( by Private Notice ) asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the widespread apprehension among Army officers due to be demobilised in March in Group 26 and later groups that then release is to be delayed for four extra months, and if he will make a statement.

My attention has been drawn to a report published yesterday morning in a national newspaper, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me this opportunity to say that the report is unauthorised and untrue.

Could my right hon. Friend name the newspaper in which this unfounded report appeared, and of which complaint has been made?

Yes, Sir. It appeared in the "Daily Express" yesterday morning. May I say that I very much regretted having to make the original claim for the retention of these officers, and I appreciate the spirit in which they have received that retention. It is not at all my intention to take advantage of that good will.

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

Every great Measure that is placed on the Statute Book, like any rather complicated machine, needs a spot of running in, and the Education Act which was placed on the Statute Book under the Coalition Government by my right hon. Friend is no exception to that rule. It is bound to happen in a Measure so far-reaching, that certain difficulties should arise and that various adjustments in it should be needed. The Education Bill to which I am now asking the House to give a Second Reading is a very modest Measure which, with perhaps one or two exceptions, is solely concerned in effecting those adjustments. It is not, and it does not purport to be, a major Measure of reform. I think we would all agree that the reforms of the 1944 Act are quite big enough and provide us with a large enough task for us not to try at this early stage to effect any major recasting of that machinery. That would only delay us in the job of getting the Act into operation. The sole object of this Bill is to help speed up reform. [ Interruption .] I would be obliged if my right hon. Friend would not converse so loudly.

The principal provisions of the Bill, which I may say I have discussed very fully with the local education authorities, the teachers and the denominations concerned, fall into two main categories. There are those Clauses which give the local education authorities certain additional powers for which they are pressing, and which they are very anxious to have. Then there is the second group of Clauses which, as I say, are intended to give effect to the intentions of the 1944 Act and are minor adjustments which are necessary. In taking the first category—those which give the local education authorities more powers—may I direct the attention of the House first to Clause I? That enables a local education authority, subject to the approval of the Minister, to enlarge the premises of a controlled school, to take in extra pupils drawn wholly or mainly from other voluntary schools which are discontinued or reorganised and which are no longer available. Under the existing law it is not possible, except in the case either of special agreement schools or aided schools for displaced children, or those substituted for other discontinued voluntary schools, for public monies to be spent on the provision of new voluntary schools. Of course, it is not a question of an entirely new school: if there were to be really substantial alterations to an existing school, that has always had to be regarded as the provision of a new school.

As things are, local education authorities are responsible for the cost of improving controlled school premises as well as for the cost of their upkeep, and there are many cases where, as a number of local education authorities have themselves represented to me, it would really be more economical or more educationally efficient to enlarge an existing controlled school than to build a new school. There might be a case in which there are three or four scattered villages or awkward areas where it would be better to take one of these sites and put the school on it, rather than close all the schools and build a new school on an entirely new site. Of course, any such proposal will involve the issue of public notices under Section 13 of the 1944 Act, and so the parents and other bodies concerned will have ample opportunity of making their views known to the Minister. Of course, the Minister's approval is required by the Clause before the local education authorities can use these new powers, so the matter is really quite amply safeguarded.

May I now turn to Clause 4 as another one of this group which gives more power to the local education authorities? I would simply say that there is no hidden meaning in it; it is inspired by common sense and a desire to speed up the general processes of reform under the Act. The existing Section 109 of the 1944 Act empowers all the local education authorities to provide temporary accommodation for voluntary schools where the Minister is satisfied that this is necessary owing to difficulties arising from war conditions, or the coming into operation of Part II of the 1944 Act; but, as things are, these powers can be used only in those cases where the permanent accommodation will ultimately be provided by the managers or governors of the voluntary school concerned.

Local education authorities have pointed out that this hampers their preparations for the raising of the compulsory school age in April, 1947, and what this Clause does is to remove it. An obvious case, of course, is where the senior pupils are now attending an all-age voluntary school, and they will ultimately go to a county secondary school under the development plan. Of course, I want to make it perfectly clear that this Clause is not compulsory: it simply gives powers to the local authority if they find that that is a more economic or more efficient way of doing that particular job.

I would like to come to Clause 9, in which many of my hon. Friends are interested, and which deals with the repayment of travelling expenses of members of the divisional executives. It would have been simpler, and I would have preferred it, if we could have taken the course of enabling the local education authorities to defray the travelling expenses of members of divisional executives in every case, but an Education Bill is not the place in which one can make general amendments to the law, and we cannot, in fact, prejudge an issue which covers the whole field of local government and is clearly within the province of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. But there is a real difficulty, because members of Part III authorities—who were then dealing with their own particular area, and it was only a question of jumping on a 'bus or of a very short walk to the local education offices—may now be faced with journeys, under the divisional executive reorganisation, of quite a considerable number of miles and involving an expense which is a material consideration for a man earning not too large a wage. We cannot go the whole way; we have to preserve the distinction in the existing law between the county councils, on the one hand, where, already, expenses can be paid, and county boroughs and county district councils, on the other, where they cannot.

The Clause applies to any journey to county headquarters, the Ministry or the offices of the divisional executive which involves travelling outside the area of the county district in which the particular member resides: in fact, it covers any journeys where any material expense is involved. That, I think, will go a long way to meet a number of representations that have been made to me by my hon. Friends, who felt that too much expense was being placed on the shoulders of people with much enthusiasm for education but very little money. That completes the Clauses in the first category dealing with the local education authority, and now I want to deal with the Clauses which contain those Amendments which clarify or give effect to the intention of the authors of the 1944 Act, and in this I would like to refer particularly to Clauses 5, 7 and 8, which contain the material alterations.

Clause 5 may seem a little curious on first reading, but it really puts right an oversight in the original Act. It is really a little strange that no member of the authorities concerned ever noticed it or pointed it out to us until the Bill had gone through Parliament. It is the question of worship in aided and special agreement schools on certain special occasions. As the Act says, the collective act of worship takes place on the school premises, and that was what everybody agreed was the appropriate place for it. We cannot have children taken out of school and time lost through attending this act of worship every day in some other building, but it has always been agreed, by the old Board of Education, and by the present Ministry, that on certain special occasions, such as the foundation day of the school, a special day connected with the school or a special religious holiday, those children who wish—because it is in no sense compulsory—should go to their appropriate place of worship for this act. It is, of course, of a very limited application. It applies to aided and special agreement schools, but not to county or controlled schools, and it is just in these specially limited schools that this collective act of worship may, on these special occasions, take place elsewhere. It is not the intention of the Ministry to take away this right which has always been enjoyed in these schools, and we felt that we should make that clear.

Clause 7 deals with a matter in which I think many of my hon. Friends will be very interested, and it is, on the whole, a new point. The problem has first arisen in connection with residential schools for handicapped children, but it may arise in the case of the new boarding schools, which, when labour and materials are a bit easier, we hope many local authorities will be establishing before long. Under Section 69 of the 1921 Act, local education authorities may provide clothing for handicapped children in special schools, including them as "expenses incidental to the maintenance and boarding-out of the children," and, when parents made a contribution, they made it for everything—maintenance, lodging, clothing and so on. Now, all this is to become free. I think the effect of the 1944 Act is that, in 99 cases out of 100, the parent is not asked to make any contribution to the cost of boarding a child at a residential school, but, as things are, he has to contribute to the cost of the clothing. If the authorities were to carry out strictly the Act as it stands, it would mean a most intensive inquiry and means test into an individual parent's circumstances in order to decide what small proportion he should pay towards the cost of the clothing. We think it is very much better to sweep all that away, and, instead, to enable local authorities to provide the clothing free of charge and without inquiry into the parents' means. It will mean that it will be possible, in the new boarding schools, to provide the school uniform and sports clothing and any other thing that is necessary for the children. I feel sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will see that this carries out the intention of the Act, that no child is to be handicapped because of the lack of means of its parents to provide what is essential for the child's education and for its care during its education.

If hon. Members will now look at Clause 8, I would like to say that I have had a large amount of correspondence on this point. It carries out a pledge which my predecessor gave to the National Union of Teachers to remove the disqualification on teachers becoming members of committees set up for educational purposes, and especially those established by the councils in the excepted districts. It will, of course, remain the case that a teacher cannot be a member of the council which directly employs him, but, under the 1944 Act, the whole position has become a little blurred and uncertain, and Clause 8 of this Bill settles, once and for all, a most curious problem of interpretation which has caused a good deal of heartburning, and I believe, was at one time going to lead to a court case about it. It is now made clear that Section 59 subsection (2) of the Local Government Act, 1933, does not prevent a teacher from becoming a member of a county district council which has power to appoint representatives to a committee under whose direction the teacher is employed. That is to say, if his particular council merely has the right to put a representative on the council by which he is employed, he has not got the right to sit for that council. I know it sounds complicated, but this point has caused an awful lot of trouble. As I said in my opening remarks, these little difficulties and maladjustments only become really clear when you start to work—and when the lawyers get to work, what can you do?

There remain the two Schedules. The First Schedule is designed to make it clear that the responsibility for providing any additional site which may be needed for an existing voluntary school, or a new site to which a voluntary school is transferred under Section 16 of the 1944 Act, rests with the local education authority. This is not an innovation, but it does make clear the position under the Act. The Schedule does, however, break new ground in, the fact that it requires that any land Which is provided by the local education authority in those circumstances should be conveyed to the trustees of the school. This may, at first sight, appear to be rather unfair, but we find, as managers or governors have often to erect buildings on those sites out of charitable funds, they are up against the difficulty that many charitable funds do not allow the legatees—the owners and managers of the trust—to erect buildings on land which they do not own. Therefore, if the local authority does not actually convey ownership in the land to the governing body of the trust, the trust would be prevented by law from building the school, which was the purpose of the whole transaction. Therefore, we have to make it clear that the local education authority must convey ownership in the site to the governors or managers.

We are anxious to safeguard the position of the local education authority, and we have safeguarded it by making it clear, for example, that if the school should be discontinued the Minister is empowered under Section 14 (1) to require the managers or governors to repay to the local education authority as much of the local education authority's expenditure as he thinks just.

We are giving a further quid pro quo to the local education authorities by providing that the trustees of a controlled school who sell their old site at a considerable profit must pay to the local education authority out of any such profits such a sum as the Minister may consider just, as a contribution to the cost of the new building. Obviously, it would not really be fair for them to pocket the unearned increment, so to speak, and as the cost of erecting the building of a controlled school in such a case is to be borne entirely by the local authority, we thought it was only fair that they should receive this contribution towards it.

The Second Schedule contains a number of miscellaneous Amendments to the principal Act; the most important of these are designed to simplify the procedure for the making of variations to schemes of divisional administration. For instance, the period for the prescribed notice is to be one month instead of two, unless in any particular case the Minister considers that the longer period is necessary. Then; the Minister may also waive the obligation calling upon authorities to consult the county district councils. That just speeds up the procedure a little, and everyone is agreed that that is very necessary in view of the difficulties under which we are at present working.

Those, therefore, are the principal features of the Bill. As I say, it does not make any great innovation but it does make adjustments that were considered necessary, and I should be very grateful if the House, after discussion, of course, could see its way to giving me the Second Reading.

11.31 a.m.

We, on this side of the House, regard this as an amending and explanatory Bill, which bears the interpretation put upon it by the right hon. Lady. I regard it, in fact, as a vindication of the policy laid down in the 1944 Act, and I think it is particularly satisfactory that in this new Parliament we should be able to continue and carry out that policy, and make the Education Act a really living thing. I, therefore, congratulate the right hon. Lady upon her courage in bringing to this House a Measure which the uninitiated might imagine contained many sinister things, which might be thought to raise many false issues, but which is yet a perfectly straightforward Bill, designed to carry out the general policy of the Act and facilitate its operation. I should also like to say, quite sincerely, that we shall facilitate passage of the Bill and do our utmost to make it even better than it is at present.

There is only one discordant note that I want to introduce. I fear it may be necessary for me, and for my hon. Friends on this side of the House, to go into some of these matters in some detail, since our conception of the duty of Parliament in that respect differs somewhat from that of the Leader of the House. We consider that Parliament exists to go into matters of detail, and to examine every Bill thoroughly, however much we agree with it, and it is in that spirit that I shall address myself to the Bill this morning. I do not desire to be unduly tedious, and I certainly do not desire to exhibit any undue knowledge of the Act, because I see the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary opposite, and he would always be able to pull me up if I went wrong on detail. However, I think it is necessary to examine one or two of the implications which arise under this Bill. There is one other statement I would make at the outset. In my opinion, this Bill does not alter the general balance achieved under the Education Act. It does not, in my view, disturb what was known in those days as the religious settlement, and, therefore, I trust that no hon. or right hon. Member taking part in this Debate will imagine that there are new hares which can usefully be chased. In my opinion, that balance is not upset, and I think it is very much to the credit of Members who feel strongly on this point, in view of the give and take of those days, that they are now ready to act in the same spirit of toleration in dealing with a Bill of this character. I say that, because I think the right hon. Lady and the Government have shown the most commendable toleration in bringing forward the Measure in its existing terms.

The next point I want to raise concerns drafting and codification. It is extremely difficult, even for those who have lived for as much as four years with the Education Act, and who have seen it grow up, to understand it. We always thought we understood the policy we had in mind, but we were not always so sure we recognised our child when the Act was finally drafted. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will agree with me in that observation. There is no doubt that this Bill, in some respects and notably in the First Schedule, makes the Act much clearer. On this question of maintenance, in my view, the educational technical terms are much more difficult than the layman imagines. "Maintenance," for example, has a special meaning in the world of education, and a somewhat different meaning in the world outside. There is no doubt that at the time the real meaning of the word "maintenance" was not really appreciated by some of those helping us. I think that this First Schedule to the Bill does make the position in regard to the maintenance of voluntary schools much clearer than it was before. I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward a Schedule which improves the position in that respect. There is another little point. I do not believe that, in drafting the Act, it was understood what "a department" meant in educational terms. That also is brought out in this Bill. So, two matters on which the pundits were trying to learn sense, in the course of the passage of the Act have been triumphantly brought to a successful conclusion in this Bill.

I make this appeal to the Government. When lawyers or educational administrators, directors of education or members of education committees, have to interpret this Measure in the future, they will, unfortunately, have to read with it the Act of 1944, and they may find it easier to understand the Act of 1944, if they read it in conjunction with what will be the Act of 1946. I think it would be more satisfactory to have some form of codification of the two Acts, in one. This is a difficult suggestion, but I want the Government to give it consideration. I have been much impressed in my handling of Indian affairs, by the fact that in the case of the Government of India Act, whenever an Amendment is made to the Act of 1935—for which, also I have to accept a measure of responsibility—that Act is re-written in the light of the Amendments made. Therefore, it is possible to understand the Act of 1935 very much more easily in relation to the Amendments made. There is another example in the case of the recently introduced National Insurance Bill, that we have so hurriedly to discuss next week. There is an Eleventh Schedule, and in the Eleventh Schedule a certain portion of the Unemployment Assistance Act is reprinted. Therefore, it is intelligible to the layman because he has in heavy type the amended portion of the original Act, included in a Schedule to the new Bill.

In my view, that is the only remedy for a difficult situation, and I shall have more to say on that next week when we are considering the National Insurance Bill. Meantime I appeal to the Government to consider, with their advisers, whether it is not possible to reprint the Act of 1944 in the light of the Amendments made in this Bill, so that it may be available in a handy form enabling adminisrators and even lawyers to read the two Acts together. I think it will be difficult to do; I know enough about it to know the technical difficulties. In my present position I have but few advisers who can help me, and, therefore, I should not like to give definite views on whether it is possible or not. But if it were found possible to clarify the position, in regard to the problem of the maintenance of voluntary schools and in other respects—for instance Section 109 of the Act—it would be helpful to have the opinion of the Government, if not today, at any rate, during the Committee stage of the Bill.

I come to some of the Clauses to which our attention has been drawn by the Minister. I shall follow these Clauses and not take the divisions which the Minister suggested as between the different types of Clauses. As regards Clause 1, I consider this to be a very desirable amendment of the original Act. There is no doubt that this is the moment in which to make an amendment of this sort. Authorities are, at present, making their development plans up and down the country and are finding the sort of immediate day-to-day difficulties with which they will have to deal. It certainly will be very useful to have a Clause of this sort; I trust that authorities will use it in framing their development plans, and that when the final plan is approved by the Minister, full consideration will be given to any use made by the authorities of this particular form.

The information which comes to me from authorities is very wide and very varied, as I have still, strange to relate, many educational contacts. I do not consider it would be right for me to discuss in detail in Parliament information I have received about the manner in which authorities are making their development plans. These plans are the business of the authorities, and have to be submitted to the Minister, who has then to consider them. Therefore, to give the House rather loose information on a variety of county plans that I happen to know about, would not, I think, be desirable. But I have information to show that a great many county authorities are tending, in their plans, to decide on the closing of small village schools. I have information also that some areas are tending, with a view to tidy administration, to centralise their reorganisation where it has been carried out, in immense schools serving a large area, with a view, later, to closing the small schools—the schools, in many cases from which the children come. I know that there is a suggestion even in my own borough of Saffron Walden, which is not yet reorganised, that there should be an immense school for 900 children in the borough to serve the needs of the borough and surrounding districts. No doubt we shall have something to say about the notices which have been or are to be published, but I warmly applaud this initiative. Where reorganisation has not been carried out it must be carried out speedily, otherwise "secondary education for all" will have no meaning whatever

But if this Clause I is to be used intelligently by authorities, it ought not to make the schools in the country districts for giving secondary education, too large. I am certain it is dangerous to have schools too large, however tidy it may look in the offices of the educational administrators. It is much better, when reorganising, to try to make your unit serve the villages in the immediate neighbourhood. I am not going to stress the case of my own district, in which I am interested as a resident and as a Member of Parliament. I have not had time to go into it. It may be a difficult district to divide successfully in any other way. But I am concerned that schools should not be reorganised in such a way that the head of a school cannot possibly know the individual children and the staffs may not have that personal relationship with the children through which only can education be provided. Therefore, I very much hope that certain counties will use the terms of this Clause. They will note that the words "wholly or mainly" included in paragraph ( b ) of the Clause will give an opportunity to take in children, not only from the voluntary schools but also, if necessary, from a small county school, the purpose of which is no longer satisfactory.

I have information through a somewhat striking and fiery address delivered by the former Bishop of Gloucester at his diocesan conference, of the ways of at least one authority, namely, Gloucester. As this has been published I trust I can refer to it. I have the highest respect for the right reverend Bishop but he and I have had many acrimonious conversations and I, frankly, do not accept the contents of his address or the claim that the whole basis of the Education Act is being vitiated. It is the case, if his schedule is true, that the particular authority proposes to close a great many small voluntary and other schools. I do not at the moment accept the view that this is the final plan of the authority, but I say that if an authority of that sort were to use the provisions of Clause I of this Bill, they would be able to group under a control scheme, the little schools and thereby retain intact both the purpose and the spirit of the Act.

On the subject of controlled schools, I feel sure that the controlled school was a very fine invention of the Act of 1944. The controlled school was a compromise which enabled us to get the religious settlement accepted. It has the advantages to the one side of control, and to the other side of a certain freedom of religious instruction and worship, which carries with it the spirit of the trustees. I sincerely hope that denominations, in particular the Anglicans, when they are taking part in this great adventure, will realise the value of the controlled school; that they will not underrate it, and try to take on more than they can manage in the aided sphere. I trust that, when they take on any decisions to make their schools aided, they will be able to maintain the standard which the Act laid down, and, in the case of these schools, that they will feel satisfaction that the controlled school does provide them with a really good opportunity to take advantage of the provisions of the Act.

I welcome Clause 4, to which the Minister made a short reference, about the provisions of temporary accommodation. On this question of temporary accommodation there is, in all our minds, a distaste of the use of hutments, but I must confess that I think the Minister will have to remain hut-minded for some little time ahead. It is most important in education, not to devote the whole of our attention to beautiful buildings. There is no doubt whatever that what is needed in English education at the present time, is to improve the standard of school leavers, and to concentrate on what is in the child's mind, and not on showing visitors how beautiful the school building is. I daresay that the Minister, in her pleasant experience of going to various schools, has always had to turn her attention first, on the invitation of the proud teacher, to the beauty of the building. I believe that, in the end, we shall have to have a proper programme, but with the housing problem, which is all too urgent, and the other buildings have to be put up, we cannot expect to have it all our own way in education; I think that it would be a sign of defeatism if we could not put up for the time being with temporary buildings, and beautify them as a successful teacher knows how to do.

I also welcome the provisions of Clause 5, and I would stress the wisdom of the Minister in confining this privilege to aided and special agreement schools. If the Clause had been extended, I do not say that it would have unduly upset the balance of religious settlement, but I think that it would have excited comment. I know that some of my friends on this side of the House would like to speak on this matter, and it is probable that they will have some observations to make on this matter. I am giving my own opinion of this Clause. It carries out the intention of the Act to continue this very legitimate practice.

Clause 7, dealing with clothing, is much more intelligible now to me in the light of the Minister's statement. Evidently it is intended to deal with residential special schools. I would ask whether it may not, in the circumstances, be extended to other types of boarding school, for example the direct grant schools which, under the new dispensation, and under the regulations, can be used by the Minister to take in many scholars whose parents may not be very well off. I understand that the word "maintained" in this Bill means that it would not be possible to help with the clothing of a scholar who came from a home of moderate circumstances to a direct grant school. The word "maintained" would not permit that. We may have to examine that point in Committee

It is "any school maintained". It is not only the residential special school.

That I accept, but that of course would not cover the case of the direct grant school. I would like to ask a question about this Clause: Is there any intention of assessing parents' means in this matter? Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies, will make some reference to this.

I would like to feel that I fully understand Clause 8. I think I do. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I had intended to give certain pledges to the teachers during the passage of the Act. I gave an undertaking to the National Union of Teachers, in April, 1945, that in view of the fact that we did not seem to have made the matter absolutely clear in the original Act, we would take an opportunity to have amending legislation to put it right at the earliest possible moment. In regard to Subsection (1) of the Clause, it appears that our own misunderstanding arose from the fact that we did not realise that councils of excepted districts exercised wide functions for the appointment of teachers. I think that Subsection (1) now put right a matter upon which the teachers have felt strongly. Subsection (2) arises out of an obscurity which has always existed about the interpretation of Section 59 (2) of the Local Government Act, 1933. That Section was designed to deal primarily with the employees of certain authorities, and there was always doubt whether it affected teachers. It was not intended, in our view, to affect teachers, and I regard this Subsection (2) of Clause 8 as putting that matter right. Therefore, after mature consideration, I consider that this Clause does fulfil the pledges which we gave to the teachers.

On the question of travelling expenses, it a pity that we cannot amend Section 294 of the Local Government Act, 1933. If we could, the Minister would make a clean sweep and "shell out" travelling expenses all round. That, I think, would be very satisfactory. I am having a little trouble in the home, because a prominent member of my family sits on the divisional executive, and I am unable to answer her on the question of whether her expenses are to be paid or not, because I cannot fully appreciate the intention of this Clause. I understand from examining it, and I am advised that we cannot amend Section 294 of the Act of 1933, because one cannot amend a Health Act through an Education Act and, therefore, we must take as much money as we can from the Government and hope for the best, although they may not satisfy all our personal and local requirements. Why is it, that with the exception of the local education authority, these travelling expenses do not receive Exchequer grant? Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can elucidate that point. I should have thought that it was desirable, when these expenses were paid, that they should not fall solely on the local authority put should be liable for Exchequer grant.

I think that I have covered all the main Clauses of the Bill, and that enables me to turn for a moment to the First Schedule, the clarity of which is greatly preferable to the terms of the original Act. The object of this Schedule is to set out clearly the meaning of "maintenance of voluntary schools." I certainly accept the Minister's explanation that this makes it a good deal better. It will be remembered that Section 15 (3 a ) of the original Act had to be read with Section 114 (2 a ) if anybody wanted to understand the full meaning of Section 16 (1). I remember that, in explaining it to the House in those days I became very adept at referring Members to particular provisions of the Measure. In fact, it was necessary to look at the interpretation Section to understand these two other vital sections of the Act itself. "In the circumstances I think this Schedule makes it a great deal clearer, and does bring out, painfully perhaps but clearly, the duty of the authority to provide the site, a fact which we had to bring out before, during the passage of the Bill, by reference to the various Sections in which these unhappy things were tucked away. I think the local authorities are becoming accustomed to this but we welcome the clarity of the Schedule.

The Minister referred to the fact that in certain parts of the Schedule there is compensation for the managers and governors, and in other parts compensation for the local authority. It seems to me that the First Schedule is drawn in a fair way as between the different parties. There is considerable obscurity in the Bill about that all-important question, the caretaker's dwelling, and if hon. Members examine not only this portion of the Schedule but later portions of the Second Schedule they will find that this question of the caretaker's dwelling bids fair to assume in this Bill the same position as that which the obscure question of maintenance attained in the previous Act. I think I am right in saying the issue is not an all-embracing one nor one that shakes the world, but we reserve the right in the Committee stage to examine, with minute care, this question of the caretaker's dwelling. Other adjustments in paragraphs 6 and 7 apply to chargeable costs, and I think are on right lines. They do not enlarge or widen the scope of the original Act in any way except to make it clearer.

Coming to the Second Schedule it is to be noted that Section 68 of the original Act, upon which one always dwelt lightly, is to have its scope somewhat enlarged. It deals with the questions relating to the divisional executives. I trust if there is anything in this which needs explanation the Parliamentary Secretary will refer to it when he replies. It is important to enlarge the scope of the powers of Section 68. I think the reference is valuable, and I welcome what the Minister said about the possibility of dealing with the complicated scope of legislation known as the Endowed Schools Acts which is brought out more clearly in the Schedule than was ever done before. While on the question of the Schedule I want to deal for a moment with the subject of schemes of divisional administration. There are one or two useful suggestions made here. For example I think it is sensible that schemes of further education should cover different areas, from those concerned with primary and secondary education. I welcome, therefore, the suggested amendment in that respect.

I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to define what is the present position about divisional administration. Can he give us any idea how the Ministry has decided the varying claims of the accepted districts and the various other units? It would be interesting to the House, I am sure, to have that information. I should like to take this opportunity to say that I consider the Act of 1944 placed a very heavy burden in this sphere, not only on the administrators but on the officers of the Ministry itself. I have been very gratified by the manner in which that work has been carried out. There is no doubt that the portions of the Act dealing with local administration were intensely complicated. We have a big job to do and we had the unenviable task of disposing of the Part III authorities while yet attempting to retain the genius of local administration. To a certain extent I think we have been successful, and that success has been attributed to the administrators who, with the most painstaking care, have worked out the intentions of the Act. I think we owe it to them to clarify the Act in the respect the Minister desires in this Schedule. I would, however, make one appeal, that like schools, divisional executives should not be centralised too much in individual areas, and that we should retain that intimate local contact with the school people, which enables us to understand exactly how the stove works, and the idiosyncrasies of the teacher of the school, and to know when she is a pet and when she is not, and how she can be humoured. If we get away from these local intimate contacts, things will not run so smoothly. You cannot understand the temperament of a woman teacher in a county office, in the same way as you can if you live in the same village. I am sure we ought to administer the details of education, as far as possible, under local conditions, and I shall be interested to hear when the Minister can give us any information on how the general scheme is working out.

That I think deals with the majority of the points in the Bill to which we desire to draw attention, but I feel that some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House will want to put many points on many questions and if we are spared we may enjoy considering this Bill in Committee. I do not pretend to understand exactly how it is going to be possible to contend with the work of considering the Bill in Committee with the many other Bills that are being sent upstairs, having regard to the fact that the teams on this side of the House, of necessity, are not very large, but I trust we shall try to do our duty, and maintain the fine traditions of Parliament. We shall consider these matters in detail with the resources at our command, and shall devote cheerfully, at any rate in my case, the maximum attention to the question of education, which will always remain nearest to my heart.

12.4 p.m.

It was obvious that with an Act of such magnitude and complexity experience would reveal the necessity for clarification and amendment. It is equally obvious that local authorities who are under a statutory duty to proceed quickly with their development plans should have this clarification at the earliest possible moment. I want, therefore, to congratulate the Minister on taking up the matter so soon. I do not want to go too far into the points raised by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler), especially on the question of multilateral, trilateral and bilateral schools and particularly the difficulty which, he says, the head teachers encounter in knowing scholars. I remember rather vividly, however, when I was endeavouring to discuss direct grant schools previously he interrupted me to praise a famous school, and yet that particular school has about 1,100 scholars on its books. That same school was in an enviable position in the eyes of the right hon. Gentleman that day, but today a large school hardly appeals to him so strongly. I want to try to keep away from the fascinating subject of comprehensive schools and to devote myself to clarification of this Bill insofar as it affects local education authorities, because it is important that that clarification should be made very quickly. Paragraph 6 of the First Schedules states: portion which they need for development, and, moreover, have it free. I think it would be monstrous if it were otherwise, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend will consider that suggestion favourably.

In the First Schedule, paragraph 2 (c), there is to be found a redefinition of school buildings. We must remember that school buildings are not the same as school premises. That difference is rather vital because, under this limited definition, it means that local education authorities will have imposed upon them a statutory duty to provide caretakers' houses, playing fields, accommodation for medical inspection and treatment, and for provision for meals. I do not think the authorities quite expected that that would fall on their shoulders. It is something new, and some of them will be very surprised. But, speaking for the Association of Education Committees, I am sure they will not, as a whole, oppose that. Again, they are being very reasonable in this matter. A vital point arises here, however—and we may as well deal with it here as in Committee so that we can get it cleared out of the way. The authorities will be expected to provide those premises and fully maintain them, but there is no guarantee in the Bill that any rentals or income that might be received from the use of those premises will go to the authorities. It will be equally unfair if that were not so, as in the case of the site.

I think most authorities will think it wise that a caretaker's house should be as near the site as possible. The local education authority will provide the house. They will wholly maintain the house, and pay the caretaker's wages, yet there is nothing in the Bill to say that they will receive the rent which the caretaker pays. Who should receive the rent? Not the managers, the governors or any other body, because the duty to maintain that building is a duty on the local education authority. Since it is their duty, surely, it is reasonable to provide in the Bill that they shall receive the rental from that dwelling. The same principle applies with regard to playing fields. By this new definition of a school building it is now to be a statutory duty of education authorities to provide and fully maintain playingfields, and they will possibly provide groundsmen. Obviously, some of these playing-fields will be let, on occasions, for rent. Again, there is nothing in the Bill to say that the income received from the letting of the playingfields shall go to the people who provide and maintain them. I do not want to raise the religious issue today. In that, I am entirely with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden. We should be extremely foolish if we upset Section 22 of the principal Act. We do not want to do anything to interfere with the powers of managers or governors. They have the right to direct the use of the caretaker's house, playingfields and other parts of school premises, and we do not want in any way to interfere with their right. But we do want to see that, when they let school premises for rental, those rents should go to the people who provide and maintain the premises.

We have exactly the same position in regard to the provision of meals, and the provision of canteens. There, again, since canteens are not school buildings, but part of the premises, education authorities will be under a statutory provision to provide and maintain them. In future, schools will become a great centre of social activity. The premises will be frequently wanted for all kinds of local activities. With kitchen accommodation, and perhaps a running buffet, they will be much in demand, and they will be let for rent. It seems clear, therefore, that that rental should go to the people whose job it is to provide and maintain them. The strange thing is that the Ministry have, by regulation, dealt with that point. They issued under the Meals and Milk Regulation—I think it was No. 698—an instruction that on matters connected with meals there should be financial arrangements between the education authorities and the managers. That means to say that where the question of rental arises, it shall be settled between the managers or governors and the local authorities. I know that the Association of Education Committees do not like this kind of thing being done by regulation, for regulations can so easily be amended. For instance, we have seen lately amendments with regard to school attendance and registration. We would rather that this kind of thing were not done by regulation, but that it was provided for in the Bill itself. Seeing that the principle has been conceded in regard to meals, we feel it should be conceded in regard to playing fields and caretakers houses by the insertion of words into the Bill. What I am suggesting to the Minister—and I am encouraged by the way in which she opened the Debate today—is that, where a local education authority provides or wholly maintains any part of the school premises, any rentals received from the use of such premises should go to the education authority. We want something of that nature inserted into the Bill.

I would like to congratulate my right hon. Friend upon introducing this Measure, and upon her courage in putting paragraphs 6 and 2 into the First Schedule and stating so very clearly what is in her mind. Try to imagine paragraph 6 being inserted 25 years ago and the passionate scenes there would have been in this House. The right hon. Lady might have had much less courage and put it far more ambiguously; she might have left it to the Courts to decide by litigation, but she has put it almost crudely, almost badly, almost wickedly: and it is clear beyond all doubt. I admire her courage in putting it in that way. I think, too, it is a tribute to the House that we can discuss such a matter so calmly and so dispassionately. It shows how times are moving. I would have liked to deal with other Clauses in the Bill but preferred to leave them to other speakers and to concentrate on the points of the use of school premises and rentals.

12.16 p.m.

May I also join in the paeans of praise being accorded to the Minister in bringing forward this amending Bill to the 1944 Education Act? In the education authority of my own council we have had great difficulty sometimes in interpreting that very voluminous Act, and I hope the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler), that we may some day have codification of the Act, including this present Bill, will be accepted because it would be very useful to those who have to administer the Act. I congratulate the right hon. Lady on this amending Bill, because already it will provide a great deal of interpretation on points which have exercised the authorities very considerably since the Act first came into force.

In regard to Clause 1, I have put down an Amendment to this because it might be of considerable benefit to authorities if they could have it applied not merely to the schools which the Clause enumerates, but, in the widest sense, it might also be applied to certain controlled or aided schools in special circumstances whereby the local education authority, if they could enlarge undenominational controlled schools to provide secondary education for other than the voluntary pupils of county schools, would be making provision at a great saving of cost. In that case I believe they would be able to serve an extended area as a controlled school with great benefit to the authorities and to the district. Therefore, I hope that Clause 1 may find some eventual amendment in that form.

Clause 4 gives the authorities an opportunity to assist the voluntary schools, especially in regard to the use of the schools in the immediate years ahead. I am afraid it is perfectly true, and very sad, that we are committed for a long period to huts, but I think most of us would agree that, having to accept conditions as they are, not merely in regard to schools, but housing and in other respects, the use of huts must remain for many years. Therefore, it is very obvious that the duty of the authorities—and the Ministry I am sure will help them—is to see that the huts we provide are of such a type as to add to the amenities of the school. I am quite certain that the school buildings we have erected for many years now have been far too solid in construction and, because of that, alterations could not be made with any ease. I hope the schools we shall erect in the future will be of such a type that they can be altered from time to time without any very great difficulty. In regard to this present Clause, the huts which we shall be enabled to provide, not merely for ourselves as county authorities, but also for the voluntary schools, will be of such a type as will add to the amenities of the school. They need not be ugly, I am quite sure and, given in a short time sufficient materials of the kind we want, we shall be able to erect semi-permanent buildings which will be quite acceptable and most useful to the schools themselves.

I think Clause 5 also is very useful, but there is one fact about it which has to be noted; that is, that although it applies to a limited and restricted type of school—the special agreement or the voluntary schools—it is quite possible that these schools may have a fair number of pupils attending them who are not of the same denomination as that to which the schools themselves belong. There is no provision made there, as far as I can see, should the parents of any of the pupils wish their children not to attend those special services, for them to be able to withdraw their children.

Oh, yes; it is in the main Act.

I do not read it as such, but if provision is made in the main Act, and can be read into this Clause, then the point I am making is covered, and I shall be satisfied in that regard.

Clause 8 deals with a matter which has caused my authority and, I expect other authorities, a considerable amount of difficulty, but I think, although the matter is extremely complicated, that the present Bill will, once and for all, clarify a position which has been so much misunderstood. I am glad to see that the interpretation which has been put upon it by my own friends in my own district is in accordance with this Clause. Therefore, the position of teachers in future on the various bodies will be made quite clear. Although for years in my own area we have had teachers on our local education committee of the county, under the 1944 Act and the reconstituted county committee we made ample provision for teacher representation. I am glad that their position will now be made quite clear, because the help of members of the teaching profession on committees is undoubtedly of the greatest possible value and we, and they, will know where we stand.

As to the provision of sites under the First Schedule, I know that will not be very acceptable to many of the county authorities but, on the other hand, I believe it will be of service to education in the widest sense. The hon. Member for York (Dr. Corlett) dealt, I thought, with the possible revenues which might accrue, and he was afraid that the local education authority might be at some loss because, although they might be providing the money, they might not receive some small amount of rent which the school authority might be paid. I do not worry too much about that, and I hope it will not be pressed too hard in Committee. After all, in education we have to take a very much wider view, and have a more general and freer atmosphere in its administration than merely getting down to the pennies and halfpennies which might go to the school authority out of something partly provided by the local authorities. I do not think we want to get down so closely to the administration of schools as might be desirable in the Poor Law Act, or even in hospital administration where, of course, you do look after the pennies and the pounds must work out their ultimate destiny.

Surely, that is a vital matter. If the local authorities are wholly maintaining the premises, they should receive any rent paid for them. It is not a matter of pennies or halfpennies, it is a vital matter.

I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that he viewed it with great alarm, and might make a great deal of heavy weather of it in the Committee stage.

I said deliberately that I hoped to avoid discussion in Committee by the speech I have made this morning.

The other point I should like to make is with regard to the clarification of some of the terms in the Schedules. We have found it very necessary in my own district in order to get the provisions across to the general public, because the terms we generally use on education are very often misunderstood. Unless we make this clarification it may even be necessary to provide a glossary. I notice that "the child" becomes "the pupil" under one of the Clauses, which is already going far towards clarification. I am certain that in general this amending Bill will be of great assistance to authorities in administering the Act itself and will also contribute to the main Act by its extra provisions and the clarification given to the Act itself. I welcome the Bill and I am convinced that the Minister will find that the majority of Members of the House agree with the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden.

12.27 p.m.

I rise as the fifth member of a choir to sing a doxology of praise. This is very gratifying and makes one feel that the House is, perhaps, after all not such a controversial place. I think it is generally agreed that this is not a Bill involving any great question of principle; but it is a useful Bill. It is apparent that the edifice which was erected by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler) in 1944 is, like many modern houses, beginning to show signs of cracks in the walls. The joinery does not seem perhaps so perfect a fit as it did when it was first exhibited. This Bill does not seek to deal with the foundations, but it does fill in the cracks and restore some of the paint. There is, however, one change which I think is fundamental. We have a new architect, a new Minister, and, if I may say so, a new social philosophy, and I think the Minister deserves first the congratulations of us all because she has extracted, with that determination and enthusiasm which we have come to expect of her, that most scarce of all building materials, the Parliamentary time in which to introduce a new Measure. I suspect she has had to fight for it. I think we may share in her pride that, absorbed as they rightly are in the economic evils inherited from their hon. Friends opposite, the Government have yet made time for a new Education Bill.

I want only to draw the attention of the House to two Clauses—Clause 5 and Clause 7—upon which I seek Ministerial guidance. In a way I am sorry to raise Clause 5. I had hoped that the religious issue which has bedevilled education for so long was settled, but there is one point to which I must draw attention. Normally, religious instruction takes place on the school premises, but Clause 5, subsection 2 says: sonable too. Is there anyone who is going to be so tetchy as to prohibit by law such a thing as that? But why only aided and special agreement schools? What about the county school, and the controlled school; are they to be prohibited? As I read the Bill, they are. I do not know whether this Clause is the result of some complicated bargain with church and anti-church authorities, or whether it has slipped in unobserved. I know that the main Act—Section 26 I think it was—laid down that collective worship in any county school should not be distinctive of any religious denomination. I do not think that was intended to prohibit a place. I think it was intended to prohibit a creed. In many parts of Scotland and Wales a chapel, and in many parts of England the parish church and cathedral, have for generations been the centre of communal and civic life. I cannot willingly see them placed out of bounds. I now turn to Clause 7 and here I am frankly puzzled. In reply to a Question the Minister stated on 13th December last: I hope the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but that is my reading.

Sections 51 and 52 of the 1944 Act do not appear to me to clothe the naked unless the naked are in local education authority schools. It may seem that this is a small point, but, when I read this Clause in conjunction with circular No. 83, and with many county development schemes which I have seen, I cannot help feeling that those who drafted this Bill, and who drafted the circular, are not, in fact, carrying out the Minister's intention as shown in statements which I have quoted. It is reasonable that we, on this side of the House, should demand that publicly owned boarding schools should, at least, attain, if not exceed, the standards reached by any other school. So far as day schools are concerned, it is not perhaps so difficult, but boarding schools are a different proposition. As outlined in most of the local authority schemes I have seen, this is not happening, not even being planned to happen. With the possible exception of Surrey, I have seen few—I will not say none, but few—proposals for publicly owned boarding schools of which I could feel proud. We must bear in mind that local education authorities have little or no experience in this field. I do feel they are in need, not merely of consents, but of positive guidance from the Minister.

Many have not appreciated that if taste and the critical faculty are to be stimulated, if craftsmanship and art are to thrive, if biological research is to be carried on—and in these fields the boarding school has immense potentiality—the environment of a converted dwelling-house in a busy town, an annexe to a day school, is not the appropriate or even the most economic approach to the problem. If anything in this Bill were to encourage this approach I should regret it. Not everyone has yet grasped that the basic problem of the boarding school is use of spare time. Is it appreciated what the long winter evenings mean and even what misery and un-happiness they can cause to 40 or 50 boys cramped in a house in a street, even if it is a spacious house? Yet many authorities are now making provision along these lines, and this Clause seems to me to encourage them to do so. For boarding schools, first we must go out into the countryside; second, we must provide for leisure, art rooms, craft rooms, lectures, debates, discussions, and playing fields, on a scale which is easy in a school of adequate size but impossible if boarders are to be maintained in penny packets of 40 or 50 to a day school under one housemaster. I know those 40 pupil boarding houses. There is often much misery inside them and very little culture.

Lastly, may I ask a very practical question? There are two classes of pupil who are likely to bulk large in boarding schools. First, the children of divorced or separated parents; second, the children of parents who serve abroad, of soldiers or of those who have no fixed home. What local authority is responsible for them? They have no local habitation but they are a national responsibility, and broken homes exist at every economic level. This problem should, therefore, be thought out if not on a national basis then at least on a regional basis. This will not happen without initiative from the Minister, contrary to the sense of the Clause I have quoted which, though it may seem a trifle, may be indicative of a policy. I am sure she is sympathetic and I ask her to show sympathy. I support this Bill and I congratulate her on it, but I ask her to consider the suggestions and so to set the wheels in motion that boarding schools may serve all types of children in our land and become the breeding ground of social responsibility, of craftsmanship, of culture and of intellect.

12.38 p.m.

I rise also to welcome the Bill. In all matters of education we Liberals believe in anything which will assist us to obtain the best possible results for our children, irrespective of their financial and social position. I believe the Bill will be welcomed on every side of the House. I am glad to know that the Minister has had the initiative to realise that the Act of 1944 requires a certain amount of amendment, clarification and explanation, and therefore that she has introduced it. Perhaps, as the schemes develop, further clarification will be required. I hope that she will not in any way refuse to make this an annual event, if necessary. We must see that there shall be no delay in the proper development of education in this country.

I, too, deplore any reopening of that bitter religious controversy—church schools versus State schools. It is of the utmost importance that it should lie dormant for a very long time. Many authorities are now at the stage where they have made considerable headway with their development plans, and if those plans are to succeed in a short measure of time we require a united and determined effort.

We must, in the near future, have a revision of the distribution of costs. I know that Members on both sides are worried about the way in which the Liberal Party continues to harp upon this matter, but it is essential, in our view, that the cost of education should be evenly distributed throughout the country, and that poorer areas shall not be penalised. The inevitable result of such penalisation is that the children in certain areas do not get the same standard of education as children in other areas.

I know there will be many occasions upon which we shall be able to press this point home. It is a point on which I feel very strongly because it may well jeopardise the future educational facilities of our children. I do not say that this is entirely the responsibility of the Minister of Education. It is a matter for the Government. The Treasury and the other Departments concerned have to take a very big decision with the whole of our rating system, particularly as it affects education. I welcome the provisions of Clause 8, not only because they give to teachers an eligibility which they have continually demanded, but because they tend, in some small way, to raise the status of the teaching profession. As Liberals, we welcome every opportunity to raise the status of this great profession, in order that we may have additional advantages for our children in the future.

I do not wish to spend time on the question of the collective act of worship. It is a very delicate matter. While in no way minimising the value of collective acts of worship taking place in churches, I am gratified to see that the Minister realises that if they are carried out too frequently they have administrative repercussions which harm the education of the child and increase the burden upon already overburdened teaching staffs. I am sure that a limited number of removals of children from school to church is right, but there comes a stage where the advantages which accrue, from the collective act of worship are totally outweighed by the disadvantages to teachers and to children. I hope that we shall resist the tendency for too frequent use of this dispensation.

I was very glad to have the assurance in the Bill that local education authorities will now have power to enlarge controlled schools, but I am not clear on several points and I would be grateful to the Minister for any clarification she can give. I am not sure whether the local education authority can add a completely new department, as may be very necessary, particularly in some rural areas, to accommodate pupils from all over the countryside, within daily reach of their homes. There is an obvious convenience about that arrangement, and I wonder whether it is possible under the Bill to add a completely new department, either to a grammar school or to a modern school, giving a bilateral school—grammar cum technical or grammar cum modern. I would like to know whether there is power to do so under the Bill as it stands? I cannot find it, and if there is not power, I should like to know whether it is the intention of the Minister that it should be done?

As far as voluntary aided schools are concerned, I am aware of the provisions of Clause 1 but I do not think they provide any compulsion for the managers to enlarge their school. I believe I am right in saying that there is no power at the moment to force those managers to do anything but to bring their schools up to the standard required for the existing number of pupils. In two villages close together there may be two schools, one or both of them being aided, and it may be better for the educational facilities of the place to close one school down altogether. That may be a far more economical method than trying to repair the school. If those schools are voluntarily aided schools, has the local education authority the power to close one which is not good enough and to insist upon the managers enlarging the other voluntarily aided school, so as to provide sufficient accommodation for the pupils from both schools? That matter is not yet clear in the Bill.

There was always, under the principal Act, where two schools are of the same denomination, a power to ask them to arrange a distribution of their children. It may be very dangerous to raise a point of issue about the power to close a school.

I do not want to raise that point, but, from a practical point of view, it is clear that it would be easier, if both schools were of the same denomination. Yet there are many instances where the better school is a voluntary aided school, and the one which ought to be closed down is a controlled school, for which the local authority has full power. This is a genuine point. I do not think it is clear in the Bill whether the managers can be forced to enlarge a voluntary aided school in order to accommodate the pupils from the school which is to be closed down, regardless of whether it is of the same denomination. I feel that the Bill is not clear on the general principle.

There are two further points which I should like to make; one is the question of playingfields which were mentioned by the hon. Member opposite. I agree that that is also a matter upon which some clarification is required. Under the First Schedule it is laid down that the local education authority has the duty of providing any sites for a school in addition or in substitution for the whole or any part of the existing site of the school, and yet I think I am right in saying that "site" is specifically defined as excluding playingfields. It does not seem to be clear as to who is responsible, in the case of voluntary aided schools, for providing the playingfields, not merely for new schools, but to bring them up to the required standard of building regulations. This is a question which has been put to me by people who are interested, and I should be very grateful for enlightenment.

The playingfields are part of the premises which they must provide.

That is a matter of opinion. I am asking for clarification.

Finally, I wish to make a plea that, in the development plans, the education authorities should be given every possible facility, where we can persuade them to do so, for establishing schools for infants of five to seven years in the rural areas. There is a tremendous shortage of accommodation for such pupils. There is, I believe, a very good case for pre- venting those children from having to move many miles every day. I am not speaking of children from the age of seven upwards, Where, I agree, they must have the value of specialised education. There is a case for provision of infant schools on a generous basis for the villages in rural areas. I hope that the local education authority will be given every possible assistance when they are persuaded to set up these schools. I welcome the Bill.

12.50 p.m.

I rise to speak on behalf of a denomination, to welcome the Bill, and to congratulate the Minister. I do not propose to take up the time of the House by praising all the points with which we are in accord, but I would like a little time in which to draw attention to one or two points which need clarification. On behalf of this section of the public, may I say in passing—it has nothing whatever to do with the Bill—that the members of the Catholic denomination were largely responsible for the resounding victory of the Government at Preston the other day, despite the efforts made, quite wrongly in my view, by a late Member of this House, to draw a red herring across the track.

A point upon which we shall have to put down Amendments in Committee, should the Minister not be able to satisfy us, is Clause 4. The Minister will be well aware of the anxiety of the people for whom I speak, that the wishes of the parents should always be given the fullest possible weight in all considerations, and it is noteworthy that in altering Section 109 of the principal Act, one of the sentences incorporating this very desirable principle has been removed by Clause 4. It may be only accidental. I refer particularly to the fact that Clause 4 does not seem to provide for a case where a school has been a direct grant school, where application for direct grant status is now refused, but has not yet become a voluntary school, yet where the parents would undoubtedly wish to have their children registered. No provision seems to be made for that particular case.

With regard to Clause 5, the only point I wish to make, and to which I may perhaps ask for an answer later, is that it has always been the custom in certain parts of the North of England, to close the Catholic schools on certain days of the year. It is possible under this Clause, that an unsympathetic local education authority might take the view that it was unnecessary to close the school, but merely to indulge in the corporate act in the local church, and then come back to school again. Where they do close, as a custom on holidays of obligation, it would obviously be undesirable for the local education authority to attempt that; I am not saying that they would, but it is possible. With regard to the First Schedule, Paragraph 6, providing for the transfer of land which the Minister explained in her opening speech, as having to take place from the local authority to the governors or managers, whoever they may be, so that they may fulfil the conditions of their trust deeds, the Minister alone has the right of appointing the trustee; but the trustee appoints the foundation managers. Whilst I do not complain at the condition which the rule stipulates, it seems to us important that the character of the school should not be lost; I should have thought that words might be inserted that due regard must be paid to the method of carrying on the school prior to the change-over.

Another difficulty arises; the trust apparently becomes a special education trust, not a general trust as hitherto, but when the site is re-acquired by the local authority in the eventuality of the closing down or cessation of the trust I would like to know what happens to the 50 per cent. of the cost of the buildings which has been borne by the governors. There does not seem to be any provision whereby the persons who have expended 50 per cent. of the money get that money back should that eventuality arise.

I now come to my final short point, and that concerns the Second Schedule. Part II deals with Section 14 (1) of the principal Act. The principal Act refers to expenditure incurred in respect of "establishment or alteration," which I think may be taken to mean capital expenditure. The new proviso refers to expenditure incurred "in respect of the premises." Does that include money expended on maintenance and repairs from time to time? My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will clearly appreciate that should there arise an eventuality in which the money has to be paid back to the local authority, if all the money that has been spent on repairs through the ages is to be taken into account, then a very considerable amount might be involved. I submit for his consideration that it does not mean money spent on maintenance and repairs, but capital expenditure. I appreciate, of course, what my right hon. Friend the Minister said in her opening speech about managers who change sites and might acquire a great deal of increment value of the land, having to pay to the Ministry a fair proportion of the increment at the discretion of the Minister. Although this has little to do with the Bill, I would point out that this is apparently the first occasion that the Government have insisted that increment value should be handed over. I hope a comprehensive Measure will shortly be introduced whereby all landowners who might be expected to acquire increment value of land shall hand it over. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take note of what I have said before he makes up his next Budget. Governors of educational establishments incidentally are more likely to use increment value beneficially than any other body of landowners and it seems odd that they should be the first selected to hand some of it over—though it is quite right that they should.

In conclusion, I repeat that we welcome the Bill. Of course, we do not consider that we get the full justice to which we are entitled. However, the Act of 1944 and this Measure clear a lot of the difficulties out of the way, and we shall look forward to the day when yet another Bill is introduced and we get 100 per cent. of that to which we consider we are entitled as a substantial minority.

12.59 p.m.

I do not intend to weary the House with a long speech dealing with all the details of this Bill. I wish to address myself to one or two of the main points. The first is that which was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler), with regard to the small village school, and, of course, there is an appeal for the view which he expressed. The small village school is close to the locality; the parents, children and teachers are part and parcel of the community. I have only one or two observations to make about that. Unfortunately, the small village school is often very largely an insanitary school. As a matter of fact, one of the condemnations of the village school system, if I may be allowed to say so in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), is that it has perpetuated, throughout the length and breadth of the country, schools whose sanitary conditions are a disgrace to the country. Not only are they insanitary, but they are also costly.

May I interrupt my hon. Friend as he has brought my name into this? I am sure, in justice to the denomination concerned, he will admit that those cases are very few.

I maintain that a small village school is, very largely, an insanitary school, and it is also costly. One can have a theoretic lesson by teachers in a small village school about cleanliness, and find only one wet dirty towel for 50, 60 or 100 children. I could shock the House with details of the insanitary conditions in church schools all over the country. I hope the Minister will not be unduly influenced by the weight given by my right hon. Friend to the case for the small village school. Reorganisation must entail a much bigger unit, and, therefore, I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education will proceed along the lines of erecting schools as big as Eton and Harrow. The finest system of education in the world is to be found at Eton because there are larger resources there. I want to see the spread throughout the length and breadth of this country of the system obtaining at Eton. If I may say so, I find that the upper classes know what they want and in many respects they know what is best, and, without any envy at all, I want those conditions for the common children of this country. Here I speak as one who represents an organised body of teachers with regard to all that appertains in this Bill to voluntary schools, and I say emphatically that if the settlement effected in the 1944, Act is tampered with, such a proposal will meet with the most strenuous opposition.

I agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden when, he said that the balance must not be upset. I know something about that balance; I do not know as much as the Minister, but I was concerned in it. I took part in the whole of the discussions, in Committee, and in some little measure behind the scenes. The religious settlement of the 1944 Act was accepted even by the denomination of which my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich is a representative.

With great respect, may I say it is true enough that consultations took place at a late date, but the Minister in charge at the time consulted every other section except my denomination when drawing up his plans.

Let us look at the facts. The Bill provided 50 per cent. but that was regarded as unsatisfactory and efforts were made to increase it. A compromise was found by means of a loan from the Treasury—the only place from which a loan could be obtained. The hon. Member for Ipswich and Mr. Tinker, who was then the Member for Leigh, were put up to say that, though the settlement was unsatisfactory, they would, in fact, accept it. It was accepted, and I think that during? the passage of this Bill, there have been some indications that an attempt will be made to unsettle it. I hope the Government will stand firm. There is no doubt about it that, if the question is opened again, we shall have all the old trouble and acrimony that has existed for years. With those few words, I welcome the Bill, which we shall deal with in Committee, subject to the overriding condition that, so far as the religious issue is concerned, there is to be no tampering with the settlement effected in 1944.

1.7 p.m.

The Minister, in her most clear and helpful opening speech, shuddered when she referred to the lawyers getting to work on a Measure of this kind. That made me feel a little uncomfortable, but undeterred, I am anxious to try to help in the consideration of this important matter. All hon. Members have been in agreement in emphasising that this Bill is, in effect, an adjustment of the great Act of 1944. Those of us who were in the last Parliament will recall that that Measure brought forth commendation from all sides of the House. It was acclaimed as a great advance in our system of public education. That praise has not been wholly sustained in all parts of the country, and I well recall adverse criticisms made against the Measure, and one in particular by an hon. Member sitting below the Gangway. It was called a sham. It seems to me to be fortunate indeed that the right hon. Lady, by her public pronouncements and by the introduction of this Measure, shows quite clearly that she does not regard as a sham that legislative edifice which was "architected" by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler), with the assistance of the right hon. Gentleman the present Home Secretary.

I desire to draw attention to one or two points of rather a specialised character in an effort to improve the Bill, and to put into the minds of the Government some suggestions which may, perhaps at a later stage, be incorporated. My first point is that the managers of voluntary schools should be required adequately to insure against third-party risks. The First Schedule to this Bill is designed, according to the Explanatory Memorandum, primarily to clarify the respective responsibilities of local education authorities and of the managers or governors of voluntary schools in regard to the maintenance of those schools. The House will remember that, by Section (15) of the principal Act, there is left with the Managers of aided and special agreement schools, a liability to repair the exterior and fabric of the school buildings. It will also be recalled that, under Section (24), there are cases when, quite plainly, the managers of such schools are the employers of the teachers. My point is that the managers of these schools, that used to be called non-provided schools, are still under a legal liability for injuries or accidents caused by their failure to repair the premises, or by the negligence of the teachers who are their servants, and the suggestion which I now make, and which I have made before, is that there should be considered the question of requiring the managers of these schools to be insured adequately against third-party risks. It is a matter which I raised in our discussions on the principal Act, and I raise this very largely because I have had experience in the courts of a great number of cases of school accidents, and of one, in particular, which I think would interest the House and would assist my argument in asking for this scheme of compulsory insurance.

On a day in 1934, an exhibition of work and an entertainment were held in a voluntary school in the City of Liverpool. The headmaster invited the parents to the entertainment, which was held in an upper room. The floor collapsed during the entertainment, and 30 or 40 people were precipitated below. One, at least, was killed, and many were gravely injured. Those who appeared for the plaintiffs were uncertain, as indeed they well might be in view of the multifarious statutory provisions which then obtained, as to who should be sued. They sued the headmaster because he had invited the guests, the managers because they were managing the school, the local education authority because they seemed to have some sort of obligation to maintain it, and the bishop of the diocese and others who were trustees under the trust deed and appeared to have something to do with it.

The result was that this litigation made its way from the coroner's court to the House of Lords, which it finally reached in 1941—seven years later. Ultimately, the managers were found to be responsible. They were insured, but the limit of their insurance was the sum of £500, and the result of this deplorable state of affairs was that no single claimant recovered his just due and every manager was, at any rate, liable to be made bankrupt, those managers being public spirited men but without any real financial substance. It does seem to me that it is not unreasonable to suggest that a system of compulsory insurance against such another tragedy is wanted. During our discussions on the last Measure, this suggestion was, in fact, favourably received by the present Home Secretary, who, in effect, said that the would see if such a Clause could be introduced. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to see me later and to say that it appeared to be beyond the wit of draftsmen to produce such a Clause. I make no complaint against him at all; he most courteously received me and gave me that explanation. But I am wondering now if the right hon. Lady will consider if, at this stage in this amending Measure, it is possible to introduce such a plan. If not, does the right hon. Lady think—and will the Under-Secretary say when he comes to reply—that there could be a recommendation, in the strongest terms, from the Minister to managers as to the urgency of this matter?

There are two other matters which I desire to mention very shortly. Under the terms of this Measure various rights are given to local education authorities, managers and so forth, and I wish to refer to one particular type of school, which is not often publicly referred to because there are very few of them—the choir schools. It was a matter which I ventured to raise during our discussions in 1944. My interest is due to the reason that there is, in my Division, a most admirable cathedral choir school which serves a very useful purpose indeed. I believe that there are some 20 such schools up and down the country, and in addition there are collegiate and parochial choir schools. I am told that, for the purpose of voice training, which may be of such immense value in after life and is of great artistic value in any event, boys should go to such a school not later than at the age of seven and should leave not earlier than at the age of 14. Under our present system there is a danger that parents may withdraw their children at an earlier age, namely, 11, so that they may find places in other schools at which to start their second stage of education. I have not found concrete difficulties, but it seemed right to raise the matter, as one of some importance. It is greatly to be hoped, I suggest, that schools will be encouraged to reserve some places for boys from choir schools who reach them at an age rather later than usual, in order that the important question of voice training may be properly dealt with.

My last point is this. I would like to ask the Under-Secretary whether he has had an opportunity of considering a letter, dated 21st December, from my Division, which I have identified to him, and which I would like to read to the House as being germane to this general inquiry on the subject of education. It is a suggestion that there might be considered by the authorities as war memorials, county public schools for the sons and daughters of members of the Forces who have been killed during the war. The letter, which I would ask my hon. Friend to deal with, reads thus:

1.20 p.m.

I rise to give some general support to the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. King) in his remarks, especially about Clause 5 of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will explain to the House the apparent differentiations which have been made between, on the one hand, county and voluntary, schools and, on the other, aided and special agreement schools. Why may not collective worship by all schools, on special occasions, take place in church? Why is one type of school debarred from this privilege while another has it? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler) stated that if there was any alteration in this Clause the general balance of the Education Act might be upset, and that such a change would excite comment. But it would only excite comment; I do not think the alterations I am advocating would do any harm. I fear that the real explanation is that denominational differences are at the back of what has been laid down in the Clause. If this is so, I think it is wholly deplorable, because, when there is such a widespread and lamentable ignorance throughout the country about even the rudiments of the Christian faith, it is time that these people who want to play each on his own instrument, should realise that while they are fiddling, Rome is burning.

Environment is a very important factor in educating men's minds and spirits, and especially is this so in the case of children. What more suitable place, may I ask, for religious worship, on the special occasions referred to in this Bill, than our lovely and all-too-much neglected English parish churches? Those buildings can inspire, uplift and sanctify in a way quite different from any common or garden school premises. So many people in our country are, as it were, without an anchor in life. They seem to have no philosophy of life, or such as they have is mainly drawn from the dog track and the cinema. They are like so many corks on a rough sea, carried hither and thither by every blast of vain doctrine, and there is plenty of vain doctrine about. Empty minds are surely a prey to all the "isms" from which this world is suffering, and a prey also to the false values so often portrayed in the degrading rubbish which appears on the bookstalls in the shape of cheap-jack literature and in many American films which, unfortunately, hundreds of thousands of people flock to see every day.

We in this House, whatever our creed, on special occasions, find ourselves wending our way to that old church of St. Margaret's over the road. Why should not all the children of the country worship in our parish churches when the special occasions mentioned in this Bill crop up? There they might learn very much which our forebears used to learn at their mother's knee. At least, I feel that they would be in an atmosphere conducive to the appreciation of fundamental things. I ask the Minister, therefore, to eliminate the distinction which is made, and by so doing, help in some small way to build up our fast diminishing reserves of spiritual values. I am glad the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) has left the Chamber, otherwise he would have been crossing swords with me on practically all I have said.

If I may interrupt, I should like to ask my hon. Friend if he suggests that the teachers of the country are not able to give that religious instruction which he is asking should be given elsewhere.

I never made such a suggestion so far as I am aware. The point that I am making is that atmosphere plays an important part in this matter, and that religious worship in church is much more uplifting and helpful than it is elsewhere.

1.26 p.m.

My right hon. Friend the Minister has every reason to be satisfied both with the reception of the Bill she has introduced today and also with the discussion. It has been of a most useful kind. It has covered a very wide field, and there has been very considerable agreement on all sides of the House, and a general desire to see both the original Act and this particular Bill, when it becomes law, fully implemented. It is most encouraging for the future that matters which, at one time, would have provoked very violent controversy can be raised in this House, as they have been this morning, in a spirit of tolerance, understanding and give-and-take. That is a very hopeful sign for the future.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) was very severe on village schools, and he said that they ought to be done away with because, he said, they were insanitary, costly, and because they did not provide sufficient clean towels. Nobody is going to justify an insanitary school or a school which does not provide proper amenities. But it does not follow that the remedy for insanitary conditions or a dirty towel is to get rid of the village school. Surely, the remedy is to see that the village school is one which is sanitary and has clean towels and other amenities. There is nothing in essence which prevents the village school having these things, and it seems to me that his remedy is rather like adopting the method of which we have all read with great pleasure in Charles Lamb's "Dissertation on Roast Pig", that the way to roast pig was to burn the house. It does not seem to me that the only way to get rid of what is wrong in the village school is to destroy the village school. I, personally, think that every proposal with regard to the removal of a village school should be considered by the responsible local authority on its merits, because very often there are very good reasons why the village school should be retained. "For one thing, there is the part the teacher plays in the life of the village community. I think we have in some of our village schools some of the best teachers in the country. It is difficult to assess the value of a school in terms of the money expended. I am not so much concerned with what a school costs as with the result of the work done in the school.

I am glad that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Dorset (Lieut.-Colonel Byers) reminded the Minister that the financial assistance given to local authorities will be an important factor in the implementing of the Education Act passed by this House. You will not be able to realise what is everybody's ambition—full equality of opportunity in education for every child—unless something much more than has been envisaged is done to make it financially possible for local authorities throughout the country to be equal to their responsibilities.

I should like to support the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. S. Marshall) for clarification of some of the educational terms in this Bill. The term "voluntary school" occurs again and again, and it has been used during the Debate. I thought—and I have been associated with education for a very long time—till the other day that I knew what a voluntary school was. But my own local education authority was called upon to appoint a new education committee, and, under the scheme, two representatives had to be representatives of voluntary schools. I assumed, and I think a great many other people did, that by voluntary schools was meant church schools, which in my own constituency have done very good work. But the recommendation was that the old voluntary schools should be given only one of the two representatives; and the other representative was for the two local grammar schools, not to represent all secondary schools, but only the grammar schools. It was news to me that a grammar school, which is partly maintained by a local authority, can count as a voluntary school. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary, in his reply, to say whether under the schemes that have been drawn up for the constitution of local education authorities it is intended that the term "voluntary school" should be extended to cover grammar schools?

I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. King) has come into the Chamber, because I want to support the plea he made that the additional powers to provide clothing should not be limited to schools maintained by the authority. I think that he and other speakers have made out a very good case for extending this provision to all children whom the local authorities send to boarding schools whether the schools are maintained by the authority or not. We have all a great deal of sympathy with the proposal that local education authorities should set up their own boarding schools, but I think it must be obvious to everybody that that must be a long-term policy. Local authorities have a great many demands for buildings of all kinds, and their first duty must be to implement the most urgent demands under the new Act. Therefore, while it may not be possible for some time, I hope that as soon as it is practicable these new county boarding schools will be put up. I am anxious that what is practicable shall be done, and, therefore, I trust that the Minister will not be deterred by what my hon. Friend has said and discourage local authorities from establishing boarding houses in their existing day secondary schools. That is something that can easily be done.

My point was that they are not even being planned for even the most distant future.

You cannot plan without taking up the time of your architect and people of that kind. Therefore, it is inevitable that all the officers of education authorities must concentrate for the time being on immediate needs than can practicably be fulfilled. I do not think—such is my own experience—there is not sympathy for or a desire to do these things. It is a case of first things coming first. In my opinion, the boarding house of about 40 to 50 boys attached to a secondary day school is a very valuable contribution to the life of a school and it is something to be encouraged. It can strengthen the school. It is of very great value to the children who are in this way able to benefit by a boarding school education. In a school of that type a child ought not to be a boarder necessarily for five years, but as many children as possible should spend a year or thereabouts in the school boarding house. I hope that the Minister will give every possible encouragement to local authorities to take action on these lines.

I was very glad to see that Clause 8 of the Bill restores the right which teachers had in the past of sitting on local education committees. In my own constituency, we have been extremely well served in that respect, and we were very sorry when the new Act came into force that, for the time being, we had to dispense with the services of one of our most valuable teachers. I would like to ask the Minister why it is that a teacher is not eligible to become a member, of a council of an excepted district? The teacher in the excepted district is not appointed by the excepted district but is a servant of the county education authority, and, therefore, I think it is very unfortunate that teachers who are in excepted districts are not allowed, to serve on their local councils. The impression which I got, when the original Bill was before the House, was that this would be possible; but whereas a teacher can be a member of a council of a county district he cannot be a member of a council of an excepted district. We were very pleased in Cheltenham when we became an excepted district, but many of us regretted that one price which we had to pay was that some of our local teachers, who we hoped under the new Act would be eligible for membership of the council, were unable to stand for election. I think that it is a very good thing for teachers to take an active part in all the life of a community and that they ought to be welcomed as members of local councils. They have a contribution to make, and I think that they will make better teachers if they have had contact with the outside world in this way and are given an opportunity to render this service to the community.

I would again like to associate myself with the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam in what he said about making full use of temporary accommodation. I do not think that in implementing the Act one ought to be frightened by the fact that one cannot get immediately the kind of building one would like. A great deal of useful work can be done in temporary buildings, and I hope that local authorities will be encouraged to use them to the fullest extent. There is no doubt that the structure of some of the schools in our industrial towns is such that they ought to be destroyed. I believe that it would be a good thing if all our schools could be rebuilt every 30 or 40 years to meet changing conditions, and, therefore, I think it is sound education policy and sound economic policy for education authorities to make their new buildings of light construction so that they can quite easily be adapted or scrapped at the end of something like 30 years, and so be able to provide the proper amenities according to the advance of education.

One of the great advantages, it seems to me, that the public school has over the average school under a local authority is in the general amenities, buildings and surroundings. Children in many of our primary and secondary schools have to be taught in dull and unattractive classrooms, and in the break they have to play in the schoolyard, which in winter is often in an impossible state, whereas public school boys are surrounded by everything that is ennobling, inspiring and encouraging. They spend their break on the grass playing fields, and in many ways they have advantages, which I do not begrudge them, because I think that the public school has done great service in setting a standard. I want to see that standard extended to all our schools. There is no reason why it should not be, and it is because I believe that it is the policy of the Government to try to bring this about at the earliest possible moment, that I welcome this Bill and all that they are doing to advance the education of the children of this country.

1.40 p.m.

I am interested in the unanimity with which this Bill has been welcomed. All my instincts warn me, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler) supports a Measure, to be on the lookout to see whether I can support it. The right hon. Gentleman was today, I believe, honouring an obligation to the teachers of the country who came to understand, when the right hon. Gentleman was Minister of Education, that they would be able to serve on the divisional executive set up, under the new Education Act. It would be of inestimable benefit to the schools if the teachers were concerned not only with class-room work but with the administration side of education. Every Education Measure which comes forward should be judged by the standard of whether it gives to the child better advantages than he had before. The Act of 1944, like earlier Education Acts, was judged by the people of this country in that light, and as I look at this small amending Measure, I appreciate that its first Clause does give the rural child a better chance than he had before.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) is quite right, I believe, when he says that many of our rural schools are a disgrace to a civilised community. I have seen many of them and only last weekend I visited some in mid-Wales. I agree with the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) that the remedy is to bring these schools up to standard, and give these children a chance. I believe that the village schools of this country have justified themselves in many ways, but the need for reorganisation of these schools is apparent to the parent, administrator and teacher. In some places administrative needs will make it necessary to close some schools, but, I believe, that the Minister and administrators in general would be well advised to try to keep in close contact with the village from which the child comes. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden was afraid, apparently, of having too large schools. I believe that the size of the school need not worry one, so long as the size of the class is all right. The problem, even in the small village school, has been that we have had an age-range from seven to 14 plus and 30 children put higgledy-piggledy into one class-room. This Bill will give an opportunity to local authorities to put these schools on a better basis.

The opportunity which is given to the authorities under Clause 4 to provide temporary accommodation is one which, I know, the teaching profession will welcome. Today there is overcrowding on a considerable scale in the schools, not only in the rural areas but even more so in the urban and city areas. If we are to give equality of opportunity to the children in our great cities and in other areas, it is necessary that we should have these temporary huts. It is far more important in my opinion that a child should receive a good education in a hut, than that he should get a poor education in a stone building. I happen to live in the Rhondda Valley and I am a son of a Rhondda Valley. I welcome that part of the Bill which gives to the Education authority power to clothe a child who is in attendance at a school maintained by an authority. On this point the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. King) made, I believe, a sound point which has been supported by the hon. Member for Cheltenham when he suggested that a child who is in need, whether he attends a maintained school, or a school which has direct grant, shall have equal opportunity. I believe I am right when I say that there are some areas in this country where the only secondary schools available for the children are these direct grant secondary schools, and under these conditions, children who are unfortunate enough to live within that boundary will be unable to have assistance.

It might appear to the House that this question of clothing is not very important, but I would remind the House that in early adolescence lads and lasses, too, I suppose—I know more about boys—tend to be far more sensitive about their appearance than they may be later on. In my experience as a schoolmaster, I have known cases where a child's education was impeded by the fact that he was feeling awkward, and I would have felt awkward myself under similar conditions. This Bill does put the finishing touches, in my opinion, to the Act, which roused so much hope in 1944. I aim, I hope, too wise to be drawn into the controversy on the religious issue for very good reasons.

Why?

I have no doubt the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) will be pleased to join in himself. When the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffing-ton-Lodge) was speaking about our lovely parish churches and the beauty of the churches in our land as compared with our schools, and when he made an appeal that the boys should be taken from the school to the lovely atmosphere of the church I thought he would have done well to bear in mind that we can improve the quality of the schools, and even more, that atmosphere is not something which depends on bricks and mortar. I know that, in many schools in this country, there is a training in religious instruction which far exceeds that given in many Sunday schools. I believe that we should be ready to pay tribute to the teachers of this country who have played such a worthy part in fulfilling the desires of the parents on these important points.

What about those who do not want to teach it?

I believe that those teachers who do not believe in the Scriptures should abstain from teaching them. I happen to be a Methodist lay preacher so I have never abstained. I take a special delight in religious teaching, but we must give the right of conscience in these days, not only to those who have no religious convictions but to those who have. We tend to let the pendulum swing too far in these days, and I suggest to the House that in Clause 5 the Minister is quite right in keeping to the balance. The hon. Member for Bedford did not realise, I believe, that he was sitting on the edge of a volcano. I believe that the House will appreciate that the teachers, the parents and the administrators are anxious to make this Education Act work. It is bound to fail, in my opinion, unless the Minister bears in mind the point which was raised this morning by the hon. and gallant Member for North Dorset (Lieut.-Colonel Byers) and supported later by others, on the question of finances for education authorities. It is all very well to tell rural authorities in this country that they can get bigger and better controlled schools, but it all takes money and the present financial assistance to many Welsh areas is insufficient. I welcome this Bill and I hope the points to which reference has been made, will be duly noted by the Minister.

1.53 p.m.

This is a small Bill in order to tie up the loose ends of the Education Act of 1944 and it seems to be admirable. It has received the blessing of the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler), and when the Minister of Education and the ex-Minister agree it is not for the ordinary back bencher to cavil. However, there is one matter to which I should like to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary, who, I believe, is to reply to this Debate. Teachers all over the country will be grateful to the Minister for Clause 8. It restores to teachers their right to sit on the education committees in excepted areas, which was in question until this Bill was introduced. It also gives teachers the right to sit upon local councils so long as they are not employees of those local councils. Many education committees in the past have had teacher representatives and teacher representation has been very valuable to the education committee concerned. The teacher representatives brought to the education committee practical, detailed knowledge of actual matters in the schools themselves. The presence of the teacher representatives on the education committees has also enabled teachers to understand the handi- caps and the difficulties upon the administrative side, and so brought about much better relationships between the education committees and the teachers in the locality. There is still one education committee, even when this Bill becomes law, upon which teacher representation is not allowed by the law of the land, and that committee is the education committee of the largest county council in the country—the London County Council.

Even when this Bill becomes an Act, teachers will be debarred from sitting as co-opted members on the Education Committee of the London County Council. The Act of 1902, which allowed councils to co-opt teacher representatives to their education committees, had a section which excepted London, but the London County Council Act of 1903 did not contain a Section giving that Council the right to co-opt teachers to their Education Committee. The Local Government Act, 1933, extended and confirmed the powers given in the Education Act, 1902, but, again, the London County Council Act of 1934 did not give that Council the power to co-opt teachers on their Education Committee. So, in the L.C.C. area, teachers have no representatives upon education committees; they have not even a joint advisory committee with the London County Council. Their only contact with that Council's education authority is through the' officials of their Committee. That is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. I sincerely hope it will be possible, on the Committee stage, for the Minister to introduce an Amendment which will legalise the possibility of teachers having representatives on the Education Committee of the London County Council. I am sure that if that were done it would very much improve the relations between L.C.C. teachers and the Education Committee, because at present, from all I can gather, such relations are not altogether satisfactory.

I have one other point to which I am obliged to refer. I was glad to hear the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden urge on his own Party the necessity for not raising matters involving religious controversy, and I was glad to note that every Member of his Party, who has spoken so far, followed that wise advice. I therefore regret, very sincerely, that the only Members who have raised matters which would lead to a renewal of religious controversy are two Members of my own Party, my hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. King) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge). Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford seemed to desire that all our children should be toned into little Anglo-Catholics by imbibing the delightful atmosphere of the village church. It should be known to practically every Member, that when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden was engaged in his task of drawing up the Education Act of 1944, he had to reconcile many conflicting aims and opposing interests. He did that by a compromise on the religious question, a very able compromise indeed, one which will go down in history as a classic compromise. If there is any attempt to extend Clause 5, to allow local authorities to take children from county or controlled schools to acts of collective worship outside the school premises, it will be an infringement of that compromise. It would reopen the flood gates of religious controversy throughout the educational world.

As one of the Parliamentary representatives of the National Union of Teachers, I emphasise that any suggestion that children in controlled or county schools should be permitted by the local education authority to be taken by their teachers to places outside those schools for acts of collective worship in churches, will be deeply resented, and strongly resisted by the whole membership of that Union. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on the fact that she has wisely preserved in this Bill the religious compromise. On the whole, this is a very wise Measure. We fully realise that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have a very difficult and tortuous path to pursue in implementing the 1944 Act, and I, for one, hope that this Bill will smooth that path and render their future task more easy.

2.2 p.m.

There are two points to which I wish to draw the attention of the House. I was pleased to hear what was said about village schools, because most of us agree that these schools have been a great influence in the well-being, prosperity and happiness of Britain. But I feel that in many cases thoughts of difficulties of administration and expense have persuaded local authorities rather sweepingly to close many of these English schools, and transfer their pupils into towns. I do not think we should pay too much attention to administration and cost. Personally, I would rather see local education authorities move pupils in towns out to country schools. It would be far better for the children and for the countryside and, indeed,- the country as a whole. Nowadays, great stress is laid on the importance of agriculture, and if children who have been born and bred in the country are to be taken into the towns great harm will be done to this industry. Therefore, I hope the Minister will always have great sympathy for the village school, and do nothing to close them and turn all our children into towns-children.

There has been a good deal of controversy with regard to teachers serving on education committees. From my experience, I have always considered that it was unwise that we were unable to have the experience of the teachers, not in great numbers, of course, on our local education committee. Now that difficulty has been settled by this Bill, but I want to see another possible controversy removed, namely, the question of clothing. There are many who disagree with the policy of giving clothes to pupils, as they consider that their parents should be responsible. What is meant by "clothing"? I can see controversy arising in a local education authority over this question, between those who believe in it and those who Jo not believe in it, and who will try to cut the issue of clothes down to the very minimum. We want to prevent this kind of trouble by providing a clear definition of what is meant by "clothing." I hope the Minister will take that point into consideration. I suggest that she should confer with the Board of Trade on the question of coupons for this clothing, on which I have been in correspondence with that Department. The number of coupons allowed for a child going to a boarding school is absolutely inadequate. The child requires from 150 to 200, but that is very far above what is at present allowed. Having put these points, I offer my personal congratulations to the Minister for producing, what I might call, this winding-up Bill to back up the Act of 1944.

2.7 p.m.

It is not my intention to keep the House for very long, but I would ask that we might be assured that the temporary accommodation which is to be provided will not be allowed to spoliate the countryside for too long. I have in my mind the picture of schools in my area, where temporary accommodation was provided after the last war, and which is still in being. Knowing some of the views- of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, and having read some of them in the Press, I feel sure that we can count on his support in avoiding a condition of that kind, not only in reference to education, but also in reference to any other building development. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler) said, it is not only a question of fine schools. Education can be provided in comparatively poor premises. But that is not an argument for giving our children their training in their most impressive years in anything but the best possible surroundings.

In spending money on providing beautiful places where young people may learn and where facilities may exist for parents to meet teachers, where the schools would be regarded as having a place in the community, I think we should be very careful about the kind of structures we raise. I think also that any investment in building beautiful premises is one of the best things we could make. Now, clearly, the Minister and the Government responsible for the implementing of the 1944 Education Act have a terrific task before them and, were we not such fervent believers in education, some of us would be cynical as to whether it would ever be possible, under the terms and conditions which local authorities are working under at the present moment, for the Act ever to be translated into the grand vision some of us had.

Reference has been made—although is not quite within the scope of this Bill—to the difficulties of local authorities inasmuch as they are handicapped financially. This is perfectly true, and at some point in history dealing with this great matter we shall have to deal with it in no uncertain fashion and see to it that on a population basis in some way the local authorities have an income which will secure to our children an equal opportunity, wherever they may live in the country. I recognise, however, that all the ramifications of the great Act of 1944 in the present condition of the country cannot be achieved for some time, and that in fact, in respect of staff and accommodation, we must have a meantime policy and a long-term policy. I should be very unhappy if I thought that the countryside was to be cluttered up with a lot of hutments, and that these represented our ideas of suitable buildings for our children. I fervently believe, however, that the Government intend at the earliest opportunity to provide decent schools, and temporary buildings can be made very beautiful, provided they are well sited, but if they are stuck in any odd corner and fastened on to the old building, they can become very unsightly. As one of my colleagues here said a few moments ago, the problem to which we must address ourselves immediately is to giving some kind of help to people who, for too long, have had inadequate accommodation and too many children in their classes. We are hoping to see a great development in the sense that we shall have nursery schools and nursery classes, and if it means getting these early by the acceptance of temporary accommodation, I shall welcome such a proposal from the Government. However, both in respect of temporary housing accommodation and temporary school accommodation, I hope that it is only a meantime policy and that it will be ended at the earliest possible moment.

I would like to refer to the clarification of the status of the teacher in relation to his possible service with a local authority. The Minister made it quite clear that the teacher could not serve upon any local authority by whom he or she was employed, but I am glad that some local authorities have encouraged members of the teaching profession to be numbered amongst their co-opted members. As most of us know, there is a limited number of co-opted members on most education committees, and I can think of no section of the community which has a more useful contribution to make out of vast experience than the teachers. Some of us in these large Measures of Socialisation are a bit apprehensive about the position of the worker and about workers' control. We are not asking for workers' control in education but undoubtedly the teachers, with their day-to-day ex- perience, are in a unique position to assist the valiant efforts which are made by lay members of the community who, week by week and month by month, endeavour to serve the community and administer the laws of the land.

Therefore, I welcome the clarity which is afforded by Clause 8 of this Bill, and I hope that as time goes on this Government and the responsible Minister will encourage local authorities to utilise the services of the teaching profession who spend a great deal of time in the interests of the child, not only in school but out of school. I am not a teacher, but I should like to take this opportunity of paying my tribute from personal knowledge, to the great services which teachers have rendered and without which no educational system could be a success.

I am glad, too, to see that some assistance is given in the matter of finance to people who are travelling to meetings. This might be extended a great deal in the sphere of local government work. I know from experience the expense in terms of time and travelling which work of this kind entails, and while I realise that the Government are sympathetic to giving every assistance to members of local authorities, it has a special value in connection with educational development because during the next few years calls upon people to serve voluntarily in the educational world will be very onerous indeed. Therefore, I think that although we await a much greater set up, great schools, smaller classes, more teachers and more assistance for the local authorities to get on with the job as an interim measure, in view of the difficulties confronting the Government today, I have great pleasure in welcoming this Bill, not as a small patchwork contribution, but as something which will help in the day-today problems which confront local authorities.

2.18 p.m.

I hope the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down will excuse me if I do not follow in too close detail the main arguments of his very excellent speech. Certain of the points he raised have been dealt with in other speeches. I was interested in the clear way in which he put them and I think the whole House will agree with me on that. Possibly there was a slight tinge of gloom but after all that is what one might expect in present circumstances and in the circumstances of the Bill. On another point, I should like to say something to the right hon. Lady whose introduction of the Bill we all enjoyed. At no point did I think she was more her very best self than when she was being interrupted from her own Front Bench. We all expect from the Chief Whip brutality for the Opposition but I think it is carrying it too far when he makes it impossible for his own Ministers to make their speeches. I say quite frankly that I was glad the right hon. Lady stood up for herself in the way we know she always does concerning things in which she believes.

A few days ago when I began to look into the Bill, and read the word3 "amend and supplement," my hopes were raised very high. I hoped that it would really do something to supplement the Education Act of 1944. I suffered during the discussions on that Act from a disadvantage, in that I could never put my points of view and because I had to listen to a very great deal. Of course I have not the slightest intention of dealing with that aspect, but I think that in this Measure, our main object should be to aim at the highest possible form of education which we can get. At this particular stage of the Bill, I do not think it will do any harm if I say that I frankly believe that the highest form of education which has ever been attained in Britain is that attained in Scotland. I have always thought it a pity to have a Clause such as we have in this Measure, dissociating Scotland from England, because I should like to see the spread of the good system down here.

I believe what is really as necessary as anything in education is close contact between the pupil and the schoolmaster, and also between the schoolmaster and the parent. If there is confidence of those three in one another this tends towards the very best kind of education possible. I want to emphasise that because I see a very serious danger in what I think is happening today. The tendency is to put up a great new school. This can be done either under the present Bill or under the 1944 Act. The school is opened by some person—it may be a Minister of an Under-Secretary, or possibly some big-wig from a local authority—and the tendency is to devote everything to the building so that it is said, "This authority has such a good building," and other authorities in their turn think only of the building and of competing with it. Frankly that is one of a number of bad things in this Bill. We are also apt to have temporary accommodation which may or may not be necessary. I am not accepting it as absolutely necessary as easily as some. I notice that the tendency of the local authority is to get the biggest and best possible building and absorb all the small schools in it. I feel that this leads to dissociation and that numerous children are removed from their own homes so that there is less chance of the schoolmaster having that individual knowledge of the child and of the circumstances of that child's upbringing which is the fundamental of education. That is the danger of these big buildings as I see it at the present moment. There is one thing in this connection which I think is also a very great danger. We tend to get first-class schoolmasters as teachers and people in contact with children who are liable to become purely executive officers. This, I think, is a very great mistake at the present time. Too much attention is being paid to various important or unimportant persons and not enough to contact with the child either in school, on holidays, on special days or at any other time. Those are things which I looked for in the Bill. I am not happy on the question of whether the Bill is sound in those matters.

Now let me examine Clause 1. This is not a Clause which we should dismiss lightly. I was delighted that hon. Member after hon. Member possessing experience and knowledge, should have spoken, and I listened to them with great interest. Unfortunately, I could' not listen to them all. I was delighted that the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. King), who has great knowledge of education, took an interest in the Bill. He does not talk in the back bench style, such as we sometimes hear on the other side. The Clause gives power for the enlargement of buildings. I listened carefully to what the Minister had to say on the point and I realise that there will be a certain amount of control by the Ministry. We tend, however, towards too much amalgamation of schools, which may mean taking children away from their natural locali- ties, in that their homes are there. I think that on this point we should have an assurance from the Minister.

I was interested in the suggestion made just now by an hon. Member that it would be a good thing to take children away from towns and out into the country. He had the sympathy of nearly every hon. Member. To educate successfully anyone of whatever age, the pupils must have reasonable health. Schools in the country tend to be more healthy than schools in towns. Having listened to the Minister, it struck me that the Bill might be used in a way which would carry out the most modern ideas and wishes of the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) had many good things to say about the Bill, but one always expects Front Bench Members to say good things about each other. That is something to which we grow accustomed as we grow older.

I have seldom said anything good about the other side.

I was going to suggest that it is a relic of a custom which sometimes persists after a Coalition. Hon. Members get into the habit of it I believe the Noble Lord does, too.

I would pass on to the point raised by the right hon. Lady about Clause 4. It is of considerable importance. It deals with the power of local authorities in respect of temporary accommodation for voluntary schools. I would warn hon. Members about this matter. I remember what happened after the war of 1914–18. Again and again, we have had warning that we must use the present temporary accommodation for some time, and that sooner or later it will be removed, but on the previous occasion the accommodation went on much too long. Temporary accommodation, very necessary today, will be necessary for a considerable time. There is more need for it after the recent war than there was before, because there has been more destruction, and it is essential to have roofs over the children to keep them dry and sound. It is also the fact that there are bigger areas of schools. I hope that we shall not use the excuse of temporary accommodation for too long. It is a matter which we should follow very carefully and on which the House should keep its fingers. It should not allow the Government to get away with it, otherwise the position will go on year after year. I believe that at the beginning of the war there were still huts in use, which had been left over from the previous war.

When I read Clause 8, about the election qualifications of teachers, I thought I understood it. I then listened to the Minister, and I was not so certain. I was a little more certain when I had heard my right hon. Friend explain it. What is the real position? I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would give me his attention. I believe he will try to reply to the Debate. His experience may be such that he does not think it worth while to listen to people before he makes his reply. What we are trying to do today, is to enable a teacher to serve on a local authority except the one which directly appoints him. If that is the position, as I hope it is, we have probably removed an anomaly from the Act of 1944. Having listened to most of the speeches today with great care, I believe we should make absolutely certain about this matter. We are under the grave difficulty from which we always suffer now of having no legal authority to appeal to upon the Government Front Bench. In the absence of that authority, this matter will undoubtedly have to be put right on the Committe stage, because no doubt must be left in this matter.

I pass to another point which was raised, I think, upon the original Act. It is concerned with the clothing position. The point is, who is to find the clothes? The Minister said that the Bill removes a very slight anomaly in this respect, but it is clear from the speeches of hon. Members that many of them consider the anomaly to be not slight, but one affecting a larger number of children than any one would have thought on listening to the Government Front Bench. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) made that plain. If not today, then in Committee, it would be well for us to deal with the point so as to make it possible for all children to be on the same basis respecting this clothing matter.

I was rather interested in another point, and I feel sure it is one on which the hon. Member who is to reply, will be able to satisfy me. In Part II of the Second Schedule we have a reference to the question of the caretaker's dwelling. This has not been raised to any considerable extent. It has just been touched upon. It is rather curious that, at this stage of modern education, the position of the caretaker, who often performs invaluable services to the schools from the health point of view, has not yet been made absolutely clear. I hope that, in the course of this Debate or in the Committee stage of the Bill, the details which were raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden will be enlarged upon. These details may seem insignificant but it is on the building up of the details, and the value of the teachers, and everything in connection with the school, that you get education. I sincerely hope that before this Debate ends—I suppose it will end in due course—we shall have the benefit of the knowledge and experience which past Members can give us on this point. On an Education Bill of this sort, it is, natural that we should expect the fullest help on matters which to some of us are interesting.

After those remarks, perhaps I may be allowed to touch upon another aspect of the Bill. In connection with the 1944 Act, possibly nothing was more helpful to education in this country than the fact that for the first time for generations we had an Education Bill, in which the House of Commons absolutely refused to allow religious views to enter. That was a very remarkable change. Wicked and dictatorial though the House might have been in some ways, everyone, on all sides, wanted to concentrate on the children. We have the same very good principle extended in the Debate today. It is a very vital thing so far as education is concerned, and I hope I have some understanding of this matter after having listened to so much discussion of it. I sincerely hope that in carrying through this new Measure, that will be kept in mind. Disappointing as the Bill is to me in many ways, because I do not think it is going to get buildings and teachers more quickly—I hope it will—if we can get that one foundation, of keeping religious problems out of education, I believe we shall have done something today. Even though this Bill is not a very big one and does not go very far, I believe it will do something to help to give a better and sounder education to the children of the future. I think the House has a great work to perform in the future on education, and if we can keep politics out of it, I think we shall help in that way, just as we have helped in other ways.

On a point of Order. May I request that candles be brought in to help dispel the gloom which is overpowering the House?

2.44 p.m.

I will try to introduce a little religious feeling into this discussion, in the few minutes which I intend to occupy. An hon. Member who spoke earlier said that he was very suspicious of this Bill, and I would like to say to new Members, that it would be a very good thing if they would read the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler) when he introduced the principal Act. It was a speech which showed a very wide knowledge of educational standards, and set forth very fine, high principles. In the discussion of the Measure, we got on all right until we came to the religious Clause. Then all principle and standards were forgotten.—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."]—Then we had to get a compromise, and it was a typical Tory compromise and an hon. Member speaking here as representative of the teachers, knowing the position of the Minister of Education, has continued the reactionary compromise of the previous Tory Minister. I think that Clause 5 is very bad. I think it is a shameful thing that anybody should be given power, in any circumstances, to take the children out of school. Religion should be taken out of the schools completely, and the whole of the school time should be spent on education. I have had letters from teachers in many country districts, and they tell me they had to teach it. If they did not, they knew they would not be there very long. What has this question of religion to do with education?

It has nothing whatever to do with education. If children were being taught in one school that two and two make five, and you took your child to another school where they were teaching that two and two make a ton of candles, would anybody call that education? But you take the children out of a school and put them into another institution where A tells a story to the children and says, "This-is the absolute truth," and then they are taken to another institution where B says, "What A told the children is not the truth; it is the opposite of the truth." What good is that sort of thing to the children? I will give another instance. In our schools today we are absolutely opposed to corporal punishment. When I was at school it was quite common for the schoolmaster to keep a cane and to burn the end of it. They say "Spare the rod and spoil the child." The rod was not spared on me. I do not know if I was spoiled or not.

Does the hon. Gentleman think that the canings, which apparently he had, produced a beneficial effect?

I said I did not know if I had been spoiled or not. There are many hon. Members on the other side of the House who, I am sure, are of the opinion that caning has done a bad job. Be that as it may, the point is this, that if a teacher in these days inflicted that brutal caning—by a big man of a small boy—that we had then, he would go to gaol. If a teacher tried to inflict some of the beatings that I got, he would go away for six or 12 months. The teacher who used the cane on me, was a well-known athlete. Of course, I knew how to use a slate, but I did not get away with it completely. The one thing we are opposed to is corporal punishment in the schools. Everybody knows that fear is not the way to get the best out of people.

I must point out to the hon. Member that I can find nothing in this Bill which deals with corporal punishment.

I am sorry I did not make it clear that I was using this as an illustration. The children are taken out of the schools to an institution where the fundamental character of this so-called education is fear. It is the fear of hell. As Burns said:

"The fear o' hell's the hangman's whip To haud the wretch in order."

Why should there be that state of affairs if we want to educate the children? How can we argue that in the schools we have to encourage the children, be kind to them, understand them and bring out the best in them, and then take them away and terrorise them with the fear of hellfire and brimstone? [ Laughter .] Of course, I know we are trying to civilise it now, but that is still the fundamental character of it. I notice that the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) said that we could discuss this question without any of the acrimonies of the past. Yes, because we are allowing the reactionaries to get away with it. That is why this question is being discussed without the acrimonies of the past. But let us take a stand for the children. The reactionaries will use against us every appeal to the passions, but we should be prepared to face that. I hope before the Bill comes before the Committee that something will be done to remedy Clause 5.

2.50 p.m.

I find it difficult to follow the impassioned oratory, obviously inspired by religious fervour, of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), with a few dispassionate and technical observations on the Bill from the educational view point. First of all, I hope that it will be plain—as most matters on which we are in doubt are made plain in this excellent Bill—that the act of corporate worship should, as a general rule, take place within the building, for it is a very important part of education and was recognised as such in the principal Act. Secondly, I hope that some way can be found for the Ministry of Education to do away with the technical term "department" and use instead that of "school" when they mean "school." The term "department," in effect, means a place such as the building section of a technical college. The sort of department referred to in the Bill is really a self-contained school but, unhappily, is placed with other schools in the same building. We should try in such cases as far as possible to use the expression "school" instead of "department." I am glad that "department" is defined here, but I would prefer to see "school" always used.

Teachers generally, and harassed education committees, will welcome Clause 8, for the actual appointment of some divisional educational executives has been sadly held up until this Bill has appeared. Indeed, in certain districts of which I know, the divisional educational executive has had to leave vacant places for an unspecified purpose until this Bill appeared, so that they might appoint teachers. The small school has been adequately defended by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) and others, but I would remind the House that the difficulty with the small school is that it is now inadequate for its purpose because the Ministry of Education is constantly adding new requirements which cannot be fulfilled by a single teacher within the considerable age range he or she has to deal with. How can one poor harassed lady in a small village school, with 30 to 40 children ranging from five to 14 years, be expected to be a P.T. expert, a music specialist, and all the rest to satisfy the requirements of one of His Majesty's Inspectors when she is acting as head mistress, milk distributor, clothing measurer and so on? There must be grouping if there is to be specialisation so that the education of the village child may be comparable with that of the town child. I plead for my unfortunate colleagues who are trying to do their best, and indeed are doing their best, under absolutely impossible conditions to meet the requirements of the Ministry of Education—incidentally quite proper requirements. Therefore, the time of the small single-teacher, all-range school is over, just as in the United States, when I looked for the little red school house of tradition, I found it had largely disappeared because the schools there are overtaking the requirements of the modern world instead of lagging behind, as we are here. I would reinforce the words uttered by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) on the question of temporary buildings, because the job that I left for an even more arduous one in this House, was in a school where we had a temporary dekka building put up in 1910, and it was still the metal and woodwork shop when I appeared in this House in August.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman one question? Is there any sign of its improvement now?

In 1939 a building scheme was envisaged which would have provided us with a modern type of building, but unfortunately the war intervened so it is still with us. However, even from 1910 to 1939 is a good long run for a temporary building. We need not examine the public schools of England for an example of the kind of school we want. In progressive counties like the West Riding of Yorkshire we have fine, modern schools growing up, with fields, assembly halls and workshops of various descriptions so that the pupils can have a sound academic, physical and practical education. All we have to do is to turn our attention to those schools, copy them and improve on them and we shall not need to go back to such schools as Harrow, for instance, which even now are modernising their classrooms in the light of experience gained from the modern secondary schools in Middlesex erected just before the war.

2.55 p.m.

In spite of the stimulating and individualistic speech we have heard from the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), I think there is no doubt that this Debate has been a non-controversial one. I do not suppose there has ever been an education Debate which has shown so few differences of principle between us, and I hope that will long continue. The Bill has been regarded as a little Bill, and I think many of us here feel that it is, perhaps, not a bad thing. I feel that this would have been a model occasion for a maiden speech. In my case, I am glad to find myself standing here with no brickbats to give, and I think that we all agree that, however stimulating the heat and vigour of political controversy may be on other occasions, it is a bad sphere in which to discuss educational projects, for in no activity, more than education, is it important for us to keep our eyes on the ball, and the ball in this case is the welfare of the pupils and students, and nothing else whatever.

The great Coalition Act of 1944, I feel, had virtues which were threefold. First it achieved a really remarkable measure of agreement in a Bill of a kind in which that attainment is not an invariable feature by any means. Secondly, it really did keep our eye on the ball, and, thirdly, throughout, it is permeated by a broad outlook and generous spirit. I congratulate the right hon. Lady that, in this Bill, in spite of its necessarily rather dull Clauses, she has been loyal to the traditions of that great Act.

When we scrutinise that Act in retrospect, few of us will find everything to our liking. Many will wish that the dual system might painlessly have passed away, but to have attempted that aim in the circumstances obtaining would have left behind a legacy and a sense of injustice and unfairness in the minds of people who have made a very big contribution to the development of our efficient educational system. I mean, of course, the voluntary bodies. This Bill follows the parent Act, I think, in a thoroughly loyal way. It is a remarkable testimony to that Act that, after this time—not a very long time, but a time which has given us, among other things, a change of Government—the changes required should be so few and such comparatively minor ones. I feel that in the future, no doubt, further changes will be required, and, as and when they become necessary and obvious, no doubt further Amendments will be brought forward, but I hope we shall not have them as frequently, as one hon. Member mentioned, because one of the benefits of the 1944 Act was that it did enable the local authorities to see where they stood, and how their plans should be developed, and, if we are to have changes too frequently, that great benefit would be seriously damaged.

There is one direction in which, I feel, some changes are bound to be required. They have already been referred to by one hon. Member, and they concern the realm of finance. This Act is going to be very expensive for the local authorities, who, in making their development plans, are faced with capital expenditure running into many millions of pounds, apart from all the other expenditure involved. I feel that, particularly in the rural areas, it may likely reach a point where the burden on the present basis that will fall on local rates will be higher than can be borne if proper justice is to be done to the welfare of the children in those areas, and I think that, sooner or later, that position will have to be faced.

With regard to the Bill itself, I have only one or two observations to make, as we are all looking forward to the maiden speech of the Parliamentary Secretary. Clause 1 seems to me to be thoroughly in the spirit of the Act. It will, we hope, enable us to deal, among other things, with the sort of situation which is now becoming frequent in rural areas—the need for providing one school to take the place of several schools which, unfortunately, can no longer be retained as separate units. The only question I am not quite certain about is whether this Clause will go quite far enough in that respect. It is important, I think, in the rural areas particularly, that, in the circumstances, the utmost flexibility should be allowed so that the most sensible scheme can be devised for any particular circumstances.

In the County of Devon, we have over 50 per cent. of our primary schools with under 50 pupils, and soon we shall have 120 schools with less than 25 pupils. Rather more than half our schools are voluntary schools. Rural depopulation has gone so far that it is no longer possible, unfortunately, to maintain every village school as a separate unit. Here, we have got to keep our eyes on the ball. If we do attempt to retain every village school as a separate unit, we shall not be giving country children the opportunities appropriate to them, which they would obtain if living in more populous areas. I do not think that we want to close down village schools if it is at all feasible to keep them open on that basis, but if, to keep them open, would involve the country children being penalised, it would be the very greatest mistake to do so, and there are a number of cases, unfortunately, where it is obviously necessary to close them down. The truth is, I think, that the village can no longer be the complete self-contained and self-sufficient unit for all purposes, that it used to be in years gone by. When we have closed down a village school, we have often done several other things as well. The teacher is often a loss to the village—often as friend and counsellor to the whole village—and there are such things as the conveyance of small children in buses and other matters, all of which must be weighed up. Our experience in my county is that, if the scheme as a whole is carefully and sympathetically planned, and the new school is sited in the right place—in the case of a primary school, in a large village, and, in the case of a secondary school, in a small country town—then, in the result, the gains enormously outweigh the losses. I am sure that hon. Members will realise that, coming from a country constituency and having lived in the country all my life, if the interests of the countryman are not in my heart, that organ is a complete and empty void.

The teachers in our small country schools have an amazing record of devoted achievement, and they have produced results in gravely difficult circumstances that are an enormous credit to them. But we must be careful lest we ask them to go on doing the impossible. In saying that I want to make an appeal, which has already been made much better than I could make it by my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), that in planning these new schools let us beware lest we go to the other extreme and become slaves to mere numbers and size. Let us be moderate. I hope that the right hon. Lady will not lend a ready ear to some of her supporters on the opposite site of the House who, I think, are inclined to follow that particular heresy. I feel sure that she will not confuse what is good with what is big, because surely she herself furnishes us with an amazing example to the contrary.

There is great temptation, administratively, to go in for bigger and bigger schools—generally speaking, they are more economical. They lend themselves to a tidy scheme, but I want to support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) to the effect that there is a danger, in a very big school, of the head teacher becoming merely a hot-stuff executive. I remember seeing some monster schools in America a good many years ago. We have much to learn from America's educational methods in many ways, but not in the size of their schools. The headmaster of one of these schools was a paragon. He had been hand-picked. There were 8,000 pupils, and everywhere I went, throughout the school, the reputation of that headmaster was boosted. I was told, "He is a real live wire. He has the most astonishing filing system in the United States." It was operated by a button, and he sat opposite that button from 9 o'clock in the morning until school broke up in the afternoon. We want live wires, but not that type of live wire. Surely the most important element in education is the influence of the head teacher and of the other teachers on the pupils, and in nothing we do must we sacrifice that consideration for anything else whatever. The school is a living organism and not a mass-production organisation.

Clause 4 deals with temporary extensions. It seems to me to remove a possible obstacle to doing the sensible thing in certain circumstances, and as I have already said, the utmost flexibility in doing the sensible thing is what we want. We have heard a good deal this afternoon about the "hut minded" and huts. I do not think that "hut" is the right word to use in reference to the kind of temporary building which is being put up for our schools. These temporary buildings are of excellent quality, and I believe they will have a useful life which approximates very nearly to what the optimum life of a school building should be.

Clause 5 clarifies the position in regard to attendance at church, and I think it is wise not to go any further or to open the door any wider than does that particular Clause, because the compromise achieved in the 1944 Act was no mean attainment It would be a disaster if anything were done to upset it at this stage. I think it is completely in the spirit of the Act that the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Morley) put so well.

On Clause 7 and clothing, like most other hon. Members, I should like to ask for an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that this empowers local authorities to deal fairly widely with this question. It does not appear to. I am thinking not only of schools to which pupils are sent by local authorities though not maintained by the local authorities but of boarding establishments which are approved but not maintained by the local authorities. I think we all hope that in both these cases the local authority when necessary should be able to make contributions towards the cost of clothing. The hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. King) dealt with' the question of boarding schools, and I think many of us will hope that as time goes on we shall be able to provide enormously increased boarding facilities for the children. We have got to be patient, however, but I think there is a very strong case for the future for the big majority of children to benefit from spending, at any rate, part of their school career under conditions in which they can share in the corporate life of the school in a way only possible in boarding schools.

I come to Clause 8, dealing with the teachers' membership of local committees and councils, of which they cannot be members if they are directly employed by them. That seems to me to be very good. Those of us who sit on local education authorities know that the experienced advice of teacher-members has been extremely useful to us. The provisions on travelling seem wholly good. I am not quite clear, but I imagine that the term "district area" refers to a local government district area, and would permit the cost to be refunded outside the boundaries of the local government area. It seems to me there is a strong case for making such expense divisible between local authorities and the central funds. I cannot see why it should all fall on the local authorities.

I am not going to refer to the Schedule in detail. It seems to clarify certain rather complicated relations between the voluntary bodies, and to do so very much in the right direction. There is one point I want to mention, though I think it may be received with cries of protest from the other side of the House, and that is in connection with the difficulty today of acquiring quickly sites and buildings necessary for permanent or temporary extensions of our system. One big handicap in existing circumstances is the restriction put in the last Town and Country Planning Act which restricts the Government from agreeing to a price higher than that ruling in 1939. We do not want the State to pay through the nose or to be exploited, but, after all, 1939 values are becoming irrelevant. There has been a price increase of 50 per cent. to 100 per cent. above the price level of 1939 since then, and we are never likely to see it go down again to the 1939 level. Surely we must face up to that, and until we do, to acquire compulsorily buildings, particularly, from people who may have to provide alternative accommodation for themselves at values one-third to one-half more than what they would obtain by selling unless, perhaps, to someone else, does seem to me more like expropriation than compensation. It does at the moment cause a big difficulty in acquiring these sites, first to the authorities and then to the Government valuers.

I have no very strong views on caretakers' houses but I am very glad to see that the position there is clarified, because in my own experience that is the sort of thing that detracts from major schemes of educational progress. On the whole, my impression is immensely confirmed in looking back at the 1944 Act as now clarified and amended that under that Act the voluntary bodies were most fairly and generously treated, as is right and proper in view of the contribution which they have made to our education.

One or two things have been said by hon. Members to which I wish to refer very briefly. One hon. Member appeared to find some inconsistency in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden, because in his appeal this afternoon for not too big schools he was apparently also guilty on another occasion of having defended a direct grant school with a very large pupil population. Surely the explanation is that some of these direct grant schools are so good that they can compete with the conditions that less well established schools may find a handicap. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), I think also wrongly interpreted what my right hon. Friend said. He appeared to think that my right hon. Friend was inclined to the status quo as regards village schools being maintained and that no village school should he closed. That was not my impression of what my right hon. Friend said. What he said was that it necessary they had to be closed—

The only point I was trying to make was that a large number of village schools are insanitary and costly.

I have acknowledged that fact, because many of them happen to be among the oldest schools. You can replace an insanitary village school by a modern sanitary village school, but that does not affect the issue very much. The only thing that really matters is what is going to be best in the educational interests of the children concerned. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffing-ton-Lodge) warned us that many people in this country were like corks on the water subject to the breezes and currents of vain doctrine. I think that he has got something there; and in tempering these breezes and currents of vain doctrine, the hon. Gentleman opposite might be able to make some useful contribution. We had some good fun from the hon. Member for West Fife, who told us, with other Mem- bers, that he found himself a little nervous at being in the company of the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden. I think that many of us fell nervous at entering distinguished company, but the longer we stay in distinguished company the more we find that nervousness disappears. He and I seem to have received much the same treatment in our recollections of the cane, even if the results are not precisely the same and we have not been reduced to one type. The explanation may be that in his case the cane had a burnt end. In the picture he drew of fear being a dominating influence in the schools of this country today, surely he was wide of the mark.

In conclusion, may I say that hon. Members on this side of the House will not wish to obstruct in any way the interests of the Bill, which seems to encourage progress already ordained by the parent Act, and which has received the overwhelming approval of the country. The Act is only a plan, and it is a good plan. Let us see in carrying it out that we avoid what is always the danger in a big plan—excessive uniformity. Let us make sure that diversity, flexibility and individual quality are our watchwords. The success of it will depend more than anything else on the character, enthusiasm and devotion of the teachers supported by the local authorities. The most pressing problem we are facing today is the selection and training of the promising young men and women on whose influence the whole future of our education will depend. In this we can all help by showing we believe that the teaching profession is a vocation which is capable of rendering service to the nation second in importance to nothing else.

3.25 p.m.

I regret that the House has to be burdened with a maiden speech from me on this important Occasion, especially when it is not only a maiden speech as a very junior Minister but also a maiden speech as a Member of this House. For that reason I confess I am feeling at this moment rather like Macbeth when the "Amen" stuck in his throat. But I trust that will not be my feeling in a few minutes, when I come to the end of this speech. With the aid of the right hon. Lady the Minister of Education I feel somewhat fortified in my position, and I have no intention of leaving any bleeding grooms recumbent on the benches opposite. The most gratifying thing to the Minister and to myself is that this Debate has shown a very great interest in education. It used to be my experience academically that even when a man read some abtruse scientific subject he always thought he was an authority on Shakespeare, and one seems to discover in Debates in this House that everybody is, in one way or another, an authority on education.

This Bill is not a major Measure of reform, but the speeches today have revealed the warm enthusiasm for the speedy implementation of the great Act of 1944. What we have to do in the first instance is to implement the big things of that Act. I am not convinced myself that that Act has settled, or indeed was ever capable of settling, the lines upon which we must go to solve the fundamental problems which concern us today in education, but at least it has provided excellent machinery for advancement, provided we, in our turn, have the courage to be bold and are prepared to convince the authorities, teachers and parents that at the Ministry we mean business. The object of this amended Bill coming so soon after the Act of 1944 is a further indication that the Government are determined to bring in all the necessary reforms indicated in that Act as speedily as possible.

In certain particulars the Bill has passed muster today, and there is nothing further I can say on the Clauses which have received consent and commendation. But, with regard to the remaining Clauses, I would like to say something about the chief points which have been raised. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler) desired—and I sympathise with him—that there should be some form of consolidating Bill. It is extremely difficult for a Minister, and particularly for a junior Minister, to be able to relate even so small a Bill as this to the principal Act. But, unfortunately, there are heavy demands on Parliamentary time and on Parliamentary draftsmen, and however much all of us may desire a consolidating Bill that has been found to be impossible.

I have great sympathy indeed with the protests which have been made against the wholesale closure of village schools. In fact, the Ministry have already announced what they feel on this important matter. We certainly have never contemplated, and have never asked, that development plans prepared by local authorities should result in wholesale closures. If Members will read the Ministry's pamphlet, "The Nation's Schools," they will see that we have said:

Now I want to say something about the provision of accommodation. I welcome the protests about the use of the word "huts," because they are something more than the huts we used to know at the end of the last war. They are something much more elaborate, and I suggest that the architectural departments of local authorities can do a great deal with these emergency buildings. We seem to be terrified, in English education, of colour. A good wash of green, pink, and certainly of red, a good vivid colour, can do a great deal to make these emergency prefabricated buildings look well. I have known that in the country grammar school in 1945, the provision of prefabricated buildings, well-coloured, with now and again a mural tablet on the outside of the main door, has made these buildings look even better than those which 300 years ago had been built with red brick. However, the important thing, as hon. Members have stressed this afternoon, is that we must get the children educated and so, in the emergency plan, the Minister proposes that there shall be these so-called huts.

Then there is a second stage; that is the provision of the standardised school, but I hope that, in development planning, authorities will go further ahead and think of the permanent building. I would dislike intensely the idea that our schools, looking 30 and 40 years ahead from now, were simply standardised buildings, because I think that the school enables the locality to put character and individuality into its education. I do not think that a building is of secondary importance in education; I think that a good building is as important as a good teacher. I think the two, if we plan ideally, are at the same priority, and we should learn to be as proud, in a civic sense, of our schools as we are in certain towns proud of our town halls, as we were proud of the church in the medieval English village, and as they are proud in certain American towns of their great railway stations.

So there are three stages as far as I can understand it. The first is the emergency programme; the second is the standardised school; and the third is the long-term planning where we still insist, I hope, upon first class buildings. The hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. Davies) quite rightly emphasised that we should do nothing further to despoil the countryside.

Then something was said by several hon. Members about this question of religion and the corporate act of worship. It depends, of course, very much upon the teacher who is responsible for the corporate act of worship, but the act of worship in the school can be—and in my experience nearly always is—an act of corporate reverence. Nevertheless, it is possible that certain traditions in localities demand that the school should have a special act of corporate worship outside the school building, and I feel that Clause 5 is a very happy compromise. I do not know that the fear of hell is quite so seriously in the minds of those who live in this part of Britain, as it is in North Britain. Having been brought up a Scottish Presbyterian in Ulster myself, I can take rather a detached view of these things and, of course, I know a good deal about the fear of hell. However, this Clause seems to me to be a fair compromise, and although I think that if it meant once a week, we would consider that it was too often, nevertheless the operative phrase "on a special occasion" can, I think, be administered with imagination and elasticity.

Then in regard to Clause 7, which has been touched upon by many hon. Members this afternoon, there is the question of providing clothing free of charge without inquiry into the parents' means; that is to say, for pupils attending residential schools maintained by the authorities. It will be remembered that local education authorities have this power under the 1921 Act, and its omission from the 1944 Act has given rise to serious difficulties, as the right hon. Lady has pointed out. These serious difficulties have arisen especially in the case of handicapped children attending residential special schools. The question is asked, can this provision be extended to other kinds of schools? Personally, I would like to think so. I did sympathise very warmly indeed with the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas) who referred to the sensitiveness of young people about the clothing they wear. To appear on the school cricket pitch wearing grey flannel trousers, when all the rest are in white flannel trousers can be, to a boy, a very great calamity indeed. I have found in my own recent experience, as the chairman of an education authority, that we have been up against this question of the expense, especially in connection with school equipment. There are gym shoes required and the girls want dancing shoes and dancing tunics, and I would like to think that it was possible to agree that the poor child should be given equality of opportunity in the provision of these things.

Coming to Clause 8 and the permission it gives for teachers to serve on certain kinds of local education committees performing educational functions, there I feel complete sympathy. It seems to me that teachers can bring to educational committees all their knowledge of day-to-day working in the schools and the effect of administration. It is impossible, as certain hon. Members have requested, that teachers should be given permission under this Bill to be members of the local authority which employs them. That, surely, would be an infringement of the Local Government Act and it is not the business of this Bill to rectify what may or may not be a serious omission in that Act.

Nevertheless, I welcome the Clause because it will ensure expert advice from those with an intimate knowledge of the working of the schools. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams)—and I not only listened to his speech but was discussing one of the points which he raised—quite rightly emphasised the danger of teachers becoming almost solely executive officers. I understand that some authorities have appointed certain officers in the last month to deal with much of the executive work which head teachers have had under their care, especially during the war years. It may be possible some day to reach a position in our larger schools when we can have, as in American schools, not only an academic head but also a business head. I should not like to think that schools in this country will ever reach the stage when that is required, but skilled help is necessary in large schools today to enable the teachers to get rid of so much of this day-to-day business, financial and executive detail which interferes with their interests in teaching in the schools.

I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but if I said anything in the course of my remarks that might have implied that he was inattentive to his Parliamentary duties, I certainly withdraw it and apologise most sincerely. I realise now from his reply that he was consulting his neighbour on the matter. I only wish his example could be followed by some of his colleagues.

There was a question raised on Clause 9 by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden who asked why the Exchequer could not bear any part of the travelling expenses of members of the divisional executives. Without going into any detail in an attempt to answer—in fact, I could not answer without going into a great deal of detail—I can suggest briefly that the reply is that it is a matter of established local government law and it is not one with which we could deal in this particular Bill. In answer to a further question asked by my right hon. Friend I would like, if the House would bear with me, to give some details in regard to division administration.

Up to. 31st January, 23 English county schemes have been approved and one Welsh. Two English and two Welsh county schemes will be approved almost immediately, leaving two English and one Welsh scheme outstanding. Approval has been given of 38 excepted district schemes in England and one in Wales, leaving only five excepted district schemes in England to be approved. As regards education committee arrangements, up to 31st January, in the English counties, 48 had been approved and two had not yet been approved. In the Welsh counties, nine had been approved and four had not yet been approved. In regard to the county boroughs 72 have been approved in England and four in Wales. In England, seven have not been approved and in Wales none remain outstanding. Those are the figures on that particular matter.

The hon. and learned Member for Chester (Mr. Nield) raised three rather detailed questions which, of course, I cannot hope to answer. I can, however, give a lead in regard to them. The first question was concerned with compulsory insurance of managers against third party risks. The hon. Member gave a very vivid description of what seemed indeed very likely to happen anywhere in the country, in those circumstances. I looked up the number of HANSARD where this matter was raised by the hon. Member in the main Debate on the main Measure. For the moment, realising that this matter will be raised in Committee, the best I can suggest is that I do not commit the Minister here and now upon an issue which is so complex; but I can promise that the matter will be looked into with all our sympathy.

Another extremely interesting point was raised by the hon. and learned Member. It concerned cathedral and collegiate schools. I am one of those cranks in education, I suppose, who believe that the prime subject in all school curricula should be the use of the native language, and that every day in every class at whatever age, the boy and girl should have a reading aloud period. I am not asking them to read Milton's "Paradise Lost." I ask them to read an adventure story, if that is the thing which interests them, but I want to give our children training in the use of their beautiful and wonderful mother tongue. Singing plays a very important part in this respect. I say that as one who at one time, though hon. Members may not think it, did sing a good deal, in choirs and at musical festivals in different parts of the British Isles, and I feel very strongly that cathedral and collegiate choir schools, these local choir schools, should be given every help that we can give them. Singing is not simply an ornamental part of education. It is fundamental in helping boys and girls to appreciate the use of their language.

In regard to the third point raised by the hon. and learned Member, the very interesting suggestion of county public schools for the children of men killed in the war, one can only say that we could not expect county education committees to build county boarding schools solely for one type of child.

Under the Act every authority has to consider expediency in providing boarding accommodation, and it is expected that boarding houses and hostels in county and voluntary schools will develop; I certainly hope they will. We can attain nothing by breaking up what has proved to be of value in education. What we have to do with those things which are valuable is to throw their doors wide open to everybody who can derive advantage from them. No-one wishes to pull to the ground Eton College, or an admirable direct grant school. What the local authorities want to do is to build up their own schools, which are as fine, and in many respect finer, than anything we have ever had in our educational history. The Ministry would like to feel that all kinds of schools were not a prerogative of one particular class because they had the money to pay, but that they could be used by boys and girls simply because they could benefit from the excellent and particular type of training which they could get in them. When the hon. and learned Member referred to the additional boarding accommodation under local authorities, I welcomed it, particularly when I remembered one of the matters which came up when I was chairman of a local authority a few months ago, concerning the purchase of about 15 acres for further accommodation for this purpose.

It is obviously impossible to cover all the points raised, but the hon. Member for the City of York (Dr. Corlett) has raised three extremely complicated problems. The Ministry sympathises to a great degree with the points he made, and I hope that when the matters are raised in Committee, along with many other points which were raised this afternoon, hon. Members will feel that, as far as practicable, sympathy will be found.

In conclusion, I would remind hon. Members that this short Bill is part and parcel of a tremendous effort which we have to make in order to compensate for the faults in our educational growth since the Industrial Revolution. It was not until towards the end of the 19th century that we ever thought of providing first-class secondary education for the children of the poor. The right hon. Gentleman who was very largely responsible for the Act of 1944, has indeed worked a revolution in that particular called educational system. We are still making up for the faults of our educational growth since the industrial revolution, and I look forward to a time when we shall have the full implementation of this Act of 1944, and when we shall be preparing to implement it and all that we have carried out from it with even greater Acts of Parliament, whereby the England of the two cultural nations is swept away, and all have complete educational opportunity. In that kind of educational system, I would like to think that we had at least in modern times made the dignity of labour, whatever it may be, something for a man to admire in his own life, dignity of labour which means, in educational philosophy as I see it, that the man who can manage a machine in the workshop, and wears his dungarees, can be and is just as intelligent as the man who translates Moliere or Livy into the English tongue. In other words, we will go forward to an educational system where, whatever a man's trade or profession, the distinction between what is vocational and non-vocational disappears, and we have the educated, free man.

349 p.m.

May I add a few words to my previous speech? I rise for the purpose of congratulating the hon. Member in making not only a maiden speech at that Box, but a maiden speech as a Member of this House. Making a maiden speech is, in any case, nervous work, but the hon. Gentleman has had a double responsibility, a responsibility to acquit himself as he would desire on this, the first occasion of his speaking here, and a responsibility to his Government, to present their case with clarity. The hon. Gentleman has amply succeeded in fulfilling these two desires, and I feel sure that I am voicing the feelings of the whole House in congratulating him on this occasion. We shall all benefit in our singing lessons if we can modulate our voices with such success as the hon. Gentleman has done today.

3.50 p.m.

I ask the pardon of the House for the brief remarks I am going to make. In passing, I would like to reinforce what my right hon. Friend has said by commenting on the modesty as well as the competence with which the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary has discharged his task. I appreciate how he was able to do it, because he explained that he was a Presbyterian from Ulster, and consequently he made his excellent speech not only acceptable but also understandable.

Apparently, these changes in regard to the enlargement of schools and doing away with smaller ones will be done by regulation. I hope the Government will be exceedingly cautious in creating large schools. I think it is the experience of all of us that a school of over 500 pupils can hardly be competently supervised by one headmaster, and I would even like to go further and ensure that the ultimate aim should be classes of not more than 25. I appreciate all the difficulties which will meet the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Lady, but these are fundamental beacons by which to set one's course. I therefore beg that when making regula- tions they will keep the schools as small as possible. I know from my experience in Scotland, that the basis on which Scottish education has stood for centuries is the small village school where the master is in the closest proximity and contact with both the pupils and the parents. We know that Scottish education has pretty well led the way for a very long time, so I would say: Be guided by experience and let the schools and classes remain as small as possible.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

May I ask one question, to which I am sure the Committee would like to know the answer? The amount of money must, obviously be small under this Bill, but could the hon. Gentleman give us some idea of what the charge will be?

I am afraid that I cannot give the answer to that—not the actual figures.

May we have it on the Report stage? I think it could be obtained by then.

Yes, we can obtain it by then, but not today, I am afraid.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

I desire to call the attention of the House to two recent documents of far-reaching importance to the future of East Africa. The first is the White Paper on Inter-Territorial Organisation in East Africa, a Colonial Office Paper, and the second is the Sessional Paper No. 8, of 1945, on land utilisation and settlement which was presented by the Member for Agriculture and Natural Resources to the Kenya Legislative Council in November. I had hoped to initiate a discussion on these Papers prior to the Recess, but I am now glad that opportunity was then lacking since, in the interval, interested opinion in East Africa and Great Britain has clarified itself and certain criticisms have emerged on fundamental proposals in each document.

Our present pre-occupation with the setting up of a world organisation, recognition of the importance of the domestic side of the Government's proposals, and concentration on such pressing problems as demobilisation, have naturally tended to distract attention from the very successful job of work in many various directions which has been done by the Colonial Office in the past six months, and I feel that it is right to seize every chance that this House gives of examining what has been done there. After all, we are the Imperial Parliament, we are responsible for the welfare of 62 million people scattered in more than 50 different territories all over the world and, while we ourselves are engrossed in so much different business, it is true to say that in every Colonial newspaper our reactions on colonial matters are very closely watched indeed and are more fully reported than the Parliamentary Debates are apt to be in the newspapers of this country.

The first paper, the White Paper on Inter-Territorial Organisation in East Africa, is an example of this, with a most interesting trio of territories—a Crown Colony, a Mandated Territory and also a Protectorate, covering an area of 674,000 square miles and having a population of some 13 million people. According to the statement in the preamble of the White Paper, the three territories comprise a geographical area with common customs and excise service, and a series of interlocking communication systems, and have many other interests and problems in common. This was recognised before the war by the setting up of the so-called Governor's Conference by Administrative Order, which has a permanent secretariat under a chief secretary. During the war it has been of very great value indeed, and yet it has no juridical—

It being Four o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put .

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Captain Michael Stewart .]

This Conference has no juridical or constitutional basis. It controls, as I have indicated, very important common services; it has no fewer than 11 inter-territorial services—advisory boards and so on—set up during the war alone. In the White Paper, under the heading "General Considerations," it is very definitely stated that the final responsibility of His Majesty's Government in the contemplated changes must be maintained, and since trusteeship may be involved in the system which it is now proposed to organise on another territory, a vast and over-riding power of certification will be included, and exercised if necessary at the direction of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. It is also emphasised that political union in any form is not proposed. The three territories will retain their existing constitutions, and their Governments will remain responsible for the basic services—administration, police, health, education and so on.

The proposals can be summarised roughly under three heads. First, the East African High Commission Central Legislature, to be accorded a constitution for common services in a triple form, the East African High Commission for Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika; a central legislature—a most important new departure—and an executive organisation supported in appropriate cases by advisory boards. As time is short, I must hurry, but I can summarise the proposals on the legislature by saying that there will be 40 members, of which there will be 12 official members, seven ex-officio and five nominated, and 24 unofficial members.

One of the principal grounds of objection so far raised has been the criticism of the way in which the unofficial members are to be selected, on which the Colonial Office, in the White Paper, says that equality in numbers is the only practical basis for unofficial representation of the three main races. Six European members will be elected by the three Territorial Legislative Councils, six Indian members by the Territorial Legislative Councils, and six members, as many of whom as possible shall be Africans, are to be nominated by the High Commissioner as trustees for African interests, two for each territory. The High Commissioner will, in addition, nominate six other members, two of whom will represent Arab interests. Objection to this is very largely due to a misapprehension as to the functions of the proposed inter-territorial setup. In my opinion, it provides a very valuable beginning for a recognition of the common problems which confront the three territories. The only way in which they can be solved is by a pooling of economic knowledge and research, and for that reason I very much welcome the fact that there will be an opportunity for full debates and discussions in the Legislature.

The second Paper, on Kenya Lands, again is a new departure in that it does recognise that land is and will remain the most material asset of the colony of Kenya; and the colony cannot afford to allow unchecked deterioration of native land units. Surplus population will have to move to other areas or they will have to be put to work in local industry, and the cost of developing new areas cannot possibly be recovered from the natives. Subsidisation is essential and the cost cannot be recovered except indirectly by the results of the rise it is hoped to see in the standard of living.

I am very anxious to allow the Minister ample time to develop his answers to certain points which have been made, and so I will, first of all, ask him to consider the most common criticism of the White Paper on Kenya Lands. That is that, while the ultimate aim is well stated that Kenya must be considered as a whole, and the land regarded as important and subject to the general interest, nevertheless, in the concrete proposals which are set out in the Paper it seems that the only clearly defined programme is seen in the proposal for white settlement, while the proposals for assistance to the Africans is hazy and indefinite. This is the first criticism I have to offer.

I am aware that there are very good reasons for this. One, of course, is the fact that the settlement of individual settlers is easy, whereas communal resettlement, which will be very largely necessary in respect of the Africans, is difficult. I am aware that the Labour Party has in the past criticised white settlement in Kenya; but that was not because of white settlement in itself, but because we felt that in Kenya it was at the expense of the African, and has resulted in warping the whole economy of the country in the interests of a very small minority. That has to be recognised.

One of the first concrete proposals on which it is easy to fasten is the proposal to allow in 500 new European farm settlers, of whom about half will be tenant farmers and half owner farmers. While 500 farmers does not seem a very big number here, in Kenya it seems a good deal bigger because it represents a 25 per cent. increase in the total number of the existing farm settlers. There is linked up with that a proposal to have another 200 or 300 European farm-assistants who, one day, presumably, will want to own or rent farms themselves in the Kenya highlands. If this new settlement is to be carried out without any of the evil effects of the previous settlement—and I will accept it as a necessary compromise in order to achieve the other excellent aims set out in the White Paper, though this Paper does not give sufficient assurances—I would welcome a categorical assurance by the Minister on the question of racial discrimination on land ownership in Kenya. There is nothing in the White Paper which states specifically that this is to end. Even a strong statement on the Minister's attitude to the colour bar would be welcome, because at the moment the Paper is regarded uneasily for the reason that every subject concerning white settlement is specifically stated, whereas every subject concerning the resettlement of the Africans is stated in general terms with no specific programme. For instance, I should like to know whether Africans will be from the start on the African Settlement Board, a very important psychological point, in my submission.

Some uneasiness has been caused by the proposal to alienate Crown land for the proposed tenant-farming scheme. If such a scheme is to be carried out, cannot it be confined to land made available through the sub-division of large estates which are not in the whole cultivated? At all events, no Crown land should be alienated for good and all and, in any event, it should only be allocated as leasehold with a period stated under which it is possible for it to revert to the Crown. The proposal in the White Paper is that the settlers will very largely be Kenyan nationals, but I do not think this has been sufficiently publicised. It would be helpful if it were made more clearly known and more widely advertised because there is a great deal of difference between accepting Kenyan nationals as farmers and bringing in young immigrants from abroad.

There are some excellent proposals on the last page on the White Paper on Kenya dealing with the question of squatters—the so-called squatters in the highlands. While it is true that these squatters have tribal ties and land rights in other parts of Kenya, in most cases it is not true that they do any longer effectively possess these rights, because the land nominally theirs is already occupied by the growing tribes in the lower portions, and it would be difficult if they went back to the tribal domains for them to be fed. Some provision has to be made for them. They have gradually to be changed over from feudal retainers, as they very largely are at present, into being free labourers. There is in Sec- tion D, on page 16 of the White Paper, this provision:

4.16 p.m.

I feel that my hon. Friend has given me an impossible task to satisfy him in regard to the criticisms he has made of the two Papers he has referred to, or to give him the assurances he seeks in regard to the policies which are being worked out in East Africa today. Time will not permit. It is most unfortunate that discussions on Colonial policy are usually limited to the few moments which we can snatch at the end of a day or at the end of the week. Be that as it may, it is my duty to meet some of the points which have been raised by my hon. Friend in his interesting speech.

First, my hon. Friend referred to the White Paper on inter-territorial organisation in East Africa, and pointed out that this was a far-reaching policy, designed to secure a greater co-ordination of effort and control of common services in Uganda, Tanganyika and Kenya. I should like to make it clear that the Paper has been offered as a basis for discussion in East Africa and in this country as well. I think it is fitting that the attention of the House should be directed to a problem which in the past has created very considerable controversy, and which has been the occasion for a great deal of bitter speaking on the problem of racial relations. My wish is to make it clear to the House that the Government Paper does not involve proposals which in the past have been called "political closer union." Nor do the proposals involve the fusion of the East African Governments concerned. As has already been pointed out to the House, they mean that the administration of each territory shall remain in the hands of the three Governments responsible today, and these Governments will continue to be responsible for the basic services of health, education, housing, labour, forestry, agriculture, and domestic problems of that kind.

However, it is perfectly obvious to us, that we have reached a period, particularly after war developments, when it becomes essential that there should be some organisation, which can bring the three territories into closer relationship for certain of the services which are common to all three. Accordingly, it is proposed now to modify the old machinery of governors' conferences, and to try to secure some machinery which affords some degree of popular control and which is based on popular responsibility rather than on bureaucratic control and on civil service responsibility. These proposals are also designed to secure greater efficiency, and much more common action in regard to those basic economic and industrial services which are common to the three territories. Those services will also include research, defence and affairs of that kind. I should also like to add that the scheme is based on the fact that the final responsiblity for the administration of these three territories remains with H.M. Government and with Parliament. In this respect H.M. Government must continue to act as trustees for the welfare of the inhabitants concerned. There can be no transfer of that responsibility and duty from H.M. Government or ultimately from Parliament. Further, in, order to safeguard the interests of the African peoples in particular, there can be no additional common service transferred to the inter-territorial organisation without the initiative of the High Commission and the consent of the Secretary of State.

The Inter - Territorial Legislative Assembly which will be created will be chosen by the three Legislative Councils in the respective territories. The members of the central organisation need not necessarily be members of the Legislative Councils which they represent. It is intended that the three major communities in East Africa shall be represented on the Central Assembly and that there shall be equal representation for the territories concerned and equal representation of the principal racial communities involved. I would emphasise the view of His Majesty's Government, as well as of the governors of the territories concerned, that there is no logical alternative to equal representation of the kind I have mentioned.

I thought it necessary to bring these basic facts to the notice of the House, because they are of considerable importance in regard to the scheme which my hon. Friend has discussed. It would not be fitting at this stage that I, personally, should attempt to reply to certain criticisms, which have already been made in East Africa in regard to it. I only say now that it is submitted as a basis for discussion, and that the Government themselves are anxious that as great an interest shall be shown in this country about these proposals as is shown in East Africa today. We very much hope that they will be seriously discussed.

The second big problem which was raised by my hon. Friend referred to the question of land utilisation and settlement in Kenya itself. I regret that in the few moments left, I have not the opportunity of dealing with the many problems raised. I sincerely hope that that opportunity will come. But I would like to reassure him that if it is the case that the schemes-relating to European settlement are more precisely defined in the Kenya paper than the schemes relating to African settlement, it is largely because in the case of European settlement, as he himself hinted, we are dealing with individuals who have much of their own capital, and who are themselves trained in a technique and tradition of land use, whereas, in dealing with African settlement, we are mainly concerned with communal settlement which involves a very considerable degree of preparation, much technical assistance and many public works, in order that African settlement shall succeed. With the expenditure of considerable amounts of public money for African settlement, such schemes have to be worked out in very great detail. That has not been possible in the war years. That will not mean that African settlement and the rehabilitation of land will not be treated as urgent by the Kenya Government as the problem of settling more European farmers in the Highlands.

May I remind the House of the words used in the Kenya White Paper: Africa, and particularly in Kenya, a civilisation to which all the races there can contribute. We want, by the contributions which they make, to evolve a common civilisation, so that the Africans may play an equal part, and not a subordinate part, in the life of the Colony. That is our purpose and our aim. We are opposed, as a general policy, to racial discrimination. I think it can be said with perfect truth that our policy in Kenya will be directed to creating the condition of development so that all races can realise as early as possible a common citizenship and a common joy and freedom in the life of their country.

4.27 p.m

In the few moments that remain, I would like to express satisfaction with the statement of the Under-Secretary of State and with the White Paper in general. I think that he has given us this afternoon, and the White Paper has also given us, a sense of satisfaction in that there will be a continuity of policy in this part of the world. We are obviously living in very dynamic days, and I think in the past few years there has been disquiet in certain minds that, in the event of a change of Government in England, there might be some fundamental change of policy in East Africa. In particular, I welcome the continuity of policy in the treatment of the white settlers. The Under-Secretary of State was good enough to reply to a Question two days ago in which he gave some figures of the anticipated settlement of ex-Servicemen in Kenya after the war. I think we on this side of the House all welcomed the satisfactory nature of those figures. There are a number of applications already put forward for settlement in Kenya in the months and years to come. As time is very short, I will not make any further points but will merely welcome this Paper in general, and in particular, the continuity of policy in relation to white settlement in Kenya in the near future.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes past Four o'clock,