not keep the Committee more than a minute—or at any rate not more than five minutes. I have heard many people get up and say they will not detain the House for more than a second and then go on for two hours. I cannot believe that the Minister will not accept this Amendment. It is not necessary for me to go into all the reasons why we should give married women their chance. The primary things the Government and the country want in teachers are character and ability. Some women's characters are improved by matrimony, and some are not. It is quite obvious that some are embittered by marriage. That is obvious to anybody. The real point is that we have now come to an age when the country says we must have the best brains and best ability and best character. That, we know, does not depend on matrimony, it is something inside the individual, so I hope the Committee will not detain the Minister a second longer and will let him get up and say that naturally they are going to do the right and proper thing, as they so often do when pressed.

The fact that I rise now should not prevent others from joining in our discussion, but the Government have come to the conclusion, and it is reinforced by the Debate to-day, that they should take action on the lines suggested in this Amendment. The time has come when this matter should be considered nationally. At present, as the Committee know, it is decided locally, and there is a variety of practice. If the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment will not press me to accept his wording at this stage, for various reasons which I will give him, the Government will undertake to include at the next stage an Amendment which will provide that a teacher shall not be dismissable solely on grounds of marriage. I have to make certain researches. The hon. Member who spoke was pulled up for making reference to certain other authorities involved. This question is not one of extreme simplicity, and it is necessary for me to carry the matter a little further before I can actually lay down the terms of the Amendment which I will place on the Order Paper. But I would like to say that the Amendment, and the spirit in which it has been moved, have the entire approval of the Government at the present time.

We cannot, of course, follow the discursive and attractive arguments which have been used in the course of our short Debate. I would like simply to say to the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment that it is a source of some anxiety to his friends that he should be engaged in so wide a correspondence with married women teachers. We hope that, as a result, some gay widow may come his way to solace his declining years. The position as put forward from the opposite side by the hon. Member who contributes so frequently and so brightly to our Debates, is also accepted by the Government, namely, that there is no reason, in our view, why women should be treated in this matter differently from the men who serve in the school. He is quite right in saying that we have at present a very great need of teachers, and we shall have for many years ahead. There is also no doubt whatever, as has been said, that women, and married women especially, will be most valuable in the great age range of the educational facilities we now have to offer ranging from two right up through the adolescent sphere to the age of 18, and whether in the very young, adolescent, or intermediate sphere, it will be most valuable to have a mixed staff in a school, because there are many problems in which the married woman may well be able to help and give friendly and sensible advice. I do not think I need trouble the Committee now with the technical points. It is a fact that the McNair Committee, as has been mentioned, will be reporting, I hope now before very long. I hope I shall have time to examine their views before I actually frame the final Amendment. I should like to look at this question against the general background of the views of the country for teachers in the future.

I would like to conclude by paying a tribute to the many married women who have served the country as teachers in the schools. Many of them have come into the schools after having been teachers there before, and have literally saved the day for us, because in some schools the teaching position is so tight that we are only just able to carry on. I should like to thank those older women who have returned, as well as those younger ones whose husbands may be fighting abroad, for the work they have done in the schools in war-time. It is their example which has caused the Government to make this change in policy; it is their example which should fortify those who go into the schools in future. I will only conclude by saying that all notable Amendments to Education Bills are moved by those with double-barrelled names—you have only to look at the history of Education Bills to see that this is true, especially in religious matters. I must, therefore, congratulate the hon. Member and his friends for their support.

I beg to move, in page 19, line 27, at the end, to add:

"(3) Notwithstanding any of the foregoing provisions of this section, or any other enactment, the dismissal of a teacher employed in any school or college maintained or assisted by a local education authority shall not take effect nor shall the authority give their consent to such dismissal, unless and until the teacher has been given a full opportunity of making representations to and of being heard, either in person or by a representative, by the authority, except where the managers or governors of any such school are expressly empowered by this Act to dismiss teachers without the consent of the authority, and the rules of management or articles of government shall provide accordingly."

This Amendment deals with the security of tenure of teachers. I must emphasise how very keenly the National Union of Teachers and, indeed, all teachers, feel about this question of tenure. They seem to think, and I agree with them, that there is a weakening in regard to security of tenure as compared with the last Act, and I will only occupy the Committee for a very short time to show the sort of thing that we are anxious to avoid. In the case of reserved teachers, the security of tenure may be very much threatened. It may well be that, having been found not quite acceptable by the managers of the school, teachers may be dismissed. All we ask for is that the decision should go back to the authority for their approval before the teacher is dismissed. I should like to use the word "removed" instead of "dismissed" because, in many of these schools, where the teachers fail to satisfy the managers, they can be turned adrift. We want to see now that that dismissal shall be submitted to the local authority, and the teacher concerned shall have the right of appeal or a hearing, or, if necessary, be represented at this hearing. You may, for instance, have a very enterprising headmaster who decides that a certain teacher is not modern enough and under this they can dismiss the teacher and look round for a younger and more useful person. It may be that there are many cases of these square pegs in round holes, but that is no reason why they should be removed altogether, and the local education authority might transfer that teacher to another position where he or she would fit in.

The Amendment provides that the teachers shall have at least an equal right to that which they have in the existing Act. If there is anything that is going to make this Bill work more smoothly than anything else, it is a contented profession, but you will not get that if they have this sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. Therefore I beg the Minister to see there is put into this Bill some safeguard that the teachers may be heard and represented. I myself hope that if there are many of these distressing cases of dismissal, we shall have at the Board itself a court to which appeal can be made in the case of any dispute between the local authorities and the teachers themselves, because I think it would be very helpful indeed.

I would like to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend and I hope that the Government will be able to accept it. I want to keep on insisting that the teacher is a public servant, and it is not only in the interests of the teachers but also of the education service itself that teachers should be safeguarded against arbitrary dismissal. If there are such cases, then that sours the whole of the teaching service and is very bad for education too. The Amendment does not involve any interference at all with the ultimate right of the local education authority; it leaves that exactly as it is now, and does not take from the local authority any of the power at present possessed. I think myself that the right this would confer upon teachers would prevent arbitrary dismissal and, indeed, the right in itself would minimise any use that might require to be made of it. I gather from those who are intimate with this problem—and I know my hon. Friend opposite will agree—that the National Union of Teachers has had large experience as far as the tenure of teachers is concerned. I understand that since 1902 most education authorities have adopted reasonable procedure enabling the teachers to be heard. Therefore, we are only trying to gather up into a Statute what has been the continuous and increasing practice of local education authorities since 1902.

I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree when I say that the dismissal of the teacher is something more than the mere "sack." If a teacher is dismissed, it is an extremely serious business. His whole career has gone; he cannot walk about from pit to pit or from factory to factory and pick up a job. His superannuation rights are involved and, from a professional point of view, dismissal to a teacher means professional condemnation. Hence it does seem to me, as a matter of public policy, that teachers should be given an opportunity of being heard either personally or through their representative. I notice that Sir Percival Sharp, the distinguished editor of "Education," had an article called "The Teachers' Safe-guards" in the official journal of the authorities of 7th January, 1944, in which he said:

"Notwithstanding the evident intention of the Bill to give reasonable security of tenure to the teacher, power is given to the managers to dismiss a reserved teacher or any teacher in an aided school 'for reasons relating to religious instruction.' No machinery of appeal is provided for the teacher: no remedy for dismissal where 'reasons relating to the religious instruction' may, as they have on occasion in the past, afford a colourable pretext for what in fact may be an arbitrary dismissal. Agreed, that the teacher should be required to do the reserved work for which he has been appointed and dismissal should follow incompetence or negligence. But to place the power of dismissal of thousands of teachers—servants of the State paid by the State—in the hands of bodies of managers without appeal to the courts, to the local authority or to the Board of Education is bad public policy."

That is carrying my argument a little bit further, but I hope the Minister will find himself in a position to accept this Amendment. As I said, it does not impinge upon the power of local authorities, but it will give that security of tenure in the public service which I believe is good for that service, not only in the interests of the teacher himself or herself, but in the general interests of the service. I think it is a good thing that in every way possible tenure should be strengthened.

I wish to support the Amendment, and I want to draw attention to what I think is its importance in this case. The teacher is very much at the mercy both of the central and the local authority, and if this protection is afforded by this Amendment—which I hope it will be—he will get a rather better status and will be in a rather more secure position than he otherwise would be. I have a large proportion of teachers in my constituency and I can assure the Committee, from the correspondence I have had, that there is a great deal of unrest among them. We are aware at all the universities that the teaching profession does not attract our best university graduates as it used to do and that is a great misfortune, because teaching ought to be the most attractive of all professions.

As I have just said, teachers are at the mercy of two authorities. Let me give a simple example. During the last two years the opening of schools in holiday periods has been required by the joint action of central and local authorities—a very foolish requirement, as I characterise it, and one which is to be enforced again this year, as a Parliamentary answer to me indicates. This opening of the schools was carried out, completely regardless of the convenience of teachers. Extraordinary things happened. I have letters in my possession which show that teachers were called upon to attend children at the schools, not for educational purposes but as dry-nurses, looking after the children while their parents were otherwise occupied. Quite frequently, there were more teachers present than children and the exasperation of the teachers in those circumstances can well be imagined. It is that kind of thing which accounts for a good deal of the dissatisfaction which undoubtedly exists among teachers to-day.

I hope we can convince teachers that Parliament is anxious to give them that status and standing which would prevent, or at any rate help to prevent, actions of that kind in the future. I hope the Committee will accept this Amendment, because it has a bearing on our future supply of teachers. Where are we to get 100,000 new teachers if the whole profession is utterly discontented with present conditions? This Bill will take a long time to put into operation if you cannot get the teachers to carry out its provisions. It is quite useless to make suggestions if there is nobody to carry them out. Parliament must make our teachers more contented, satisfied, and willing to take an active part in the running of their schools. If they do not, then the scholars will suffer.

I think the hon. Member for London University (Sir E. Graham-Little) has given an altogether distorted view of the present feelings of the teaching profession. It is true that, like the rest of us, they have had to suffer some inconveniences in war-time, and that they have expressed their feelings with regard to some of those inconveniences with some strength. But the spirit with which they have acted throughout, shows that, after enjoying the Englishman's privilege of grumbling, they have gone on with the job and have recognised that in these days one has to make the best of things. There are one or two reasons which make it diffi- cult for the Government to accept this Amendment. In the first place, the teacher is a servant of the local education authority. We have secured that his dismissal shall be in their hands, and it seems difficult to argue that he should be put in a superior position to other servants of the local education authority who enjoy the same status, salary and general conditions. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) hinted that this was not a very widespread problem at the moment, because a large number of local education authorities—I should imagine the majority of counties and county boroughs which will be the local education authorities in the future—do, in fact, operate some such provision as this at the moment.

I suggest that the practice may be followed, with regard to secondary schools, that a provision of this kind will appear in the articles of government. I know it appears in the articles of government of my own authority and that in that way the position is amply safeguarded. I would point out, too, that the drafting of this Amendment—and I am not suggesting that this is the sole reason why it should not be accepted—would place us in a rather difficult position, because it would give a local education authority the duty of determining disputes between teachers and the governing authority of the schools in the case of any school which happened to be assisted by the local education authority. A mere grant of £50 to a school would confer on the local education authority the responsibility of adjudicating in disputes between the staff of the school and the governing body. I am quite sure that my hon. Friend did not mean that any such thing as that ought to happen. I hope the Committee will feel that the Government recognise it as desirable that this kind of machinery should be employed; that local education authorities should make provision, not merely for teachers but for other members of their staffs, whereby, in a case of dismissal, it may be certain that the education authority knows the point of view of the employee, as well as of the body of governors or the senior official who may be recommending the dismissal of the employee.

A civil servant has a chance of hearing the case against him and he has the right to be heard. I want to make sure that all teachers get that same right of appeal, as they have in Scotland, where they can appeal, even to the Ministry itself.

I had hoped that I had answered that point. Frankly, I do not think you could confer such a right on only one branch of local government service, and certainly this Bill is not the place in which we could extend the right of all local government servants, as I think they should be extended, and as, in practice, I have always endeavoured to get it extended. There is great difficulty in conceding the Amendment in the form in which it is drafted. The Government, however, view the working of the principle of the Amendment with the utmost sympathy. What is said in this Assembly is occasionally studied in local government circles and when future articles of government are being drafted, I have no doubt that the views expressed here to-day will be borne in mind.

I must confess to a feeling of disappointment with my hon. Friend's reply. He seemed to think that the teacher was at present sufficiently safeguarded, because the right of dismissal rested with the local education authority. What the Amendment proposes—and we are not committed to a particular form of words—is that the local education authority should really be in a position to know the case of the teacher, so that he might be able to put it himself, or have it put through his representative. We are told that in practice many of the more enlightened authorities already allow this procedure. We propose that the less enlightened should be brought up to their standard. Another argument used by my hon. Friend was that this would put the teacher in a superior position, presumably because other local government servants have not this right. But you have to begin somewhere, and it would set a good example to begin here. It would make it easier for extension if you were to begin by taking a step of this kind now. Some of the enlightened authorities which give the privilege to their teachers already give it to other employees.

I hope my hon. Friend will reconsider the matter and say that he is prepared to accept the principle of the Amendment and to consider later a form of words which would overcome the particular drafting difficulties he raised. He said that this was a matter to be put into articles of government, but, as I understand it, that will benefit only the teachers of secondary schools. What about the teachers in other schools? I am anxious to break down the barriers between one section of teachers and another. They have done infinite harm to education in the past and now, when we are extending secondary education to all from the age of 11, here is an opportunity of breaking down those barriers between primary, secondary and other teachers.

I would like to join in the appeal made to the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider this matter with a view to the possibility of inserting in the Bill, at a later stage, some provision which will secure the principle which he wishes to see established by all local education authorities, and by all governors of secondary schools. My hon. Friend said that it would not be suitable to put a provision of this kind into an Education Bill, but surely that is the place for it. The teacher is not in the position of other local government servants. He is in a special position; he is partly under the local authority, and part of his salary is borne by national funds. The dismissal of a teacher, as has been said, is far more serious than the dismissal of a coal miner, or a clerk or someone who can easily get, with his qualifications, another job. If a teacher is dismissed by the local education authority, it is extremely difficult for him to find alternative employment. Therefore the penalty is more serious in that case. It is very encouraging to know that the Government's view is that it is desirable that opportunities should be given, as they are already given by good education authorities, for safeguarding the rights of teachers and securing them against any kind of arbitrary dismissal, but it would surely be far better that we should secure in the structure of the Act the principle which the Minister himself acknowledges.

I am also very disappointed with the reply that we have had. It is all very well for the Government to give their sympathy to the proposal, but what the teachers want is not sympathy but action which will remove a well-founded injustice, it may be in exceptional cases but in cases where it does occur that the teacher gets dismissed without any reason, as the result of which a stigma attaches to him which may seriously damage his career. I cannot see why the hon. Gentleman cannot follow the practice of the Civil Service and the Services, where an officer has a right of seeing an adverse report. Surely such a scheme should be brought into an Education Bill in order that injustice may be avoided.

I beg to move, in page 19, line 29, to leave out "the school day".

I think it would be convenient to discuss this and the two following Amendments together.

This and the following Amendment would make the Clause read:

"In every county school and in every auxiliary school facilities shall be given for each school day to begin with a collective act of worship."

The very greatest importance has been attached by large numbers of those who are most deeply interested in education to this Clause which, as it stands, provides that every school day shall begin with a collective act of worship. I think there has been, on the part of many, a very great misunderstanding of the existing position, because it is already the all but universal practice in council schools for the day to begin with a collective act of worship. But it has not been made a statutory duty, and I believe we should be making a mistake, from the point of view of the State and of religion, if we attempted to enforce upon school authorities as a statutory duty something which, in its essence, no Parliament and no external authority can enforce. You cannot say by Act of Parliament, "You shall worship." You can say, and I believe you ought to say by Act of Parliament, "There shall be the fullest facilities for worship." The State ought to make it possible for Worship to take place in every school and give every convenience and every encouragement but, it is a higher authority than the State—

The hon. Member says the State must make it possible for the schools to provide facilities for worship. Would it not be better if my hon. Friend considered the question from the point of view of the children rather than the teachers? What I am anxious to ensure is that every child shall have the opportunity of daily collective worship provided and I think the schools should be compelled to provide that opportunity.

The act of worship is an interior thing which cannot be enforced by an external authority. Nebuchadnezzar can issue his decrees and see that the trumpets, psalteries, dulcimers and stringed instruments are sounded, and can order people to fall down before the brazen image, but he cannot compel the act of worship. No Parliament and no authority can compel it. It is a mistake, I think, for Parliament to pass an Act which seems to assume that we can compel an act of worship, but we can give facilities for it. I believe it will make the greatest difference in the way in which this provision, with the intention of which I sympathise, is carried out by teachers, if it is understood that this act on the part of the teachers is a voluntary act, that facilities are required, but that the act of worship itself is a holy and a wonderful thing which cannot be enforced by Act of Parliament, but must spring from the free act of those who take part in it. I value immensely the idea that the school day should begin with a collective act of worship, but I want it to be true, and it cannot be that if the teachers feel that this is something imposed arbitrarily by an outside authority. They ought to be invited to co-operate in this very great service to their school, and I believe they will joyfully respond in almost all cases to an appeal to take the opportunity that is given when these facilities are provided, but we ought not to enforce it upon the teacher, We must leave freedom of conscience to him, and make it perfectly clear in the wording of the Act. I am aware that there is provision elsewhere and it is not intended that anyone should be compelled to join in an act of worship which is contrary to his conscience, but we should be making a great mistake if we endeavoured to secure in the wording of the Bill the enforcement of an act which must in its nature be the result of the inward consent of those who take part in it.

I beg the hon. Gentleman, for whose faith and sincerity I have the deepest respect, not to think of the teachers but to think of the children. It seems to me that the attitude that the State takes up on the Bill—I think the right one—is that the teachers should be bound to provide opportunities for the children to take part in this act of worship. We are not considering the teacher's act of worship, but the opportunity for the children to take part in an act of worship. The children are in the hands of the teacher while they are in school, and the Clause lays it down that the teacher shall be bound to give them this opportunity.

I want the opportunity.

I support the Amendment. I agree entirely that, when it comes to a question of religious worship, we must really stand for the greatest freedom for the teacher, and incidentally for the children. I think it is very unfair to suggest, as the Clause seems to do, that a corporate act of worship is not almost universal in the schools. I do not know of any school where the day does not begin with such an act of worship. It has all the greater value in my opinion because it is entirely voluntary. It is the desire of the teachers that they should begin in this way, and I think we should be introducing a very dangerous principle, if we attempted to enforce upon the teachers that they shall do what they are only too glad and too willing to do in a really voluntary spirit.

I put my name to the Amendment because the hon. Member, as it seems to me, has used such happy wording. He has put it into very simple words. It has been put about that a large number of children are completely irreligious and that this is due to the schools. I have made inquiries of a number of friends who are headmasters and directors of education, many of them members of the Church of England. One of them said that this was absolutely brand new. He went so far as to say "organised blasphemy." He said, "We have had in every school for years a corporate act of worship. Now we are being asked to do this because the Bill says so." I firmly believe that the growth of ignorance, if there is such a growth, about questions relating to the historical facts behind the Bible, and general knowledge of the Christian faith, is due not to the school but to things that happen outside the school. There is a strong feeling that by enforcing a thing in school, yon are not doing a good service to the Church itself. That is held very widely. It seems to me that the Amendment gives the spirit every chance, but does not resort to enforcement. That is the spirit in which the corporate act of worship, which I strongly favour in both primary and secondary schools, has been carried out throughout the country. If we want it to grow, this is not the way to make it grow. When my right hon. Friend had his preliminary discussions with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other leaders of the Churches some time ago, and they pressed him on a number of points—religious instruction, the corporate act of worship, and so on—I hoped he would display the same attitude which he did at the beginning, but he gave them most of the points for which they asked. If there had been a movement started within the Church, as there was at Winchester through Canon Spencer Leeson and others within the Nonconformist Churches, and it had spread as a voluntary movement, that would have been a fine thing; but to go to the Board and ask the President to put compulsion in the Act, is not a way to secure the growth of what my hon. Friend the mover of the Amendment wishes.

My hon. Friend has raised an interesting aspect of this question, and he will excuse me for interrupting. The deputation to which he referred and which I received a long time ago, was entirely representative of the Free Churches and the Anglican Church, and it was the most representative deputation ever received by a President of the Board.

I knew that it was a combined deputation, and said so, but it would have been much better if they had not pressed for compulsory points but had continued with the growth, which I thought was then promising, for a religious revival among the Churches, that is, for a combination of the Churches.

I want to support the Amendment, although for a reason which may shock my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Mr. Harvey). My hon. Friend and I have very little in common politically, but we have the one thing in common that we were educated at the same school, where, for many years, the day has always commenced with a compulsory act of public worship. It is a Quaker school controlled by the Society of Friends, and all the pupils, whatever their denominations, are compelled to attend. My hon. Friend may regard me as a backslider from the education I received, because I happen to sit on this side of the Committee. The fact that the daily act of worship in that school was compulsory, produced an effect opposite to that intended by the governors. There was an element of ridicule, which developed somewhat rapidly among the scholars, at the number of times they were compelled to attend compulsory religious observances. That does not mean that I oppose the idea of schools beginning their day with an act of worship, but I feel that my hon. Friend is on the right lines in the Amendment. In fact, I wish he had impressed his views on the governors of my school years ago. It would have been beneficial to me and others.

I agree with the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) that this sort of thing is going on at present satisfactorily, and is probably developing, but if we put it in the Statute, it will produce the opposite effect to that intended. I have been impressed by the number of letters I have received on this subject from my constituents. The vast majority of them support the arguments of the hon. Member for the English Universities. If only for that reason, I hope that my right hon. Friend will be prepared to give the Amendment careful consideration. Perhaps, if he is unable to give a definite reply to-day, he will not close his mind to the views which have been put forward, but will defer consideration until the Report stage.

This Amendment concerns very closely not only the Church of England and the Nonconformist body, but certain sections in the Nonconformist body itself. It may be news to the Minister that all Nonconformists are not of the same opinion on this matter. Some are very much nearer the Church of England point of view than they are to the views of my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Mr. Harvey). I should like to make it clear that not one of those people who agree with me objects to the act of religious worship in schools. Indeed, we welcome it and think that it is a great advance in the pure education of the country and an essential part of life. I should, however, be much more pleased with the change in the attitude towards public worship if I believed that it corresponded to a change of heart in the country. I am not convinced that it does correspond at all to a change of heart in the country. I said that there is a division among Nonconformists themselves on this matter and it is only right that a minority opinion, which on this one point would probably be in agreement with the rationalists and materialists, should have due recognition. There are, roughly, two points of view on religious observance. The first is what I may call without offence the priestly view, that religious observance can be beneficial, without relation to the attitude towards religion of those people who are taking part in it.

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that this view is taken by priests?

It is not a view taken only by priests necessarily. The other point of view, which I am trying to put forward, is that we believe that religious worship should never be observed by any kind of compulsion, whether legal or social. We do not believe in religious observance as a form of higher education or as something to be done from ethical or moral motives. We believe that the only priest and the only celebrant should be the person himself, guided by the inner light of conscience. Two conditions should be fulfilled before we can accept an act of worship in the schools. The first is that the headmaster or whoever conducts it should do it because he choses to do so, because he wants to do so, and because he feels in his conscience that he should do so. The second is that the parents of the children should desire it. There is no doubt that this Bill satisfies the second condition, but there is no satisfaction of the first. There is nothing to guarantee that an atheist headmaster with an atheist staff will not conduct public worship in school.

You may have an atheist clergyman conducting services.

I agree with my hon. Friend that you could have an atheist clergyman conducting a service, but it would not be known that he was an atheist, except to his own God. A worse thing than having an atheist headmaster conducting a service, is to have a headmaster whom the children can, by no stretch of imagination, associate with anything spiritual. It would be a tragedy for a child to have his early life contorted and distorted by such conditions. I hope that my right hon. Friend will do something to meet the objections which my hon. Friend and others have put forward to this Clause.

The Committee will have been seized with the gravity of the question which we are now approaching. There are other aspects of it to be considered on this Clause. My hon. Friend the Member for the Combined Universities (Mr. Harvey) has tried his hand with great skill at redrafting the opening portion of the Clause. When the Government were considering this important matter, they also tried their hand at different forms of drafts, and they came to the conclusion in the end, although they bore in mind most of the arguments that have been raised, that the Clause was better drafted in this way. I think that my hon. Friend's drafting leaves the matter rather too vague to satisfy the vast number of interests who have been in communication with the Government on this matter. My hon. Friend, who spoke with great sincerity, and who had the advantage of the influence of the Quaker educational background, of which we all have a great opinion, said that he received many letters. I can assure him that I am speaking after contact with some major interests in this country, and that they represent the point of view not only of the Free Churches, but of the Anglican community. I believe it to be their view that a Clause drafted in this manner is the best way of approaching this question. If my hon. Friend were right in saying that this was a compulsory act of worship, I should be inclined to take his view, but the later provisions of the Clause indicate that a parent who desires his children not to join in this act of worship, is not obliged to cause the children to attend. There- fore, it is not a compulsory act of worship, or a compulsory church parade, as some people imagine. It is a collective act of worship which carries on the present practice.

I should like the Committee and the country to realise that this is the practice in almost every school of the country. It is perfectly right for those who have spoken, including the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay), to say that there is a great deal of nonsense talked about schools being God-less and about there being no worship or religious instruction. In fact, within the limits of what we have been able to achieve, the schools are doing great work in this field, but it is absolutely right for me, as the Minister in charge, to say that the schools, although they can play their part, cannot do everything.

The great part of the responsibility for this religious worship or instruction must fall on the denomination, or on the parents themselves in the family circle, and what the schools can do is to help with this vital part of a child's upbringing. In framing the Bill, which the Committee will observe is a massive one, the Government have, all the time, taken into consideration the pros and cons, as they affect different great bodies of persons in this country. In my opinion, there is a vast body of persons who desire to see a Clause like this in an Act of Parliament. The Bill is a great advance in the history of our country and is one of great weight and value. I have explained that this act of worship is not compulsory, and that to have used alternative words would have made the situation rather too vague for me to be able to satisfy all those who are interested in this matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will, therefore, not press his Amendment. I guarantee that, if I had had any brain wave as to a better method of framing the Clause, I would have been only too glad to go to my hon. Friend and make a suggestion.

In spite of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, we must remember that we are dealing with one of the most serious aspects of the Bill. I hope he will not be offended if I state, quite frankly, that the religious content of the Bill is much bigger and fuller than the education content. I do not want to exaggerate, but the Bill can be described pretty fairly as a Bill for the endowment of compulsory religious teaching throughout the whole State system of education. Not only does it do that, but it preserves and extends religious denominational teaching through the schools. This is a revolution in British educational history. There is no shadow of doubt about it. Hitherto, as I have understood it, the State has kept outside the religious field in the schools of our country. [Interruption]. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas) will have his opportunity later. Religious teaching has gone on, and it is untrue to say, as the right bon. Gentleman has just agreed, that our council schools are Godless schools. A collective act of worship has been carried on in almost all the schools of the country, but now it will be compulsory; the State enters into it. I do not know what the repercussions and the reactions will be, but I am afraid they may not be what hon. Members opposite desire them to be. I am not so sure that they will be in the interest of religious feeling and religious opinion and belief. I am not so sure that State compulsion will lead in the direction which hon. Members opposite desire. It is possible to make religious teaching very unpopular.

I am not quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman and Members behind him are taking the right line. May I say to my hon. Friends here that I have watched for many months a discussion of this issue in all the religious papers? I have in my pocket the first of the documents issued by the Conservative Central Advisory Committee on Education, in relation to this matter, and I would advise hon. Members to read it. It is the most brilliant exposition of the Conservative point of view relating to education that I have ever read. Indeed, I will give it this, that it is the best document that I have read for a long time about the meaning, content and purpose of education. I could quote from religious papers and from this document, to what effect? To this effect: that religion is being used, or hoped to be used, as a sanction for reactionary social policy.

Where? In the Common Wealth Party?

Hon. Members have to be careful. I may be wrong but I want to say to my friends in the Church of England in particular that if religious teaching is to be approached from any political angle at all, it is a most dangerous approach to make. Involved in compulsory State religious teaching the Bill carries with it also State compulsion for the act of religious worship, as well as compulsion for religious instruction and compulsion for inspection. The Board of Education comes in, and will send an inspector around. We do not know what troubles there may be. Indeed, I do not know what adverse reaction may occur in connection with religious instruction in schools.

On a point of Order. Is it not a fact that we are not discussing religious instruction, but an act of worship?

I have been following the hon. Member's argument very closely and I cannot see that he has been out of Order in anything he has said so far.

In the interests of religious teaching in the schools, one wants, I feel, to cement the motive and purpose in the Measure, particularly in these times through which we are passing and those through which we shall have to pass when the war is over. I, therefore, say, let religious teaching in the schools be free from State compulsion. Let the State, as a State, keep out of it. Let religion flourish on the basis of the voluntary attitude towards it. Let religion, in other words, win its own way, by the power of religion. I hope that the hon. Member will stand firm by his Amendment. This is a vital issue. If he will stand firm by his Amendment, I for one, in the interests of religion itself, and in the interests of the unity of the State—[Interruption.] I have been brought up a Nonconformist. I have not been brought up under any totalitarian and regimented system of worship. Like my hon. Friend, I stand by it and believe in it. We believe that religious teaching in the schools should be voluntary. Give it every facility certainly, and let the State provide facilities for the development of religious knowledge, emotion and feeling; but do not, I beg hon. Members, bring the State in, to establish compulsion for any act of religious worship in the schools of this country.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) has brought me into the discussion, I should like to make clear the position of myself and those with whom I am associated. He has misconceived the position, as usual. I would like to say that speaking for the Nonconformists in this Debate he is not a very good advertisement for the spirit of Christian charity which ought to prevail among us. I would rather listen to the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd). Those with whom I am associated agree to a large extent, in being anxious to preserve the right of parents to bring up their own children in their own faith, and I am most anxious that no-one should be compelled to attend religious worship or undergo religious instruction in which he did not believe. That right is safeguarded by the right of withdrawal in the Bill; but I do not want to enter into the major question. I will only say that, so far as I know, this provision has not been put in at the instance of the Church of England. I have in my hand a paper headed "A Methodist statement on the Education Bill." One sentence in it is this:

"It is also gratifying to know that in future, the fundamentals of the Christian faith will be recognised in all schools, in daily acts of worship and in regular instruction."

I agree with the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) that the State should keep outside the field of religion, but I do not believe with him that that would be in the interests of religion. It is obvious that religion has had to force itself on the State, or force the State to come in, to give it some hope of survival. That is why these Clauses are in the Bill. I understand the difficulties of the Minister, but I do not agree with the hon. Member for Aberavon when he says that the Bill is simply an endowment of the denominations. I have read the White Paper with some care. I consider that the Bill is a great Measure and makes a fine approach to education, but the problem of the act of religious worship comes in, and it is very difficult to get away from it.

What is actually meant by this act of worship? The hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd) spoke of "the priestly attitude" to this matter. It is a very unfortunate way of putting it. It seems to me that the Catholics' attitude is that religion should penetrate everything they do in the schools, and that this act of worship, at some period of the school day, means nothing to them by itself, and is simply an act of heresy. The Evangelical Christian, of whom there are many in this country, believes in carrying the spirit with him in all that he sees and does and everything he learns and teaches. An act of worship, by itself, means nothing to him and is mere folly and humbug. Hon. Members will find that the Evangelical Christian is not interested in an act of worship by itself.

I think the hon. Member is going too far. The only question before the Committee is whether or not a certain time every day should be allotted to an act of worship in the schools.

I am dealing with the act of worship which has been suggested by the Amendment. I would point out that I am not traversing anything like the ground which was traversed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon, who dealt very widely with religious education. I am concerned with the Amendment. It is necessary to understand what an act of worship is for, and what it represents. It does not represent the Catholic, it does not represent the Evangelical Christian, it does not represent those who believe that education should be kept apart from religion altogether and that the State should not interfere in religion at all. So that it is simply between the Catholics, the Evangelical Christians, and those who believe in the State having nothing to do with religion on one side, and the main force of the Established Church of this country on the other. Their desire is not to help on education but to establish more firmly, if possible, the Established Church in this country. I think that this situation, in view of the very large number of people in this country, the majority of people in this country who are not interested in an act of worship by itself—no Catholic would dare to get up and tell me that he, or any other Catholic, is interested in this act of worship by itself.

I can get up and say that quite definitely, as far as the vast majority of Catholics in this country are concerned.

It is the first time that I have heard from a Catholic source, that any Catholic would accept education with only an act of worship of this kind at the beginning or end of the day.

That is what I say.

I am speaking about what Catholics believe as far as education is concerned. I am talking of their beliefs so far as education is concerned, that a mere act of worship, by itself, means nothing, that religion means accompanying and penetrating all the education that goes on in the school.

Could the hon. Member say from where he gets all his information about the religious views of the Roman Catholic people?

From reading Catholic literature and from my close association with Catholics.

I must ask the hon. Member to address the Chair.

I am sorry, Sir Lambert. The point I want to make is that surely there are very large numbers of people in this country who are not concerned with an act of worship, as such, by itself. I know the difficult position of the Minister. I know the obstacles that stand in the way of getting a balance, but, at the same time, I believe that he could accept this Amendment. It is not only cleverly phrased, as has been said, but it is delicately phrased. I think he could accept this Amendment and make the situation, as far as the act of worship is concerned, as free as it is possible to make it in the existing circumstances. I would not, in any circumstances, make this particular question a means of holding up or hindering the Bill because I believe that the Bill is very valuable, but I would certainly urge acceptance of the Amendment.

In view of the statement which the hon. Member has made, which seams to represent a general opinion, that he would not use this as a method of delaying the Bill, I must say one or two serious words more on this matter. The position is that we have been arguing for a long time in a very good spirit and with great sincerity an Amendment which suggests that there shall be facilities for religious worship. It is a slight variation from what is in the Bill. I have explained why the Government cannot accept these words and I believe that the reasons I have given are valid. I have also explained that the child of a parent who does not wish it to attend this worship, need not do so. Therefore, the speeches made about this being compulsory and totalitarian are grossly out of place. I would ask then are we to go on for a long time on this point? If so, my patience is inexhaustible, and I try to maintain an equable temperament throughout, but I would point out that this is a small issue and there is a great deal of the Bill still to come. I must appeal to the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Harvey) to say whether he wants to pursue this matter. If he thinks there is great virtue in his wording I suggest he should come and speak to me again, but I cannot take away from the fact that there are a great many, including representatives of the Free Churches, the Established Church and other denominations, who do attach importance to this. This Bill is a whole. Certain sections occasionally like to have a little foray on their own. They had a little foray yesterday against the Bill. They must remember that in a Bill of this character, there are points here and there that one may or may not like. I believe that this is a point which some hon. Members do not like and other hon. Members do like. This is a free country and a free Committee. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) and others who feel on these matters, have certainly had their say, but they must realise that there are great bodies of opinion who feel the other way. As Minister I am impartial on this, as on many other matters, but I want to get on with my Bill. I believe we can do so best by adhering to my words, but if other people want to take other action they are entitled to advocate it. I appeal to the Committee to proceed with the Bill on the present lines.

The Minister has just made a reference to me and to some of my hon. Friends and has described us as having had a foray yesterday. We are as anxious as the Minister is to further the interests of education, but we are saddled with a duty just as much as he is, of watching with the very greatest care every word which is going into this Bill. Whatever discussions may have taken place outside cannot be represented here. We have our duty as Members of Parliament, and this Bill is coming before Parliament and not before any body or any representative bodies outside. Therefore we are entitled to express opinions. The Minister has made excellent progress yesterday and he is making good progress to-day, and may I point out, this is not a small issue. This is a major issue. The one question is, Shall a certain portion of the school day be devoted to an act of worship?

May I say, in answer to certain taunts which have been thrown out at the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), that these taunts rather surprise me? Religion is a matter for the private individual and his own conscience. If there is one thing of which we are eminently proud in this country, it is our freedom to exercise our own religious conscience in our own way. What we object to, and what we are anxious to point out is that we recognise the sincerity of those who hold a different opinion from us, but we ask them to recognise that we too have a conscience. We are making no claims—[Interruption]. The point is, Shall this time be devoted compulsorily or not? [HON. MEMBERS: "It is not compulsion."]

If hon. Members will bear with me a moment, there is freedom given to the children, at the request of the parent, but there is no such freedom given to the teacher. The word is "shall." I am very anxious not to take up time. What I was hoping was that, having put this Amendment forward, in the spirit in which we have put it forward, raising no controversial issues which we can possibly avoid, our point should be met. I remember sitting in the gallery of another place in 1902 when these questions were being discussed with much greater fierceness than is the case to-day. We are anxious to avoid that spirit. What I was hoping the Minister would say was that, between now and the Report stage, he would consider referring the matter to further talks between himself and the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Harvey). Could he give us this assurance, that he will consider this most sympathetically? He has said himself that he is anxious to get words that will satisfy us all. If these words are too vague, then might I make this appeal: that between now and the Report stage he will give real consideration to the matter which disturbs us, that is the word "shall" and compulsion, and take away that compulsion and give us freedom in our schools?

I cannot understand the speech we have just heard. It seems to me to be based on an utterly unreal picture of the position as it will obtain if this Clause goes through. I have taken great interest in this matter ever since the publication of the White Paper. I have had large meetings in my constituency. I have met a great many people of a great many different sects, and if there is one feature in this Bill which is more popular than any other it is the actual Clause we are discussing today. I venture to say that if you could have a plebiscite of parents to-day 95 per cent. would vote for that Clause as it stands, with the word "shall" and not the word "may," because even those parents who take the somewhat unusual position which our hon. Friends do, and who are in a very small minority, know that there is an adequate safeguard in this Bill to prevent their children from being forced to attend an act of worship which is repugnant to the conscience of the parents concerned. It is quite wrong to talk about this matter as though this were a totalitarian State, forcing wretched little children to go to some form of worship to which their parents objected.

I never said anything of the kind. I do not know why hon. Member should put words into my mouth.

Other hon. Members have used the word "totalitarian," and the hon. and learned Member certainly gave the impression of agreeing with those people whole-heartedly. If he does not wish to give that impression, he should make it clear and dissociate himself from the remarks of some hon. Members behind him. This question of "shall" or "may" is one of the most vital things in the whole of this Bill. It represents not something that has been brought up at a late date but a feeling which has been steadily growing in this country for the last ten or fifteen years, and which was brought to a head almost immediately on the outbreak of war by the widespread feeling that the teaching in the schools in this country—only on this aspect I am referring to—was not all that it should be.

My right hon. Friend the Minister has already said that these accusations about Godless schools are very largely unfounded. He has also said that it is the regular thing now, in 99 per cent. of the schools, for this to be done voluntarily. Therefore, my hon. Friend is not quite in accord with existing facts.

My hon. Friend misunderstood me. I am not referring to what has been said about Godless schools, but to a general feeling that a more spiritual view must be taken of education if it is to achieve the objects we all want it to achieve. It is no argument to say that my right hon. Friend has already denied the accusations of Godless schools. I quite agree, but that does not take away from the fact. Read the literature, go to parents' meetings: it is an absolutely universal belief that the education of this country must be built on a firmer spiritual basis; and, for that reason, this Clause is one of the most popular Clauses in the Bill. I hope that the Government will stand firm on the wording in the Bill.

I shall not detain the Committee for more than a few minutes, but I feel strongly moved to say a few words about this Clause from a point of view which I think has not been so far put. I do not represent anybody at all except myself. [An HON. MEMBER: "And your constituents."] And my constituents. But on this matter, no doubt, my constituents are not unanimous, and I am not sure that I agree with what the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Colegate) said about there being practically 100 per cent. support for this Clause among the people generally. But that obviously is a subjective matter. There are no statistics—

The hon. Member's mistake is perhaps pardonable, but we are not discussing the whole Clause. We are discussing only the first three Amendments to the Clause.

With respect, I agree that we are discussing the first three Amendments, and I feel bound to say why I support the Amendments. I support them partly because I do not think that the Clause as it stands will achieve the effect which it sets out to achieve. I was saying that I represent nobody but myself and some of my constituents; but I speak as a member of the Church of England, as a church-warden, and as a manager of a Church school, and I do not think that the compulsory act of corporate worship every day will be conducive to the interests of true religion. I think it is far more likely to be one step in the process, which has been going on in recent years, of developing a kind of "national religion" in this country comparable to the German Christianity which has been developed in Nazi Germany.

This is a very important thing. I am responsible for the schools of the country, with the local authorities. This practice is universal at present. Am I to take it that that leads to German Christianity? I know the hon. Member does not want me to lead him into paths which he does not wish to enter, but he will see the tenor of his remarks. We are discussing something which is going on already.

You are now, in this Bill, making it statutory. I do not want to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman himself. I know that nothing could be further from his thoughts or wishes, but I think that this has been the drift in recent years, and that the Bill, as it is worded, will encourage that tendency. If I may use the language of the Thirty-nine Articles, I think it is much more likely not to serve true religion at all but to make of it "a blasphemous fable and a dangerous deceit." I must also support the Amendments because it is particularly the duty of Church people to do all they can to safeguard freedom of conscience. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will enlighten us on this, but I am not sure that the situation could not arise in which a sincerely agnostic teacher was obliged to conduct an act of corporate worship. I should be glad if he could tell us that that could not happen in any circumstances. If it could happen in any circumstances, that makes another reason why I feel bound to support these Amendments.

In his recent brief intervention, the right hon. Gentleman used a phrase which was somewhat ambiguous. He said that there is the safeguard that "the child of any parent who wishes to" can withdraw from these acts of corporate worship. I presume that he meant only if the parent wishes it, because that is what the Bill says. He did not mean if the child wishes it. But it seems to me—and this is not a frivolous point by any means—that an intelligent, forward boy or girl of 15 or 16 has begun to think for himself about religion, and might take a different point of view from that taken by his parents, and I think that he should be allowed to do so. For these reasons—with apologies for detaining the Committee so long—I feel bound to record my conviction that Church people, as well as others, should support the Amendments.

I think it would be to the utmost advantage of the education of this country if the Minister would adhere to the terms of the Bill. We are all agreed in this country now that there is no salvation in secular education. There is no power in it. Only religion can do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There is no doubt about that.

We are not all agreed about it.

There are some indifferent persons who think otherwise; but I am talking about the commonsense, ordinary people. I speak, as I have said here before, as a Methodist of four generations, trained in the schools, and I think it is a seemly thing to say grace before meat. I think it is a seemly and—

The hon. Member must not discuss religion as a whole. The only question before the Committee at present is whether a certain amount of time should be allotted every day for a corporate act of worship.

That is my point. The time of the meal is fixed; that is why we have the grace. The time of opening the school is fixed, and the time for a corporate act of worship ought to be at the beginning of the school, as the first definite act of the day. We ought to show, by symbol and sign, that we put it first. I could make a long speech, and a very good one, on this point. I hope the Minister will stick to it, and see that the Bill, as it is, is carried.

I am very surprised that the Minister should say that the leading representatives of so many powerful interests attach so much importance to getting compulsion for something which is 99.5 per cent. practised at the moment. I am a little anxious whether it is not timidity and lack of self-confidence which have caused them to insist on this, because they are wondering whether in 20 years' time they will not be in need of this compulsion, feeling that the 99.5 per cent. may by then have become only 90 per cent. or 75 per cent. We are at a crisis point in the affairs of the world, and the truths of Christianity have to be interpreted to keep abreast of the times. I get a little afraid when I see people asking for compulsory powers which can be used as a substitute for keeping the practice running. Therefore, I think the Amendments ought to be accepted.

I appreciate the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman replied to these Amendments, but I believe that he has not realised how vitally important it is to many of us that the State should not attempt to compel an act of worship. That is the whole essence of the matter. We want to see the freest and fullest facilities given for worship; but once you enact, by Act of Parliament, that an act of worship shall be compulsory, you have done something which is against the interests of religion itself. On that account I cannot withdraw this Amendment unless my right hon. Friend is able to say that, after consultation—and I realise that he has been in touch with very important interests outside—he will give us some other opportunity to consider either this or some other form of words as an alternative to the Clause as it is drafted. He has gone a long way to get the greatest measure of unity in the Committee, and I honour him for that. We all want to avoid Divisions on this Bill. I do not want the Committee to divide, but I must divide it if I cannot get any prospect of the kind I have asked for, because it is a matter of principle which concerns both the whole country and the interests of religion itself.

The next Amendment I select is the one standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Brooke), and I would like to suggest that it might be convenient for the Committee if that Amendment and the next one in the name of the same hon. Member were discussed together.

On a point of Order. Am I to understand that the Amendment in my name, which follows the two Amendments just mentioned—

In page 19, line 33, at end, to insert: "with the exception that no denominational instruction shall be imparted to any pupil at a primary school and that at such schools reli- gious instruction will be limited to the accepted Christian principles of truth, honesty, kindness, clean living and self-respect"—

will be included in the general discussion on those Amendments?

Yes, that may be included in the general discussion on these two Amendments.

I beg to move, in page 19, line 31, to leave out "a collective act of," and to insert "collective."

This Amendment, and that which immediately follows it, will not, I am glad to say, raise any of the religious issues which were involved in our last discussion. They deal with a comparatively small adminis- trative point, and my hon. Friends and I desire to clarify the Bill in this respect. If hon. Members will look at the Clause, they will see that it imposes a complete obligation on the authorities to arrange for a collective act of worship on the part of all pupils, where that can be done, but there is a proviso which says that, where that cannot be done—where, for instance, only nine-tenths of the pupils can be got into the school hall—there shall then be no obligation whatever. There is no obligation to do the best possible for the greatest number of pupils and these two Amendments are designed to fill that gap. They are designed to make it plain that the obligation is for collective worship on the part of all pupils, and that the arrangements shall be such that the act of worship shall be a single one for all the pupils, if the school premises so permit. The issue is quite simple, and I very much hope that the Government will be willing to clarify the position in this respect.

Although the point that I wish to make is not strictly in accord with that just mentioned by the hon. Member opposite, it does, to some extent, follow the view he has sought to express. I am forced to the view contained in my Amendment not from any anti-religious attitude whatever, as I am sure hon. Members will agree, but because of my own experience in my own childhood. I found that at the age of say, five to 11, the primary stage of the school curriculum, I learned without complete understanding. I was given a certain number of denominational or dogmatic teachings to absorb which never percolated beyond, so to speak, my outer mind. The tongue became cognisant of what I was taught, but my mind never absorbed it, and I felt that it was a waste of effort and a waste of education, on the part of those trying to instruct me, to fit into a non-receptive mind teachings which that mind was not capable of properly understanding or absorbing. Therefore, I put in the Amendment my view that no denominational teaching should be given during the primary stage of education. This is the character-forming period of life, and the time for teaching the Christian virtues of truth, honesty and self-respect, and I believe and hope that the Minister may see his way to agree with me that, once you may have formed character at that impressionable age of from five to 11, then you can, with sincerity and convic- tion, super-impose the denominational teaching which would follow in the secondary stage. I feel so strongly about this because I feel it would be in the best interests of the country as a whole, and certainly would not hinder the Christian development of our teaching.

I do not think it would be very helpful to the Committee if I followed the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) into some of the delightful by-paths into which he has attempted to lure me; because we shall be discussing the kind of issue he raises on other parts of the Bill, and I think it would be preferable if I postponed any remarks I have to offer until that time, although, in view of their delicacy, I sincerely hope my right hon. Friend will be walking down the avenue with me. With regard to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Brooke), it does help us in a difficulty that inevitably presented itself when a decision was taken that a collective act of worship should take place. Many of the archaic Church schools of the country are so constructed that it is really impossible to have the collective act of worship in any circumstances consistent with reverence, and therefore, while we do provide one way out, we think the way provided by the hon. Member for West Lewisham is better, whereby the principle of the collective act of worship is retained and it is left to the authorities of the school to see that it is carried out in the most reverent way that is practicable in all the circumstances. For that reason, I have to accept the two Amendments which have been mentioned:

I beg to move, in page 20, line 9, after "to," to insert "attend religious worship or to."

This Amendment is really for the removal of doubt. The words in the Clause are "receive religious instruction." There may be certain cases where it is desired that children who are withdrawn from religious instruction in the school for religious denominational instruction outside should go to church during one of those periods. I know that a case like that is provided for, if it is a recognised day of worship. Under Clause 37 there are no penalties imposed against a child being absent from school

"on any day exclusively set apart for religious observance by the religious body to which the parent belongs."

So far so good. It is a natural course for the vicar, or whoever is giving the denominational religious instruction, to desire, on an occasional day, that the children should go to church. Then the local education authority may be faced with the difficulty of deciding whether they are allowed to release the children for that purpose. I would not have bothered the Committee on the point if that precise difficulty had not arisen in the past, and if it were not the case that dispute is possible between school managers and the local education authority on this point. My hon. Friends and myself think it would be well to remove this doubt by the insertion here of a definite reference to religious worship, extending the existing words of the Clause "receive religious instruction." I hope that the Government will be able to help us in this matter.

The Government have no doubt that the point that my hon. Friend wishes to have cleared up is already provided for. In future, if there should be a dispute between the managers or governors and the local education authority with regard to the matter, it will go to the Board for decision, on the application of the managers. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will not feel it necessary to press the Amendment, because it might have one effect to which he has not alluded. You cannot, every morning, have some children absenting themselves from the collective act of worship in order that they might attend a service in a church or some other building. We have been appealed to by religious leaders to arrange this collective act of worship, so that the day shall start with the whole school in unison making its approach to the tasks of the day. I cannot help thinking that it would be very undesirable to make provision, whereby that collective act could really break out into a series of acts in separate places of worship, with the children having their collective act away from the school, and possibly the Salvation Army children being led back to school by the band, and thus exercising a proselytising influence on behalf of that body, which would be most unfair.

We thoroughly agree with the Parliamentary Secretary. We do not want that kind of service at the beginning of the school day. We want collective worship to be truly collective. The Parliamentary Secretary has assured me that it is a matter on which an appeal would lie, if necessary, by managers to the Board, and I hope that I am right in understanding that, if an appeal was made, the Board would not be unsympathetic to the considerations I have put before the Committee. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

There is one point in this Clause which, I hope, the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will think over, to see whether amendment of it might not be desirable on the Report stage. In Sub-section (3) the power to withdraw from the act of religious worship is given exclusively to the parents of the child, and not to the child. The Churches agree that a child of at least from 14 or 15 upwards is able to make a serious decision on religion in deciding whether it should be a candidate for confirmation or not. I believe that the Catholic Church puts the age of confirmation even lower. You might have a case in which a child, after reaching a certain age, arrived at a conscientious and reasonable decision against attending worship, but yet the parents might be utterly out of sympathy with that decision. Is it desirable to force such a child to an act of worship to which he has a genuine conscientious objection? This will have to be administered very carefully with safeguards, otherwise many children in school who wanted to go out to play, would discover that they had a conscience on this particular matter. One would only wish to make such an exception if the headmaster were genuinely convinced that the objection of the child was serious and well-founded, based on reason and not on some desire to enjoy or absent himself. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will consider this point, and, if it is considered practicable to meet consciences in that way, he will perhaps introduce an Amendment on the Report stage.

The very point which has been brought up by my hon. Friend the Member for East Fulham (Mr. Astor) was the reason why I abstained from voting in the recent Division. This is a very serious matter. If a boy or girl decided that he or she did not want to attend this act of collective worship, and the parents forced attendance, it might have a terrible effect on the child hereafter and drive it completely away from any religion at all. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will consider this point and see whether, later on, something cannot be done to meet it. It is indeed a very important point; mothers of sons realise it only too well.

I rise to support the spirit of the last two speeches. This indicates the direction in which we may go once we have compulsion. It is a very serious step for a strong supporter of this Bill to divide against it. I hope that the Committee realise that we have now, in this Clause, imposed the equivalent of a religious test on the children of this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We have built into the school structure of England a new religion.

On a point of Order. Is not the hon. Gentlemen misleading the Committee? He has distinctly said on more than one occasion that they have freedom of conscience, to go wherever they choose.

That is not a point of Order.

I will not pursue that, except to say that I have not found, in speaking at meetings all over the country, an overwhelming opinion in favour of it. Therefore, I hope that we shall not continue to have the imposition of something which appears to come from a hierarchy and which I cannot find acceptable to the great mass of the people.

I have a certain sympathy with hon. Members who have brought up this point, but I would suggest to them that they are thinking of this act of collective worship rather in the form of some doctrinal teaching. What we understand is that this collective act of worship is not to take the form of appearing to impose any doctrine on the children who attend it. In the case in point, do not let us go too far into this question of individual responsibility. It is not fair to allow a child of 14 to saddle himself or herself with so serious a responsibility as that of deciding to abstain from a collective act of worship which does not involve any doctrinal teaching at all. I remember that in my school days there were many things to which I objected, and I am most thankful now I was taught many of the things to which I then objected. I am certain in that spirit, in which everyone concerned approaches this question of opening the school day with a collective act of worship, there is nothing which would offend a child, who, at that early age, had become so advanced an agnostic as to wish to be excused, in spite of its parents, from this act of worship. If we were to allow this, we should be acting against Amendment after Amendment and Clause after Clause in this Bill, which ask that attention should be paid to the wishes of the parents. How can you bring in a Bill and say that one of the most important things in education is to have due regard to the wishes of the parents, and yet, on so fundamental a thing as joining in a collective act of worship, you say that the parents' wishes shall be disregarded?

I wish to express my view that attention should be paid to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fulham (Mr. Astor). This is, obviously, an extremely difficult question for Parliament to handle at all. The hon. Member made the remark that a child might not want to go there because he might want to go somewhere to enjoy himself, as if a child should not enjoy this collective act of worship. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Colegate) seemed to be moving from side to side on a kind of knife edge, between an ethical act and a religious act. I will not detain the Committee with the complications involved there, but I believe that the point raised by the hon. Member for East Fulham should be looked into, though, frankly, I do not envy my right hon. Friend's task in attempting to come to a decision on this matter.

There are two highly important points on which a few words must be said before we pass this Clause. One is that we are here enacting an act of worship and religious instruction in all schools and we are making no mention in the Bill that we normally intend this to be Christian worship. It would satisfy the minds and allay the fears of a great number of people in this country, if the word "Christian" were inserted, either in this Clause, or in the interpretation Clause, with such obviously necessary safeguards as will be required for Jewish schools and others, which are definitely understood to be non-Christian schools. This insertion is the right way of safeguarding our plans against the kind of danger to which attention was called by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay), who supposed that some new kind of State religion would emerge from this legislation. If the word "Christian" were inserted in the proper place, it would then be clear beyond all doubt that Parliament intended the act of worship and religious instruction in schools to be in accordance with the views of the Christian Churches of this country.

Christianity is not practised in this country.

How does the hon. Member know? It is, more than in any other country in the world.

Christianity is something greater than any one denomination in this country. My second point is that there has been nothing said as to the applicability of this Clause to boarding schools. In the Bill we are planning for the extension of boarding schools, but here we are making provision based wholly on the day school. I should have liked the Minister to say he would introduce regulations showing how the parents' wishes were to be safeguarded in the case of boarding schools. When we come to the Clause dealing with special schools the Minister definitely proposes to make regulations.

Is this in Order? The hon. Member is opening a wide question.

We are left entirely in doubt as to how the Board will adapt the Clause to boarding schools. The Clause speaks of the beginning of a school day. That obviously applies to week-days. We have not thought in terms of Sundays. We have not thought out whether, in the case of these new county boarding schools, every parent is to have the right to say that his child shall or shall not go to whichever church or chapel they wish on a Sunday.

This is getting wide of the question. I must ask the hon. Member to leave out the question of Sunday.

Then I will confine myself to this. The Clause is fitted into denominational views and Free Church views as to the nature of the religious instruction to be given in day schools. The Free Church view is that that should be undenominational, and that the Churches themselves should add to it their own instruction, out of school-time, through their Sunday schools, to attach their children to their own worshipping communities. All that, of course, becomes quite different when the child is entirely under the control of the school authority—that is the local education authority—throughout the week, Sundays included. That is why I say we ought not to pass this Clause without asking for some statement from the Government as to their intentions.

Is my hon. Friend acquainted with the camp schools now set up in this country, where children go voluntarily and willingly to the church on Sunday without any compulsion at all? It is one of the most wonderful things that have happened.

I am well aware of what is happening in camp schools, and I am not sure that some things that are happening in camp schools are not against the law.

I will deal first with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Fulham (Mr. Astor) and the hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor). We recognise that there is this difficulty about senior pupils in secondary schools. They, of course, have been there up to the present, and where religious instruction has been given in the schools this problem has already been dealt with and, as far as I know, has never given rise to any practical difficulties. But inasmuch as religious instruction will now be made compulsory, and as one of the reasons put forward and pressed by the Churches was the fact that too frequently there was no religious instruction in upper forms in secondary schools, we shall have to examine this point with care. We will do so between now and the Report stage. I do not want to tread on some of the coats that have been trailed so provokingly in front of me and behind me. This is a very difficult point to deal with, and I should hate it to be thought that I was dealing with it flippantly or facetiously. I had the honour, with my right hon. Friend, of receiving the great deputation which came to us from all the evangelical religious bodies of the country. My own denomination and the Roman Catholics were not represented, but apart from that I think we had the full range of Christian opinion in this country represented. The deputation was led by the then Archbishop of Canterbury, with the present Archbishop, other Bishops and the great leaders of the Free Churches accompanying him, and they asked us for certain things.

My experience is not that of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay). I have addressed a considerable number of meetings and I have had to explain the Archbishops' five points. Of course there are some people who see the word "Archbishops" and do not trouble to read any more. With those people I cannot argue. But I have never had, at any meeting I have addressed, any objection raised to the provision in this Clause either as to the collective act of worship or compulsory religious instruction. There is, I think, a general recognition that even if parents themselves have in the course of life encountered difficulties that have led them into doubts and into hesitations, they do desire that their children shall have a grounding in the principles of the Christian faith as it ought to be practised in this counry. I do not believe there is the opposition to this part of the Bill that has been suggested in some of the speeches. Neither do I think there is any justification for those people who, on the other side, tend to sneer—I do not apply this to the hon. Member for Klmarnock, but to some of the people he quoted—at what we proposed to do in the schools and call it a school religion. It is something far better, far wider than that, as is shown by the general adhesion of the Churches to the various agreed syllabuses in the country.

In fact there really is among the worshipping communities in the country a very wide measure of agreement that this is not something special but does represent the things on which, fortunately, we can unite. I hope we shall postpone as long as possible the introduction to the child mind of those things on which we unfortunately differ. Most of them, let us be thankful, are beyond the comprehension of the child mind. The hon. Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Brooke) asked me a question about the boarding school. This Clause relates only to the school meeting as a school. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock pointed out, what is known to every one who has been associated with the camp school movement, that, in the usual British way of tolerance and good sense, in the camp schools this problem has solved itself, and I am quite sure that if it is left as far as possible to the professional teachers to arrange, their standard of professional honour is such that they will neither inflict on a child any religious intolerance, nor neglect the legitimate desire of any parents. It may be necessary that there should be regulations framed, but I would hope that we should be allowed to profit by the rich experiences we are gaining at the moment before we attempt to set into regulations some of those things which, after all, in their final working do not depend upon regulations but upon the recognition by the professional teacher of the position he is placed in, in honour, to the children who are committed to his care.

I want to ask the Minister, before the Clause is passed, if he would consider re-drafting it and making the system contracting-in instead of contracting-out. That is the system which applies to the trade union movement—to contract-in and not to contract-out. I say this because I know the very great difficulties that confront parents and children when contracting-out. It is very, very difficult to put a child in the position where it has to contract-out. As I listen to some of the products of the collective act of worship, I am the more concerned to get this considered. On one occasion an old lady offered to pray for me, but before I could thank her, a Tory Christian said, "You are wasting your time, that man is damned to all eternity." I would say, after listening to the self-appointed passengers to paradise here to-day, that I can view my own woeful position, my own predestined damnation, unperturbed and with equanimity. I cannot see, from anything said here, that the act of worship has been of any benefit in producing anything in the nature of a spirit that is helpful to the speakers. Our education should produce citizens who will be helpful, in the real sense, to their fellows, and I am sure we have not got that on the other side of the Committee, no matter how many acts of worship they have made.

I would like to say one word in strong support of the plea made by the hon. Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Brooke) that the word "Christian" should be inserted in the Clause. There is a great deal of anxiety in the country because Christianity is not emphasised; it is always "religion." That is a very broad term, but this is a Christian country and we ought to have the word "Christian" inserted. There is another anxiety, and that is that the word "Bible" does not appear. I am hopeful it will be possible at a later stage to do something in that direction as well.

I beg to move, in page 21, line 1, to leave out "secondary."

The Minister has set us a magnificent example throughout the various stages of the Bill, in urging us to clear our minds of prejudices, and address ourselves objectively to what we are really trying to do. I would like to reinforce this plea. This is an Amendment which might give rise to that historical prejudice of which we want to see as little as possible in our future arrangements for the welfare of the children. It deals with a very narrow class of schools. In Clause 24 we are continuing arrangements, which have been the law of the land for some time, that parents whose children go to county schools but who desire those children to receive denominational instruction, or some kind of instruction different from that which is available to them in the schools, have a right to withdraw their children for that purpose in order that the instruction may be given elsewhere. Now the Government have inserted this proviso in Clause 25 in order to make allowance for a new situation that has arisen. We were building these new senior schools—or secondary schools as we are to call them in future—to which senior children from a number of what used to be called elementary schools were drawn. Some of those elementary schools were Church schools, and a difficulty was clearly going to arise if those children were moved from a village Church school to a splendid new county senior school which stood by itself out in the fields, so that there was no place to which parents could exercise the right of withdrawal. Therefore, it is provided in the Clause that where a school is so situated that the arrangements under Clause 24 would be nullified through there being no other convenient premises to which the children can be withdrawn, in that limited class of case denominational instruction may be given on the school premises.

But the Clause, as drafted, confines this to secondary schools, and my submission is that there is a question of principle here, and that there should be no differentiation between secondary schools and primary schools in the matter. We have to look ahead. We had to make this new arrangement for the new types of secondary schools that were being built. My anticipation is that there will be new types of primary schools built in the future. At present, all the camp schools and boarding schools are secondary schools, and therefore get the benefit of this Clause, but who knows whether some local education authority might not wish to put up boarding schools for children of primary school age? I am not arguing whether or not that would be a good thing to do, but it is a development which might quite possibly occur, and if it does we shall immediately run into this old difficulty again, that the new school may be some distance away, with no premises conveniently near, and Church of England and Roman Catholic parents will demur to sending their children to that school because they will be deprived under the law of religious instruction such as the parents desire.

There is another kind of development which I think more likely than the boarding or camp school for primary children. We have all over the country large numbers of these very small old village schools, some of them Church schools, some of them county schools, in neighbouring villages. My certainty is that in some counties the local education authority will decide that a right course is to confine some of these very small schools to very small children, keeping them for children between three and seven, with one teacher, and ensuring that there is a well-equipped county primary school for the children between seven and it in the neighbourhood. If this Amendment is not accepted, at once we shall run into the old difficulty, because parents, if they are Church of England or Roman Catholic, will say, "No, although we like the idea of getting our children into a school of that character we demur to it because it will be impossible for them to continue to receive the religious instruction which we, as their parents, think they have the right to have." That is the question of principle. It concerns a narrow group of schools and a relatively small number of children, but in matters of conscience like this we must give our attention to the rights of every child and parent. Unless this Amendment is accepted there will remain this small body of children, the only children in the country, who will be debarred by law from receiving the kind of religious instruction that their parents desire. That is the question of principle which I submit to the Committee.

I am glad my hon. Friend the Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Brooke) has limited the scope of his Amendment. In order that I may acquaint the Committee with what they have to consider let me give a résumé of the position and give the view of the Government. My hon. Friend is concerned lest in building a new kind of school, under a scheme for the reorganisation of a number of village schools which are out of date, the school may be placed in a locality so remote from buildings that when the children withdraw under what used to be known as the Section 13 procedure there is nowhere for them to go to receive religious instruction. If the issue is confined to that the Committee will see that there is no need for us to get unduly worried about the scope of my hon. Friend's intentions—and I trust his intentions will be regarded as strictly honourable. The position is not that which involves the abrogation of the Cowper-Temple principle. It is a practical consideration as to the balance of the secondary concession which is met under Clause 25. Having explained the matter as clearly as I can, I am not able to say that this position is likely to arise. My hon. Friend has in mind the fact that in certain parts of England the Anglicans have been very progressive and have been regrouping children in the junior grade, which is a very good idea. It means that in one village you have what amounts to a nursery school with, perhaps, an infant attachment, and that in another village near by you may get the older children in the junior grade grouped together in a school where they have three teachers and get progressive education. Any such development on the part of any denomination is very much to be welcomed.

If the schools so reorganised are denominational or auxiliary there is no need for this Amendment, because there the children have the form of worship and instruction they desire. So we come up against the rare situation where there would be a new primary school, a county school, in which children would be deprived of proper facilities. On the information before me it appears that the structure of many of these village schools is adequate and that, if there is to be this sort of reorganisation, it is much more likely that the existing structure would be adapted for this purpose. In that case it would be in the middle of the village and the normal withdrawal procedure would be able to be applied. Unless the Government receive more information as to the likelihood of the difficulty arising I think it would be unwise to enlarge the scope of the provision of Clause 25. I would be glad to consider any information in my hon. Friend's possession which would lead the Government to think that the contingency he envisages would be likely to arise but, meanwhile, I do not advise the Committee to accept the Amendment because I do not think that at present it would be likely to cause undue concern to the Churches.

Those who have put their names to this Amendment must be grateful for the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has met it, but his argument cuts both ways. If it is likely to be applied to a small number of cases then why not grant it? There is no big question of principle involved; it does not raise the whole Cowper-Temple principle, otherwise I should speak at length. It is a question of logic and fairness. If the fairness is conceded in the case of secondary schools why not concede it in the case of primary schools?

I would like to reiterate what has been said by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. I. Thomas). It may be that these cases will not arise, but one's experience on so many matters has been that small things which were not anticipated at the time they were being considered do arise. Why not, by accepting this minor Amendment, ensure that we give a small number of primary schools which have not accommodation for religious instruction an opportunity for that instruction to be given in those buildings? It is a small matter, and if it is accepted it will mean that there will be no trouble whatsoever in the future if that occasion happens to arise. The acceptance of this Amendment would give confidence and hope to a number of parents who may be a little anxious, and it could not do the structure of the Bill one little bit of harm.

The hon. Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Brooke) said that Anglican and Catholic parents would not send their children to primary schools because they could not get the education they wanted for their children.

Religious education.

Ought Scotsmen to speak so much on this Bill?

The hon. Member for West Lewisham said that Anglican and Catholic parents would not send their children to primary schools because they could not get the religious instruction they desired. That is further proof of the fact that very few people are interested in collective worship.

There is a small point I want to raise, which I know is considered by a number of teachers to be one of some importance. This Clause allows teachers from outside to go into a school to give religious instruction and I think it is of first-class importance that these visitors should not interfere with the harmonious working inside the school. It is of first-class importance, to my mind, that it should be made abundantly clear that visiting teachers who are introduced into the schools for this specific purpose should be under the control and direction of the head teacher for so long as they remain on the school premises. The head teacher, whether he is a good or a bad one, must be master in his own house.

I cannot let the Clause pass without some words on the very important principle that it raises. It is in some ways the most fundamental Clause of the whole Bill. The Bill includes an attempt to extend and give statutory authority to undenominational religious instruction. We have had 70 years of undenominational religious instruction and the results are not very satisfactory. If the deliberate object of the Cowper-Temple principle had been to drive people out of the Churches it could not have been more successful. It has been said with truth that not more than 15 per cent. of the people of the country are now practising adherents of the Churches. That is not something for which we can take any credit. But I invite the Committee to consider this point. Which are the empty churches to-day and which are the full churches? Not every church is empty. The conclusion to be drawn from what we see around us is that the empty churches are those where there are vague half-believers in casual creeds.

I do not think the hon. Member's last remarks have any relevance to the Clause.

There is a most fundamental principle raised in the Clause and I should like to be allowed to challenge the whole principle of the first paragraph. The great objection that we feel to the undenominational religious instruction which receives statutory authority in this Clause, as I see it, is that it does not attach the child to any worshipping community when he leaves school. When he gets out of the school he will not find in the Churches the kind of religion that he had at school. The consequence is that he will inevitably drift away from religion, and that is one reason why there has been such a fall away from religion since the operation of the Cowper-Temple Clause. Another objection that we feel to the kind of religious instruction that is made statutory in this Clause is its synthetic nature. It has been referred to as "canned religion." But I want to be serious on the point. It is a challenge which Christianity has had to meet before. It had to face it with the Caesar worship of the Roman Empire and, to go outside Christianity, Buddhism has had to face it against Shintoism. It is a prevalent phenomenon. What we are up against is whether we are to have a vague undenominational teaching in our schools or definite religious instruction such as has come down to us from the early days of the Church. The agreed syllabuses are not in themselves evil. What is in them is nearly always good. I would rather have the religion that is envisaged in this Clause than no religion at all, but it does not fill me with any enthusiasm and it is not going to help the cause of religion. There are many agreed syl- labuses. I have brought with me that issued by the Surrey County Council, as that is probably the best in the country in the judgment of the Parliamentary Secretary.

Also in the judgment of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

I am well content to abide by his decision. If that is the best agreed syllabus that we have, what are we to think? I open it at the first year's course for juniors. Under the heading "What we should be and do" I find a whole medley of examples—

The hon. Member is not entitled to quote from an agreed syllabus at this stage.

I am objecting to agreed syllabus religion in general and using the Surrey County Council's agreed syllabus as an illustration of what I mean.

Yes, I appreciate the hon. Member's point, but he is not entitled to go into details of the syllabus, as he was about to do.

The Parliamentary Secretary might try to counter my objections by saying that it is approved for use in certain dioceses. If he does that, he will overlook a very important fact. In the Church schools in those dioceses, in addition to the agreed syllabus it is possible to put into the hands of the children the Prayer Book and the Catechism. That is what makes denominational teaching so valuable and that is the main reason why undenominational instruction is something for which we can feel no enthusiasm. We are deprived of the opportunity of putting those two liturgical works into the hands of the children and when they go out into the world they will be going out into something that is foreign to them. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that the great truths of denominational instruction are something that children cannot grasp.

I did not say anything of the kind.

If I have misunderstood or misquoted my hon. Friend I am very sorry, but he will know what I mean. I had no intention of doing it deliberately. The child is more likely to grasp these truths than adults who are choked with the cares of this world. Jesus Christ said:

"Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein."

Children can, in fact, grasp these things. There is no educational reason why they should not be taught to children. The objection may also be made that instruction in definite religious principles is the work not of the schools but of the home. That is a view held by a number of Members. May I say why that cannot be acceptable to us? When I wish to have my children's teeth attended to, I do not attempt to do it myself. When I want their shoes soled, I do not attempt to do it myself. Why should I think that I am capable of doing this far more important work of giving religious instruction to my children? I know that I cannot do it, and I have the advantage over the Noble Lady of having gone through a professional course in theology, which she has not.

Has the hon. Gentleman the advantage over the Noble Lady, of having been healed from sickness by the Word of God?

Fortunately, I have not as yet needed that operation. Religious teaching is a matter for those who are especially trained in this work, which even the best parents cannot be.

Is the hon. Gentleman really suggesting that religion is a matter of theology, and not a matter of daily life and that it can only be taught by words?