May I, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, ask the Leader of the House whether he does not think that some time should be given next week for a Debate on the rationing of bread, and whether he would not think that Wednesday would be a suitable day for this purpose?

Yes, Sir. The House is aware that two Supply Days are available next week, on Monday and on Wednesday. The question of bread rationing, as was mentioned yesterday, is, in our view, appropriate for debate in Committee of Supply, and it is open for the Opposition to change the subjects already announced for debate. If, however, it is desired to take a Motion, then we could by agreement take a Supply Day formally. The opportunity therefore exists for debate next week, and the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman has made to take it on Wednesday, presumably instead of the Colonial affairs Debate, would be acceptable to the Government. In that case I presume that the intended Debate on education in Committee of Supply on Monday would stand.

Yes, Sir, I think that the Debate on the Education Estimates on Monday would stand. Exactly how the Debate is arranged for Wednesday could perhaps be discussed through the usual channels. Meanwhile, we are clear that Wednesday should be made available for a Debate on this subject?

Yes, I think that Members generally will find it convenient to know that that is intended.

May I make a protest against cancelling the proposed Debate on the Colonial Estimates? I would point out that during the lifetime of this Parliament we have not had one Debate on Colonial problems. We are responsible for 65 million people in 51 separate territories, and to my mind it is little less than a scandal that these big subjects are not discussed. The Colonial Empire is going through a great change at the moment, and I feel that to cancel this Debate, to which many of us were looking forward, is a very serious matter, and I would protest very strongly against any change in that particular day's Business.

I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend. He is quite right. A Debate on Colonial affairs is of great importance, but he will appreciate that the choice of subjects is in the hands of the Opposition. Certainly they are entitled to take an early Supply Day for the subject of bread rationing, which is a matter of considerable and widespread interest. Nevertheless, it does not necessarily exclude a Debate on Colonial affairs. If I may say this for my hon. Friend's comfort, it is a matter for the Opposition, but I hope they may be able to use another Supply Day for the Colonial affairs Debate.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not try to pass all the responsibility on the Opposition for the fact that the Colonial affairs Debate is apparently in danger. It is the gross overloading of the Parliamentary machine by the Government which is causing the situation.

The hon. Gentleman is not normally a quarrelsome type. This is a most peaceful atmosphere this morning, in extraordinary contrast to yesterday afternoon, and I hope that he will not disturb it.

I was anxious that the right hon. Gentleman should not let himself out of responsibility for this situation.

Reverting to the Debate next Wednesday, I trust that the exact manner of using the day will be discussed through the usual channels. What is clear is that we are to have a Debate on Wednesday. May I say in answer to the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams), we certainly desire, speaking on behalf of the Opposition, that one of the remaining Supply Days should be used for a Debate on Colonial affairs at an early date. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Gentleman.

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. Certainly the Opposition can argue about what sort of day Wednesday should be. We will enter into discussion, but I must make it clear that in the view of the Government, this is an occasion on which a Supply Day should be used in some form or other. We will be ready to argue the matter through the usual channels.

May I ask whether it is intended that we should have three late nights next week?

Does not the whole difficulty arise through the Government failing to fulfil their obvious duty and provide time for the discussion of so important a decision as that of rationing bread?

I want to join in the protest made by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams). I appeal to the Leader of the House not to give way to this demand for a discussion on rationing on Wednesday. The people of this country, as a result of the procedure which was gone through, quite expected and were prepared for bread rationing. I am certain that if Wednesday is taken up with a Debate of this kind it will prove to be an abortive Debate and a waste of time. I suggest to the Leader of the House that he should reconsider the matter and try some other channels for discussing plans for Wednesday instead of "the usual channels." I agree with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Croydon that we should go on with the discussion as planned.

In view of the new Amendment submitted by the Government, I beg the leave of the Committee to withdraw my Amendment. I shall take the opportunity of speaking on the Government Amendment on the same subject.

The Amendment having not been moved, there is no need to ask permission for it to be withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, to leave out Subsections (2) and (3) and to insert:

"(2) For sub-paragraph ( b ) of paragraph (1) of the said Schedule (which relates to the qualifications for being chosen to fill a seat in the Legislature) there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraph—

"( b ) is, in the case of a seat in the House of Representatives, not less than twenty-one years of age, and, in the case of a seat in the Senate, not less than thirty years of age; and."

(3) In paragraph 12 of the said Schedule (which relates to the qualifications for being chosen to hold a seat in the Senate) the following provisions shall be omitted, that is to say—

The object of this Amendment is twofold. First, it seeks to alter the age stated in paragraph (1) of sub-paragraph (3) of the Third Schedule of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, which provides that in the case of a seat in the House of Representatives a person shall be not less than 25 years of age and in the case of a seat in the Senate a person shall be not less than 35 years of age. We have come to the conclusion that there is a case for altering the age. Therefore, we propose to fix the age at 30 in the case of the Senate and at 21 in the case of the lower House. We fix the age of 21 because we are seeking to settle the basis of the franchise at that age. The second part of the Amendment deals with the property qualification which is contained in paragraph 12 of the Third Schedule. Under this paragraph it is required that a person in the financial year preceding that in which an election is held shall have been assessed on a total income of not less than 12,000 rupees or, in the case of land revenue, not less than 1,000 rupees in Lower Burma and 500 rupees in Upper Burma. We have decided that in present circumstances there is a case to be made out for removing the property qualifications altogether. That will mean that the qualifications required under paragraph 12 will be as set out under heads (iii), (iv) and (v), which, in effect require certain previous official service or other public service recognised by the conferment of a title which, I believe, is equivalent to the M.B.E. over here, and also is based on such other qualifications in respect of the rendering of distinguished public service as the Governor in his discretion may prescribe. In other words, we are removing the property qualification and leaving the qualification to be that of public service.

I would like to express my appreciation of what the Minister has done. During the Second Reading Debate on this Bill last Friday these questionswere referred to in the general discussion and it is gratifying to find that the Minister has given way to the points which were raised. Of course, it may be expected that we may have to vote on this question if the Opposition decide not to agree with what the Minister suggests. Last week the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), leading for the Opposition, wholeheartedly endorsed the Minister's suggestion. Therefore, unless he likewise has had a change of heart I think this Amendment should go through very smoothly and the peaceful atmosphere to which the President of the Council referred earlier may still prevail.

I do not think the difference between my Amendment and that of the Minister is of any particular consequence and, as I indicated earlier, I am prepared to forego it. My Amendment would have meant a 25 years of age qualification for both the House of Representatives and the Senate. In the Amendment which we are now discussing, it will be 21 years for the House of Representatives and 30 years for the Senate. As there has been a certain amount of give and take between the swings and the roundabouts, I am happy to approve of this Amendment.

I feel that the Minister has taken quite a sensible line about the age for the Senate and I quite understand the reasons which have motivated him, apart from the acute pressure to which he has been subjected by Members of his own party. This is not the first time that we have seen the Administration quaking before the pressure to which it had been submitted. We understand that all Governments have to give way from time to time. Now, we come to the question of the removal of the property qualification in the case of the Senate. This gives me an opportunity to correct certain impressions gained by that most acute minded Member, the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg). The hon. Member for Maldon said in a previous Debate that I had used somewhat curious language which he described as "a slip".

During the Second reading Debate I said that if we accepted the Minister's view that the property qualification for the Senate should be reduced, we should get the right people. I notice a smile cross the face even of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). "The right people"—I adhere to the language I then used, which was a right expression. If we left the property qualifications at the high level which we had before, we would have got the wrong people because it would have been too limited, and my language was used to show that, if the property qualification were reduced, we should retain the wider choice, and not restrict it to those with a higher property qualification. Far from being a slip on that occasion, my language was in fact inspired by the most liberal ideas, and those with which I am sure the hon. Member for Maldon will always associate me. The Minister is now straining my patience to the uttermost, because he is going to abandon the property qualification altogether, and I am obliged to ask some very searching questions before the Opposition decides what course it shall pursue.

First, I wish to ask whether he has envisaged the effect of this decision vis-à-vis the corresponding franchise in India. I do not say it is necessary to run Burmese affairs on all fours with Indian affairs. Far from it, we like to see a nice disparity in conditions in both countries with whom we are so closely associated. But, I would like to ask if the Government have considered the repercussions on the general level of Indian franchise. In the second place, I ask whether they have consulted in any way the Administration of Burma before coming to this decision. In the third place, I would ask if they have consulted in any way the franchise committee responsible for the original decision, or if they have consulted Burmese public opinion. If we are satisfied with the answers to these questions, the Opposition would in, the heat and fury of our present political life, have to be prepared to allow this decision to go by, but if not, we may have to consider our position.

It is not in itself an odious decision of the Government, because the Minister has made it clear that the qualifications for the Senate are still to depend upon the rendering of some public service. It has always been a cannon of my hon. Friends and myself that the rendering of public service is really the most notable thing in life. To judge a man by the service he renders is very much better than to judge by the property he owns. I think that is a principle which none of us would fight shy of, in fact one which many of us would espouse with fervour. It is to be noted that the remaining qualifications, after the abolition of the property qualification for the Senate, are very varied, and they depend on the discretion of the Governor. For example, though the first qualification, definite previous public service, is quite easily intelligible, as is public service which has obtained some reward, the last qualifications, on which the Governor has to depend upon prescription after deciding who should be eligible, may not be so easily understood by public opinion in Burma after all the property qualifications are taken away. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman if the rendering of public service as prescribed by regulations is a satisfactory method of deciding membership of the Senate. I think the other two methods are legitimate. No doubt the Committee is anxiously awaiting the Minister's reply, and we do not want to precipitate any further crises in our Debates at the present time. By satisfying me on these points, and on anything which my hon. Friends behind me, who are well versed in these subjects, may ask, the Minister will add to the prestige he has already earned.

The Amendment which the Under-Secretary has moved covers the first Amendment on the Order Paper in the names of my hon. Friends and myself. I think I may speak on behalf of them all when I say that we are very grateful to the Minister for meeting our wishes in this respect. I refer to the property and income qualifications for the Senate. We believe that this decision will have a very good effect on public opinion in Burma.

I am very pleased that the Minister has taken this line and made these changes. I am certain it will not only meet with approval in the Committee, but will have a very good effect in Burma when the matter comes to be applied. I was interested in the remarks of the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler). He seems to think that we on this side of the Committee are very simple and says that it was strong democratic desires that led him to approve of the reduction in the amount of qualification because it meant that the qualification would be spread over a broader area. I would remind him that the change made by the reduction of the property qualification was a mere formal change. It only broadened out to a certain degree the same kind of selection of the same kind of people for the Senate. But this means a dialectical change and brings about a change from quantity to quality. There was an increase in the quantity of property owners which had nothing to do with democracy, but when the property qualification is taken away altogether, an entirely new type of people is brought into the selection for the Senate. That is a very important change, and is really something democratic, not merely formal. This is one of the finest things the Minister has done. I am certain that a former very successful Foreign Secretary we had in this country would be very pleased at the step which the hon. and learned Member has taken.

The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) has suggested that the change that has been made is due to pressure from this side of the Committee and that my hon. and learned Friend has wisely yielded lest he get into trouble. As a matter of fact, the Government have yielded to absolute logic and simple justice, and not to any pressure. The Legislative Council of Burma is not being overruled by this decision, because that Council did not press for the property qualifications for the Senate. As far as I can see, my hon. and learned Friend has agreed to follow the Legislative Council's decisions where they have made decisions, but where they have not made decisions he has agreed to a very wise course. As for the effect on India, if India accepts the principle embodied in this Bill, that the Senate should be chosen for merit and not for money, it will be an excellent thing.

11.30 a.m.

I am pleased to have secured the warm approval of all hon. Members on this side of the House, and I hope I shall be able to secure the approval, or, at any rate, the agreement, of the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) before I sit down. He raised three points which were, I think, the main parts of his speech. First of all, he asked whether we had envisaged the effect of the proposal to remove the property qualification on the franchise position in India. We have taken this into account and are satisfied that it will certainly not affect the present position. What influence it may have on the work of the constituent-making body, which is about to begin operations in India, is another matter, but, certainly as regards the present position, it will make no difference.

He next asked whether we had consulted the Governor of Burma- My answer is that we have, and that we have got his agreement. We have not consulted the Franchise Committee for the reason that the question of property qualification was not one of the matters laid down in the recommendation. We have taken this decision on the ground that we think there is a case for removing the qualification based on property and leaving it to be based on public service.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(The franchise.)

I beg to move, in page 1, line 27, to leave out "twenty-one," and to insert "eighteen."

I must confess that I could have wished that the Order Paper had also contained here an Amendment in the name of my hon. and learned Friend who so rightly and properly yielded to the firm pressure of sheer logic, as my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid) remarked, and gave way on the other two Amendments. As the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) remarked in the speech in which he so ingeniously exculpated himself from any imputation of undue regard for property as such, all Governments have to give way sometimes, but they do not always give way on the issues on which we would rather they gave way; they choose their own ground for giving way on. However, be that as it may, I still hope that we can persuade my hon. and learned Friend that this Amendment, which is a perfectly simple one to comprehend, is acceptable and sound.

I need not repeat all the arguments advanced from this side of the House in last Friday's Debate, but it will be within the recollection of the Committee and of my hon. and learned Friend himself, that, although the case was argued at some length by hon. Members on these benches who are supporting my Amendment today, he, himself, did not argue his reply at great length because he said that, since Amendments were going to be put down, he could go into the matter more fully on the Committee stage. I hope, therefore, that if, as I am sure we all shall, hon. Members supporting this Amendment will speak quite briefly today and refrain from elaborating arguments elaborated last week, my hon. and learned Friend will be able to reply a little more fully than he did then and, in particular, give us the really strong reasons which impelled the Legislative Council to overrule the very carefully considered recommendation of the Franchise Committee.

I can quite understand my hon. and learned Friend's point that even though the Legislative Council is not representative in a democratic sense of the word, at the same time, it is the nearest thing, in the present unhappy conditions in Burma, to a representative body. But I cannot suppose that he would simply accept what the Legislative Council said absolutely— ipse dixit —without, at any rate, understanding fully, and communicating them to this Committee, the reasons which prompted them to their decision. Therefore, I hope that he will bear in mind the various arguments advanced last week from this side and will give us a full answer to them.

I only want to make two main points today after saying that there is, of course, in our view, nothing particularly sacrosanct about the age of 18 or 21, or any other age. My first main point is that, so far as can be ascertained, apart from the Legislative Council's views, the age of 18, which is, after all, the existing voting age in Burma, is in accordance with the wishes of most of the Burmese people. Since last week's Debate, I have had the opportunity of studying the actual report of the Franchise Committee which recommended voting at 18, both for men and women, though in the case of women, I admit, with some qualifications. I would like just to read a couple of sentences which show that this Franchise Committee did do its job very thoroughly and carefully indeed. Incidentally, it consisted of four leading Burmese politicians and the Secretary, and of those four, three are actually members of the Legislative Council itself. They were the Members for Agriculture, Public Works and Rehabilitation, and for Education, and the fourth, Thakin Mya, is a Socialist representative of the anti-Fascist League. In their report, they say: and they say that, after having carefully sifted the evidence and weighed the arguments put forward, both in writing and orally, and sifting the replies sent in writing:

My second main point today is that it has been said, "Oh, but surely the Burmese people cannot have attained mental maturity at the age of 18." In my submission, that is not the real consideration. If mental maturity, which is in any case an unprovable thing, were a particular condition of voting anywhere, I think that most electorates, in all parts of the world, would be substantially reduced. It is not, in my view, mental maturity, but the attainment of social responsibility which can be said to qualify a man or a woman for voting. So far as I can discover from talking to a great many people who know Burma much better than I do it is true that the Burman does attain social responsibility—bringing up a family, and all the rest of it—at a very much earlier age than we do in the West. When I saw the new political leaders who have sprung into prominence since the occupation and the resistance and the liberation of Burma, I was astonished by their youth. They all, not only Aung San but Than Tun and Ba Hein, and all the rest, looked like mere boys. I was astonished when they told me that they were all fathers of large and growing families. That is undoubtedly the common rule and practice in Burma. I suggest that it is the attainment of the age of social responsibility, in the particular circumstances of any society or country, that should be the test for voting, and not some necessarily hypothetical mental maturity.

Those are the two main points I wish to make in addition to the arguments advanced last week and I hope that, when he comes to reply, my hon. and learned Friend will give us really substantial reasons for the decision—which he has told us he feels bound to accept— of the Legislative Council, and in particular, that he will deal with the arguments about the increased size of the electorate making the administrative arrangements more difficult to organise for an election. I cannot help feeling that we were correct when we said last week that, if it is possible to organise electoral rolls and so on for 6¾ million people, it cannot be absolutely impossible to organise them for 8½ million people, which is the probable total number that would be enfranchised if universal adult franchise at 18 were introduced in Burma.

I sincerely hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will resist the Amendment with the vigour and foresight upon which he has been congratulated in all parts of the House today. Quite frankly, I do not understand the viewpoint of the hon. Gentlemen opposite who have put down this Amendment. I should like to ask them what they are after. What is their object? Are they trying to prove some political theory, or are they trying to make the constitution work? What we all want to do, on all sides of the House I hope, is to make the new constitution work, and let Burma start off with its democratic constitution in a way that is likely to succeed. I do not know whether hon. Members realise fully what an indigestible meal this Bill is, in any case. We are taking very grave risks in all parts of the world. I think those risks are justified, but do not let us underestimate what is happening. There is no single country in the whole of Asia that has the slightest knowledge or experience of democracy. There is not a single country from one end of Asia to the other that has ever tried the ballot box. Look at what happened in the world at large between the wars—the whole of Europe and the whole of South America are littered with the remains of most excellent democratic constitutions, excellent on paper, but none of them worked.

Here we are trying this great experiment in Burma; we are doing in a matter of years what it took us in this country several centuries to evolve. For goodness' sake let us try to make this thing work. That is far more important than all the arguments used by the hon. Gentleman about the age of social responsibility and fathers of large and growing families. If that is to be the criterion of membership of an assembly, or even of voting, there are a good few hon. Gentlemen on the other side who would not be in the House at all—[An HON. MEMBER: "And on that side, too."] Also, I admit, on this side as well. Last week we had a most extraordinary argument, which I am very glad the hon. Gentleman did not produce again this morning. It was that we ought to reduce the age to 18 because of the lower expectation of life.

It is not a question of reducing the age to 18, but of resisting a proposal to increase it from the existing voting age of 18 to 21.

11.45 a.m.

I am aware of that fact, but what we are considering now is a Measure of complete self-government, or maybe complete independence, for Burma, which is something which was not envisaged before. I am very glad the hon. Gentleman has not brought up that argument, although perhaps it is still in his mind that we ought to hold to the age of 18 because of the lower expectation of life. To me it seems a fantastic argument. The right to vote is not like having a lot of clothing coupons that one wants to get rid of as quickly as he can. If it is said that a man should be given a greater number of chances to vote because of his lower expectation of life, it would mean that in this country, just before a general election, we would go round to all the homes for incurables and give people about 10 votes each, on the ground that it was the last chance they would have in their lives of voting. I want this constitution to work.

That is exactly what the hon. Gentleman's party did—go round to all the homes for incurables and give them the last vote of their lives.

There is nothing to prevent the hon. Lady saying that, but judging from the results of the last Election she seems to have got more people out than anybody else. I want this thing to work, and to ensure that, the proper way is for us to draw on our long history and experience and fix the age at 21, which, after all, is the age we have here, whether we are fathers of large families or not. The hon. Gentleman also made a most extraordinary statement that the people of Burma wanted the age to be fixed at 18.

No, I said that so far as could be ascertained by the Franchise Committee, which worked very hard on the job, most of the people in Burma wanted the age to be 18.

Of course, everybody at the age of 18 would like a vote. I am sure that if we were to go round the schools of this country and ask boys and girls of 10 whether they would like to vote they would answer "Yes."

The hon. Member must not misrepresent my argument so frivolously and dishonestly. It was not the 18 year old only whom the Franchise Committee consulted but representatives of all kinds of people.

I am sorry I misunderstood what the hon. Gentleman said just now. I gathered that he said that the young people in Burma wanted to vote at the age of 18. I would not like to misquote the hon. Gentleman. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will resist the Amendment. We are taking a tremendous leap in the dark. We have done it in other parts of the Empire, for example, in Jamaica, with results which have not yet worked out very well. Now we are trying it in Burma. The great consideration which, I hope, will appeal to hon. Members in all parts of the House is, that we ought to give this great experiment a really good start. Let us do nothing irresponsible, however attractive it may be from a purely theoretical point of view, which may take away from what, we hope, will be a most successful experiment.

I have the greatest respect, of course, for the knowledge of the East and of Burma which the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) possesses, but he made one statement which I cannot allow to pass. He said that there was no country in the East with any experience of democracy, and I would mention the case of Ceylon. As long ago as 1931, we established in Ceylon practically full-blown democracy, with practically full responsible government in internal affairs. What was the result? Those people, who, before their constitution was brought in, often indulged in the usual fatuous statements made by politicians in every country, and who were often irresponsible, as I know well, acquired a sense of responsibility and changed their ways. They were saddled with responsibility, and during the war there was, I think, as much loyalty in Ceylon as in Britain or Canada. I agree that there has been a certain amount of corruption and so on, but the fact is that the establishment of democracy in Ceylon has not ruined Ceylon or the Empire. It is a country which is very similar to Burma, and let us hope that a similar thing will happen in the case of Burma.

The hon. Member for Hornsey thinks that we are acting on theory We are not, because whatever age is fixed, it will be possible for those who wish to vote to do so, because the arrangements cannot be so watertight as to prevent people under age getting on the register. I ask the Committee to realise that we have promised full responsible government to the Burmese, and that it is a proposal to go against the wishes of the vast majority of the people in fixing the age of franchise at 21. In other words, the Burma Legislative Council are trying to save the Burmese from the results of political immaturity. If we have promised to give the Burmese full self-government, what is the use of trying to save them at this stage from the results of political immaturity? The hon. Member wants to make this constitution work, and no one wants to see self-government working efficiently more than I do. I agree that we are taking a leap in the dark. It is true that we are taking enormous risks, but we are not going to make the thing work by fixing an age of franchise which will be completely ineffective. We have reached the stage when we have crossed the Rubicon, and the only thing to do now is to get on with the elections as quickly as possible, giving these people responsibility in the same way as we have given it to the people of Ceylon. Let them make a mess of it or a success of it, but it is too late now to bring in little things like fixing the age of franchise at 21. We must let the Burmese people have their heads and we must let them take responsibility. I am sorry that my hon. and learned Friend has not seen his way to give way on this issue. It is obvious that he accepts the findings of the Legislative Council. There is some reason in that, because they are the only Parliamentary body in Burma, but I do not think it matters much whether we fix the age at 18 or 21, because whatever age it is, those who want the vote will get it.

The hon. Member has made the statement that everyone in Burma will get a vote at whatever age the franchise is fixed. He has said that on more than one occasion during the last few minutes. Could he enlarge on that statement? Will he let us know, if we fix the age at 21, whether every man and woman below that age will get the vote? He knows far more about this matter than I do, but will he say what is the lowest age at which people will come on to the register? Will boys and girls of 16, 15, 14 or even 10 be able to vote?

According to the electoral procedure people send in their names. Anyone who thinks he is over 18 can put down his name, and then objections can be lodged. I conducted the first elections in Ceylon under the new constitution, and I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that even in Ceylon, where the administration was far more advanced than either in India or Burma, it was impossible to check ages. Unless someone lodges an objection, there is nothing as a rule to prevent a person saying that he is 21 when he is only 19. Although in theory, and on paper, the procedure is the same as in this country, it is, in fact, totally different in these countries. In countries like Burma it is impossible to check claims and objections.

I am sorry that my hon. and learned Friend has not seen fit to give way on this matter. Although the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) thinks he is afraid of us, it is not so. But it will not make much difference, because the whole idea is to set up an elected Government in Burma whose job it will be to frame a new constitution, and then the Burmese will do what they wish and, when the time comes, substitute 18 for 21.

This is one of those gloriously theoretical questions which we can argue from dawn to dusk in relation to Burma or any other constitution in the world. I suggest that it can be settled quite simply by giving an answer to this question: "Do we, or do we not, propose to fall in with the requests of the Legislative Council?" In my view, the Legislative Council know more about this than we can hope to know. They have recommended the age of 21, and I suggest that it is not only wise, but polite to follow the advice of the Legislative Council, who are on the spot. During the Second Reading Debate I pointed out that we are miles away from Burma, that few Members of the Committee have first hand knowledge of Burma, and even fewer recent knowledge of the country. I think that we shall fall in with the advice of the Legislative Council, and, as the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid) has said, when the constitution is in the saddle it will then be for the Burmese themselves to make any alterations they like in the age. It is high time that we got away from highly theoretical points and got down to the single question of whether or not we are to follow the advice of the Legislative Council.

12 noon.

If the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) was as good a psychologist as he is a member of his party, he would understand that one of the best things we can give to people is the responsibility for which they ask. People grow into responsibility by being given responsibility. That is what has happened in this country, and that is what is happening everywhere A great deal of play has been made by hon. Members opposite that this is the advice of the Legislative Council, and one can understand my hon. and learned Friend feeling that he ought to follow that advice. The thing which makes us anxious is that the Legislative Council did not follow the very full advice which was given by the Franchise Committee. I do not know why that is.

It was not adopted by the Legislative Council.

That is exactly what I am saying.

Oh, no.

I am saying that my hon. friend followed the advice of the Legislative Council.

No, he followed the advice of the Franchise Committee.

I have been a teacher for very many years, and I have even taught mentally defective children. Quite honestly, I did not find it nearly as difficult to make them understand as I and my hon. Friends on this side of the House find it to make hon. Gentlemen opposite understand what was said. I will say it again. My hon. Friend has followed the advice of the Legislative Council. Is not that so?

No.

The hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) means the Minister.

If the hon. Lady means the Minister she should not point at the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg). She does not need a blackboard; she needs a compass.

When I made my remark I referred to my hon. and learned Friend.

That is indeed a full acquittal. I would never accuse the hon. Member for Maldon of being that.

I am entirely satisfied. My hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who is sitting on the Front Bench here this morning, has followed the advice of the Legislative Council. Unfortunately, the Legislative Council did not follow the advice of the Franchise Committee, and we have not been given any reasons as to why they did not follow that advice. The reason why we have put down this Amendment is because we cannot understand having given careful study to the report of the Franchise Committee, which took great pains to get all the views of every section of society in Burma, why that advice is not followed, and what is really a retrograde step of fixing the age at 21 whereas previously it was 18, is undertaken. Hon. Members on this side of the House believe that if responsibility is given to the people—I do not care what is the size of their families—they will rise to that responsibility. If they are not given that responsibility when they are both ready for it and asking for it, they will feel a sense of frustration. If people have not had political liberty, sometimes their enthusiasm, feelings and fervour in their desire to do the best they can for their country will find other outlets.

It is because we wish this new constitution to be a success that we would prefer to include in respect of this responsibility all those people who desire to have political liberty rather than that they should find some other outlet for their views. It has been suggested that, anyhow, once the new Government are able to make their own constitution, they will definitely make 18 the age for the Franchise. If that is so, would it not be far more generous, would it not be far better and be following out the logic which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State has already shown in his first Amendment, to accept the advice of those who on this side of the Committee are sincerely interested in this matter and which is contained in this Amendment.

I have listened with very great interest to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have a long knowledge of the East in general, because, while it is true that many of us are ignorant of many of the things that we ought to know, that is not our fault; it is because of the limitations of our experience. We do, therefore, value very much the guidance and instruction of hon. Members who know the problem intimately. The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) has suggested that this is a pro tern. Measure which will enable the constitution more quickly to have an effect in Burma, and it is a salutary change in the normal or customary age of responsibility in Burma. If we are to make the constitution really work there is a very old principle on which we must act. I think it is true to say that all of us honestly desire to give Burma full responsibility in government at the earliest possible opportunity. We are honest in our desire, but we shall fail in the achievement of that desire unless we appear to be honest as well to the Burmese people. It seems to me that the case for the age of 21 has not been made out, because we are trying to measure a suitable age for Burmese enfranchisement on the basis of our own. It has also been pointed out that it will indeed be very difficult to make sure that if the age is put at 21 only those who are legally qualified to vote will do so.

If the Franchise Committee's suggestion had been adopted there would have been no major change in what in Burma has been the custom as to the age for political responsibility. If eventually, and fairly quickly now, as has been suggested, the new Burma Government will be compelled once again to put the age of the vote at 18, it appears that we shall only achieve an unnecessary hostility on the part of those disenfranchised by the proposed raising of the age. If we are making clear that we are anxious that all those who are capable of mature thinking and who are desirous of working for their country shall be given the opportunity to do so, then I think we need have no fear of the stability of the new constitution. I confess I have some doubts whether in a country the size of Burma a very vast addition to the electoral roll would be possible, but the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) has pointed out that the proportion of additional voters added if this Amendment is accepted will not be out of the way for the administration to deal with in the coming election. I have listened very carefully to speeches on both sides on this subject, and I feel that the Amendment is one which I must support.

I have been interested in the last two answers to the question as to why the Legislative Council made this recommendation of 21. I was extremely interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid), because I think he has given us the answer. If I interpret him aright, he said that the difficulty in such countries as Burma, which is just starting democracy, is to check up with regard to the voters' lists. He suggested that in any case a great many people of 18 and perhaps even some younger than 18 would vote because of the extreme difficulty of the check up. In other words, many people will give false ages between the two, and because it will be extremely difficult to check up on them they will get on the voters' list. If that is true, it may well be the real reason underlying the recommendation of the Legislative Council. Up to a point, the higher you put the age limit the less likely the younger ones will be able to "wangle" in on the voters' list. If you put the age at 21 there is a better chance of a number of 16's not getting on the list, but if you put it at 18 you may be quite sure that there will be quite a number of 16's, or even 10's, especially when so many young people in that part of the world look the same age. I do not understand how anybody can check the list at all, and I am sure that that must be one of the underlying reasons. That being so, I think there is a strong argument for leaving the age at 18.

What has happened is that the Executive Council have accepted the recommendation of the Franchise Committee. They said, "Probably 18 is about right, and if we put in 18 anybody who can reasonably pass muster can vote." This is acceptance, in a sensible way, of an age which is suitable for the East.

I intervened on this subject previously, and I would only like to say now that I think it would be wise, in view of the fact that a considerable jump is being made in the franchise, if the Administration did not try to take on more than it could carry on. This may seem rather demure advice, but I have had the experience of serving on the Indian Franchise Committee, and not only making recommendations, but also studying their effect in the first Indian election. Unfortunately, one has to come to the conclusion that one of the problems in running an election of this sort is the administrative difficulty. The Burmese franchise is jumping from 20 per cent.—which was bigger than the Indian franchise we originally decided on in 1931—to over 6 million. If the Government were to concede this Amendment and agree to 18, I think it would make an appreciable difference. The hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) said that this would not make much difference, but in my opinion, and on balance of the argument, I think it would be wiser to adhere to 21. Let the Administration, which will have great difficulty in running an Election, run it with approximately 6 million voters.

I am fortified in this view by the fact that conditions for the first election in Burma will be extremely difficult. The Minister has acknowledged this. He hopes to hold the election in the early part of next year. The position in Burma is administratively worse than that in any other country in the world, because it has been overrun so badly by the enemy. I think it would be straining the Administration too far to go against the decision of the Legislative Council, although I fully understand what the hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) said, that the Legislative Council differ from the Franchise Committee on this matter. Despite having apprehended that simple fact, I adhere to the view that it would be wiser to follow the decision come to by the Legislative Council. Last time I spoke on this matter, I said that we in this country had a franchise of 21, and that I hoped the Burmese would feel satisfied, also, to have a franchise of 21. I have been told that that may appear to look as if we were too proud of our own achievements, that the Burmese have no reason to follow us and that there is no reason why they cannot have 18.

12.15 p.m.

When we first started our constitutional system we did not have the age of 21, because the mass of our people did not have the vote. Otherwise, how did Pitt become Prime Minister at 21? We must realise that Burma is just beginning.

History relates that Pitt the younger was Prime Minister at 24.

He was Chancellor of the Exchequer at 21.

Yes, I was just about to say that he was Chancellor then, and a very much more enlightened one than we have now. He was not Prime Minister till 24. Nevertheless, I do not think that takes away from the argument, which was that I am not ready to base my case simply on the British model. Arguments have been brought forward by Members, which are no means derisory, about the difference between age and attainment in Burma. There is also the technical argument that under the present Burmese franchise certain people can obtain the franchise at 21, although the property qualification, taken with the age of 18 under the present franchise, so operates that few people can get the vote at 21. We are dealing with a complicated situation, in which it would be unwise to be too dogmatic. If I withdraw all my dogmatic arguments, I will adhere to the argument that it would be unwise to burden the Administration too far on this occasion. We should see how it will work out with the very big jump in the franchise which will be the basis for the next election. I hope that with that contribution I shall have been, at last, of some service to the Government.

I hope the Minister will reconsider his attitude, and give way to the feeling which has been voiced on this matter from these benches. I believe the arguments which have been presented show, on balance, that the logic, good sense and judgment have come from this side of the Committee. I am grateful to the Minister for a letter he sent to me arising out of a Question I put last week, wherein he told me that the number of males who would not receive the vote because of the difference in the age limit of 18 to 21 is 400,000. I submit that in that case 400,000 young men are being disfranchised. The Fourth Schedule of the principal Act states:

"No person shall be included in the electoral roll for any general constituency unless he has attained the age of 18 years, and is either a British subject or a subject of any Indian State."

The words, "unless he has attained the age of 18 years," are now to be deleted. That proposition was made in 1935, when there was a Conservative Government. Members opposite can, therefore, congratulate themselves upon their relative progressiveness and conception of democracy. The Minister, last week, suggested that 2¼ million extra women voters, that is, from 4½ to 6¾ millions—would be brought into the franchise. It was suggested that some men would be disfranchised, but that 2¼ million women would be franchised, and that this was an advance. I am prepared to agree that arithmetically it is an advance, and that far more people than before will vote, but there is still an injustice to the 400,000 young men who, on the basis of the Fourth Schedule of the 1935 Act, believed that they would be able to vote when the elections were held. As my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) has said, we are awaiting anxiously to hear from the Under-Secretary of State the reasons for the Legislative Council overriding the recommendation of the Franchise Committee and deciding to disfranchise 400,000 young men in Burma. Several hon. Members have said that there are administrative difficulties. The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) refrained from pressing his dogmatic arguments in order to put to the Committee, as he said, the only argument which would be helpful, and that was on the question of administration. Hon. Members will recall that it was only after the last war, as a result of much energetic action on the part of women, that women received the vote in this country, and the age at which they received it was then placed at 30. It was not until 1928 that women of 21 received the vote.

Under a Tory Government.

Of course, it was a Tory Government. We know quite well that the Tory Government gave way on that question at a period when they thought they were in the ascendancy. No Tory Government would give way to such a thing at the present period of history. The views of many people in this country have changed as a result of 1929, 1931 and 1939–45. But the franchise that was asked for by the women in 1919 was at the age of 21, and I would recall to hon. Members that the reasons people gave at that time for opposing that demand were on the grounds of administration. Whenever people want to oppose any progressive measure, they always fall back on the very speculative argument about administration. It is speculative because, when one is dealing with 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 more voters, there is always an administrative problem. Some people think it can be managed, and some think it cannot be managed. It depends upon whether one has more optimism and keenness in carrying out the proposal as to whether it is done. Therefore, I do not think administration should be the deciding factor in this case. I shall be interested to hear from the Under-Secretary of State for what reasons the Legislative Council turned down the recommendations of the Franchise Committee and disfranchised 400,000 young men in Burma.

I would like to bring back to the Under-Secretary's mind the main purpose for which we moved this Amendment. Our point is this. It is not a question of reducing the age at which a person can vote, but of increasing it. We feel that no good argument has been made, and that the increase at this stage will have a very bad effect on public feeling in Burma, unless the Under-Secretary can satisfy us that it is really necessary at this juncture. The only arguments we have heard so far are the arguments given by the Legislative Council, that they thought the House would not agree unless 21 years of age was made the universal franchise age, and the argument of the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) that what is good enough for us is good enough for the Burmese. It is only comparatively lately in our history that the age of 21 has been the age of maturity. It is natural that that should be so. For many hundreds of years in this country the age of maturity for most people was 15.

What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "maturity"?

I am referring to the age of majority, which was 15 for all civil purposes. In fact, for a merchant's son it was the age at which he could count cash. It was only the people whom the Tory Party represented, the knight's sons—those who held land by military tenure—that the age was fixed at 21, because that was the age at which it was thought they could bear arms for the King. For the broad mass of the people in this country, for centuries the age was 15, and in some cases even lower. I suggest that Burma, from the social point of view, so far as maturity is concerned, can be regarded as being at the stage at which we were some hundreds of years ago. That is certainly the case with regard to the expectation of life, and so forth. Therefore, I suggest that the argument that our age of majority is 21 is of no relevance in the case of Burma. If the Burmese want the age to be 18, as they appear to do, since the Franchise Committee took very wide steps to find out opinion in Burma, we should grant them that age, and not increase it to 21.

I do not propose to be drawn into any discussion of the historical background of the fixing of the voting age in this country or any other country at 21. I do not even propose to commit myself to saying whether I have any personal preference. In the last Debate, I indicated that it did not seem to me that there was anything sacrosanct in the age of 21 as the voting age, any more than there was anything sacrosanct in the age of 18. What I endeavoured to do, on the last occasion, was to explain why the Government have adopted in this Bill the age of 21 as the age at which the vote shall be given. My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) and other hon. Members have emphasised that in their view, there can be no doubt that the existing voting age in Burma is 18, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) quoted the Fourth Schedule, in which it is stated that no person shall be included in the electoral roll for any general constituency unless he has attained the age of 18 years. My hon. Friend then quoted my letter in which I gave him the information for which he asked on the last occasion, and he charged the Government with disfranchising 400,000 young men between the ages of 18 and 21—that is on the assumption that this Bill is passed.

But it is quite a wrong interpretation of the position. My hon. Friend might have gone on to quote further paragraphs in the Fourth Schedule in which it was not only laid down that the vote was not to be exercised until a man had attained the age of 18, but until he had paid the capitation or household tax, as the case might be, for a period of three years. If the House in 1935 had fixed the age at 21, it would have meant that the vote would not have been exercised until the age of 24. Therefore, presumably it was fixed at 18 as a datum line in order to ensure that they should exercise the vote at 21. I am not saying whether that is right or wrong, but am giving the facts of the position. It is not correct to say that the existing voting age in Burma is 18. That is purely fictitous. The existing de facto age for voting in Burma is 21. The difficulty arose after the cessation of the war, when the question of holding an election came up, because of the amendment of the Revenue Law in Burma whereby the two taxes previously mentioned were abolished.

Is the Under-Secretary saying that, in fact, nobody up to the age of 21 was able to vote?

I think I indicated that I have made inquiries into that, and it is true to say that in a few thousand cases young men between 18 and 21 did get themselves on to the register.

Would they have been young men who paid the capitation tax earlier?

I am not in a position to explain why. I asked for information whether anyone under the age of 21 did get on to the register, and I have been informed that under 10,000 names of men known to be under 21 appeared on the register of 2,500,000.

12.30 p.m.

Surely the explanation the hon. Lady asks for was contained in what was said by the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid) and myself.

I am afraid that I cannot say what the explanation is because I do not know; I just state the facts. I do not want to over emphasise the suggestion that the administrative difficulties would be such as to make it impossible to enfranchise the greater number that would be involved if suffrage were given at 18, but even putting 6,750,000 on the register in time for a general election to be held in the spring of next year will strain the administrative machine. However, as I indicated on the last occasion, the real reason why the Government have accepted the age of 21 and embodied it in the Bill is because that was the recommendation of the Legislative Council.

I was a member of the Burma Round Table Conference and if I remember correctly this was also the recommendation of that Conference. At any rate, there was no great controversy over this question such as is suggested in speeches by hon. Members opposite.

I cannot question that statement, and indeed it was to a certain extent borne out by what happened in the Legislative Council. As I explained on the last occasion, when the Governor returned in October of last year he decided that arrangement had to be made to hold an election and thereupon set up a franchise committee composed of three members of the Legislative Council and one representative of the organisation to which I will refer as AFPFL. They recommended, as the Committee may know, that the franchise should be given to men at 18, irrespective of any property qualification, and to women at 18 subject to a literacy qualification and an economic qualification. The matter was then referred to the Legislative Council and I cannot think that there is very much in the point that the Legislative Council took a different line from the Franchise Committee. It is not unknown for committees to be overruled by our own House of Commons, and therefore I do not think that there is very much in that point.

The Legislative Council duly considered the report of the Franchise Committee and they passed an Amendment which in effect provided that the age should be 21 and not 18. My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon has asked me on several occasions to give the reasons why the Legislative Council took that action, but when an Amendment is passed in the House of Commons it is very difficult for anyone to say why the House took this course or that. The most one can do is to look at the various speeches during the Debate in question and say what were the views expressed. I have done that in this case and I have tried to meet my hon. Friends on this matter as in all matters, and all I can say is what I have been able to extract from the various speeches. I have not been able to read them all because at least half the speakers used the Burmese language and I have not the advantage of knowing that tongue or of having translations of the speeches. Nevertheless, so far as I can gather, the view taken by the majority in the Legislative Council was based upon two grounds—firstly, that the qualifying age of 21 applies throughout the majority of democratic countries in the world, and, secondly, that a proper development of intelligence or sense of responsibility is ordinarily not achieved before the age of 21.

I am not saying whether I agree or disagree with that but I am trying to give the Committee the facts as they are, and those are the facts so far as I can gather and the reasons why the majority of the Legislative Council passed the Amendment fixing the age at 21. As I have said before, I would quite agree that there is nothing sacrosanct about the age of 21, although I would remind the Committee that it is the age at which people receive the vote in India, where no doubt racial and climatic conditions approximate very closely to those in Burma, and it is advantageous to us that one can certainly point to the position in India. For the reasons I have indicated, the Government are unable to accept the Amendment and I ask for the support of the Committee.

Amendment negatived.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 1, to leave out Subsection (3).

The point of this Amendment is to remove from the Bill that provision which disfranchises monks and nuns. We have had no explanation for this Subsection other than the fact that the religious orders in Burma have made a rule telling their monks and nuns to take no part in political controversy and presumably not to vote. We feel that this is not a good enough reason to give to this Committee; there may be other reasons but we do not feel that because an outside order, especially a religious order, makes a rule of this kind it should be binding on the House of Commons to put it into legislative form. One cannot imagine in this country the Methodist Union, for instance, saying that all ministers of the Methodist Church should be disfranchised and Parliament agreeing to that without demur. That is exactly the position in Burma according to the information we have received. As I say, there may be other information which we have not had, but on the information given to us it seems to my hon. Friends and myself that this Clause cannot possibly stand. There is no need to take up further time on the subject so far as I am concerned, but my hon. Friends and I hope that the Minister will reconsider this matter or give us further information which will cause us to change our minds.

I am rather sorry that the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) has not moved this Amendment because it would have given me an opportunity of paying a tribute to his great skill in advocacy in our Debates, the skill which he shows of being able to tread a very narrow line and, if necessary, jump off on either one side or the other. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams) was not quite sure why the Government were putting in this Clause, and he suggested that the reason was because the religious orders themselves had asked for it.

I am not suggesing it but saying that that was the information we were given on Second Reading.

If the hon. Gentleman would read the report of the Franchise Committee he would see that that is not the only reason. The Franchise Committee themselves have recommended that this should be done, and that was why I was rather hoping that the hon. Member for Maldon would have spoken first because I could then have reminded him how clever he was in quoting the Franchise Committee when it suited his argument and not quoting it when it did not.

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will wish to be nothing less than totally accurate. When he says that the Franchise Committee recommended this he is only partially correct. If he will look at the report more carefully he will see that they recommended that the monks should not exercise their votes but that the nuns should.

I accept that but I will just read the report from the Franchise Committee which says that with the exception of one dissentient member—and I will give the hon. Member the full value of the one dissentient—it was decided that members of the Buddhist Holy Order should not exercise their vote or take an active part in politics in view of the fact that they have already renounced the world on ordination and are prohibited from participating in worldly affairs. The hon. Member for South Croydon likened these monks to Methodist ministers. So far as I am aware they have not renounced the world, and they are not in any way prevented from taking part—

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that he is missing the main point? Is it not a fact that the Franchise Committee were of the opinion that the monks should have the vote? There was never any suggestion that they should not have the vote.

The point was that they should not take an active part in politics. It is not my job to answer on behalf of His Majesty's Government. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity of pointing out that one of the main reasons which undoubtedly led to the exclusion of the monks was that, by their vows, the monks have divorced themselves, or are supposed to have done so, from participation in politics. Surely our object is to make this Constitution work. If the people in Burma and the Franchise Committee are of the opinion that the monks should be excluded from politics, and if the monks agree to it, what a fantastic thing it is for us, most of us knowing nothing whatever about Burma and never having been there, to put in this provision merely because it looks neat and tidy. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will stick to his guns and will resist the Amendment.

I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams) in moving the Amendment. As he said, I think the real point is not whether we think that the Buddhist monks and nuns ought to vote or ought not to vote in Burma, but that it is a rather unusual, and in some ways undesirable, constitutional practice to write into the Statute Book the particular sectarian acts of self-discipline of this or that religious order. That is the point of the Amendment. I do not think this is in itself a matter of very great import to us, but it is an odd principle. I will not make comparison with Methodist ministers, but I think a legitimate comparison can be made with one group in this country. If there is any Roman Catholic hon. Member present he can correct me, but I think I am right in supposing that a convent of enclosed contemplative Benedictine nuns might be precluded, by their vows, from taking part in an election and going to a polling station and voting. Nobody would suggest that this House, because a community of enclosed contemplative Benedictine nuns are so precluded, should write into the Statute Book a provision that they should be specifically disfranchised by this House. That seems to me the valid comparison.

I cannot help wondering, as I did last week, whether there is some underlying reason behind this decision, a reason which we have not yet been told. Can it be that the monks, although they are supposed to have renounced the world, have, in fact, been extremely active in Burmese nationalist politics in the past, and it is feared that they might vote the wrong way?

Never, in my long life, have I heard a more extraordinary speech than that which the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) has just delivered, a speech which was utterly inconsistent, even for an apostle of cryptoism.

Will the noble Lord define that jargon?

It is perfectly well known.

What does it mean?

It is a very common term. It means what the hon. Gentleman is.

On a point of Order. I think that, in so far as the noble Lord is trying to say anything, what he is trying to say is something rather offensive—he usually is—and not merely offensive, but slanderous. I ask for your protection, Major Milner. The word "crypto," in the Greek, means "hidden" or "concealed." The noble Lord must therefore mean that some hon. Member has put forward an Amendment or a proposal in which he is actuated by hidden motives. Is it not out of Order to impute motives?

On that point of Order. That was exactly the charge which the hon. Gentleman made against the Government.

Not at all.

He said that there was something underlying—

On a point of Order.

I am on a point of Order at the moment. That was exactly the charge which the hon. Gentleman made against the Under-Secretary of State. He said that there must be some underlying motive for the Amendment which the Government had not disclosed. That was why I said that it appeared to me a doctrine of cryptoism.

The noble Lord is quite wrong, as usual. He came into this Debate late, and did not hear most of it. He knows very little about it. I did not make any such charge against the Under-Secretary. I made it last week against the Burmese Legislative Council. That is a very different thing. May I appeal for your Ruling, Major Milner, on the validity of the use of this slanderous term?

It strikes me that the word "crypto" which has been used means nothing whatever unless it is associated with a noun. Is not the real charge against the noble Lord, not that he is offensive, but that he is unintelligible to the rest of us?

I cannot rule that the expression is un-parliamentary, but I certainly deprecate the use of it or indeed any personal animadversions.

I am obliged for your Ruling, and in view of your comment, Major Milner, I will withdraw "apostle of cryptoism," and substitute, if the hon. Member prefers it, "apostle of dubiety."

I am glad to have the very powerful support of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown). The hon. Member for Maldon is not going to get away with his speech quite so easily as he expects by reason of a point of Order, which has not the support of the Chair. He has charged the Government with a most serious charge in a matter which affects the religious feelings of thousands of our fellow British subjects. Buddhism is one of the finest religions in the world. The hon. Gentleman has charged the Government with a most serious charge—and if he has the courage of his convictions he will go to a Division, which I very much doubt—of having some underlying motive for introducing—[ Interruption ]—but that is exactly the phrasing which the hon. Gentleman has used.

No.

The hon. Gentleman is interrupting me. He asked, "Is there some hidden motive?" Those were his words.

In the Legislative Council.

It is no use the hon. Gentleman continuing his interruption. For once he has to listen. He made a charge, and it was a very serious charge coming from a supporter of the Government, speaking upon an Amendment which affects the religious life and well-being of millions of our subjects in the British Empire. It was a charge of deliberately introducing into the Bill some thing for a hidden reason. I deprecate that sort of argument. The hon. Gentleman should appreciate this position. He is a very sincere supporter of the Christian religion. He is dealing with a matter which vitally affects the religion of millions of people in Burma. If the hon. Gentleman knows anything about this matter—and having heard his speech I have some doubt on the point—he should be aware of the fact, although he completely ignored it, that it is contrary to the religious principles of the Buddhist priests—and this can be confirmed by the Under-Secretary of State—to take part in political life of any sort. The charge that the hon. Gentleman has made that they are taking part in some hidden, subversive propaganda, which was what I understood him to say—

No.

What did the hon. Gentleman say on that point? He said there was some propaganda.

The noble Lord is being, even for him, quite unconscionably cretinous this morning. What I said was that the Buddhist priests had been very active in nationalist politics. Also, may I repeat that I did not attack the Government? I attacked the Legislative Council in Burma for having a possible underlying motive.

If the hon. Gentleman attacks the Legislative Council for having an underlying motive, he must be attacking the Government, because the Government have adopted what the Legislative Council have suggested. There is no question about it that the hon. Gentleman has made a serious charge against the Buddhist community in Burma and I hope he will withdraw it. I hope it will go out from this Committee that the hon. Gentleman's opinion is not greatly valued by his fellow countrymen, even though it may be his own constituents, otherwise great mischief will be done in Burma.

I think the Government are completely right in putting in this Subsection, because they are doing it in order to avoid offending the religious susceptibilities of a very important portion of the population in Burma. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, no doubt quite sincerely, are desperately concerned with the question of the vote, of who shall vote and who shall not vote. Well, that is very important, but I am sorry to have to say that at this moment the people of Burma, like the people of this country, are more concerned with the question of bread than they are with the question of voting.

I do not want to attack the Government, I do not want to attack my right hon. Friend above the gangway, the noble Lord. I do not want to attack hon. Members opposite—I am in an extraordinarily good mood this morning. All I am really concerned about is to try to analyse the logic or lack of logic involved in some of the contributions made to this discussion. It has been suggested from above the Gangway that if we do not keep Subsection (3) of Clause 2, we shall somehow offend the religious susceptibilities of the Buddhist community in Burma. I cannot see the slightest evidence in support of such a view. If Subsection (3) goes, the Buddhist community in Burma will not be referred to at all in the Bill, and nobody can possibly take exception to not being referred to in that way. Therefore the argument that somehow we shall upset the Buddhists in Burma seems to me to be entirely misplaced.

The second point urged in support of this course is that because the Buddhists mentioned do not want to take part in politics we shall tell them that they shall not anyway. That seems to me to be first of all tautological because, if they do not want to butt in, there is no point in telling them that they cannot. Secondly, it seems to me to be constitutionally most improper. The logic of this thing, as the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) has pointed out, would be that were we dealing with the question in Britain we would have to exclude the contemplative orders of the Catholic community in this country, and although, in fact, there are many convents in Britain where those who have taken the habit have forsaken the things of this world, I have known them to come out at election time. I have known people brought out of convents and I have known them dug up from cemeteries and, I can see not the slightest logical argument for telling people not to do something which they do not want to do anyway.

I confess that I do not know what is the idea behind this. I do not suggest that anybody here is crypto or dubious—as I mentioned earlier, I am in a good temper this morning—but I would like to know why this particular class is put in, for it is quite extraordinary to my humble way of thinking. I am not necessarily against the Government on this; if they give me an adequate reason for the Clause, I shall support them; but I share the view expressed on the other side of the Committee that no adequate reason has been given for this Clause and my instinct at the moment, although it is possible that I may be persuaded otherwise, is to knock it out.

The noble Lord said that my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) has made one of the most remarkable and illogical speeches he has ever heard in the House of Commons. I am afraid it is the noble Lord who has made the most illogical and extraordinary speech. For instance, he said that not mentioning in the Bill that Buddhist priests should not take part in politics, would insult the Buddhist religion and the Buddhist people of Burma. That is the most extraordinary statement I have ever heard, and if he will not agree with the logic of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), let me quote a concrete fact and perhaps that will impress him. In the case of the Ceylon constitution, the Buddhist monks and nuns were given the vote because they were not mentioned at all in the Ordinance setting up the constitution of 1921. I can assure the noble Lord that no Buddhists in Ceylon took offence because they were not deprived of the franchise.

The situation is quite different. I understand that these people have asked that they should not be given the vote. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] They have expressed that desire.

The noble Lord is incorrect. These people have not asked anything of the kind; they were silent on the matter. Then again, the suggestion was made that if we mention that Buddhist priests actually take part in politics, we shall insult the Buddhist people. As a matter of fact, the Buddhist priests in Burma, as is well known, actually take part in politics. In Ceylon, to show how the thing works, after the new constitution was brought in, some of the Buddhist priests took an active part in politics in that country. What has been the result? The Buddhist laymen in Ceylon are now protesting violently against Buddhist priests interfering in politics. That is the way it should be settled, between themselves; but for goodness sake, why deprive people of the franchise, of an elementary political right? It is for them to use that right, or not, as they please. Surely, that is simple logic?

The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) came back to us today with the parrot cry, "Let us make the new constitution work." He urged that by depriving the Buddhist priests and nuns in Burma of the franchise, we shall make the constitution work. How will it do that? Whether they have the franchise or not, some will interfere in politics. How will that make the constitution work? I cannot get inside the mind of the hon. Member for Hornsey. I know he is very familiar with that part of the world and so I take him seriously, but I cannot understand his mentality in this matter. It will not affect the work of the constitution one way or another whether the Buddhist priests get the vote or not; in either case they will take part in politics. I am very sorry for the fate of my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Burma, who is going to follow the wishes of the Legislative Council. Perhaps there is some reason in that. We want to get on with the election and, therefore, I shall not oppose him, but this proposal of the Legislative Council is vicious in theory and futile in fact.

There has been some criticism of the Government on this question of the Buddhist monks but, when the Government are in difficulty, Sir Galahad is there ready to come forward to the defence. That is one of the most extraordinary things I have seen in the House of Commons—not the speech of the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg), as was suggested but the noble Lord getting up, full of indignation, real or—[An HON. MEMBER: "Crypto."] What the noble Lord cannot understand—and there is a lot about this business he does not understand—is, that the monks and nuns have the vote. No one ever suggested that they should not have the vote. The Franchise Committee recommends that the monks should not use the vote, but no one anywhere has ever suggested that there should be legislation saying that this, that or the other group should not be allowed to vote. There was never such a thing in the history of this country in dealing with another part of the world.

1.0 p.m.

Another amazing thing, seeing that we are dealing with amazing things, was the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) taking exception at the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams) drawing a parallel with Wesleyan ministers. The hon. Member for Hornsey said that Buddhist monks have renounced the world, and that that is the difference between Buddhist monks and Wesleyan ministers. But the Founder of Christianity demanded that those who were to follow Him were to renounce the world. If men claim to be following the Founder of Christianity and have not renounced the world, they are the men who should not get the vote, if anyone should not get it. The whole idea of putting into legislation a provision like this is wrong. The Buddhist Order itself decides whether its priests should not take part in elections. It is permissible for anyone to change his decision. Or does the noble Lord, or his friends or the Minister, mean that we should lay it down that the Buddhist monks, having taken a decision that they would not participate in politics, must keep to that decision, no matter what happens?

The hon. Member for South Croydon was right in drawing his parallel with the clergy of the Methodist Church or the clergy of the English Church. The fact remains that whether one instances Church of England parsons or Wesleyan ministers, the Founder said that to follow Him one had to forsake the world. The Buddhist monks have kept loyal to the faith of their Founder. Therefore, they are people who can be trusted, and should not be discriminated against in legislation. But what of those who are following the Founder of Christianity in name and seeking the pleasures of this world? I consider that the hon. Member drew a good parallel.

I have been attentively following the Debate on this Clause. As at present advised I do not think I can possibly be a party to any Clause which seeks to exclude from the franchise any particular class of person. To me this seems to involve a far deeper principle than at first sight appears; indeed, it is far greater than of purely local importance. I do not feel that any democratic assembly should take upon itself the right to exclude a class of people from any electoral roll purely on the basis of the religious order to which they belong, or because of any alleged expression of opinion which is said to have emanated from their particular sect. It is a principle which goes to the whole root of democracy. It might even be used as a precedent. For example, it might be used to exclude from the counsels of this House that well known—I will not call him crypto—Scottish Nationalist, the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). It would be a most serious thing if anything of that kind were done. I am not impressed at present by any argument which says that these people have asked to be excluded from the franchise. I should require to have far more comprehensive evidence than has been adduced before this Committee before I assented to any Clause of this kind, and I shall support the Amendment.

Like everything else in connection with Burma, this matter falls to be discussed by a Committee which, as I have previously remarked, has little firsthand knowledge. On the other hand, there are many analogies on which we can draw. The fact remains that the basis of all the Eastern group of religions, such as Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism, have it in common that they all preach the unreality of what one might call the material phenomena, and they all preach that the end to be aimed at is the abandonment, the abjuration of all emotion, and complete non-worldliness. What puzzles me is that this is not unique to Buddhist monks and nuns. It is the teaching of the Lord Buddha and has been followed by his disciples ever since, but it is the teaching of Hinduism and also of Jainism. In India there are a few Buddhists, in certain parts of Bengal, there are many Hindus and there are two or three million Jainists.

We are inserting this Clause in this Bill, relating only to Burma at this particular moment, whereas there is no comparative Section in the Government of India Act. It is an interesting point, if we say that when there is a priesthood which is vowed to non-participation in all worldly matters, we should support the discipline of that religion by incorporating it in a Statute relating to the franchise. Why have we not done the same thing in India? I should lke an answer to that question.

I see the point of this Amendment, but I do not think it is necessary. I do not think that this Committee is called upon to support, by its legislation, the internal discipline of a religious Order. So far as I can see there are only a very few religious discriminations in this country. They have nothing to do with the internal discipline of a religion. For instance, it is not imposed on the clergy of the Church of England or of Rome that they cannot be Members of this House because it is a rule of the Church of England or of Rome that a priest cannot be a Member. It is important for certain other reasons, looked at from the point of view of the Legislature, not from the point of view of the religion in question. The real logical reason for putting this Clause into the Bill would be from the point of view that it was harmful for Burma for monks to vote, not that it was harmful for monks to vote.

Though much of the discussion today has, if I may say so without disrespect to hon. Members, been characterised by a certain lightness of humour, almost frivolity, this is rather a serious point, and I hope that we may have an explanation from the Under-Secretary. In common with other speakers, would say that we are not looking at this from a party point of view. I am not opposing this Amendment because I am a Member of the Opposition. I am rather worried that this Clause, which is entirely without precedent in any legislation passed by this House in the last two centuries, since the Catholic Emancipation Bill, should be included in this Bill relating to Burma when it had not been included in any India Act.

I find myself in the strange position of being in complete agreement with the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce). I think this a perfectly staggering Clause to have in a Bill. I just cannot comprehend it. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid) whom I detect as harking back to my country of origin knows perfectly well that the Irish priesthood, for instance, has every right to take part in political elections. It seems to me most extraordinary that we should be imposing here upon a religion, the inner meaning and spirit of which very few of us really comprehend, a prohibition which we should never dream of imposing on any other faith in the world and which, indeed, we have not imposed on this particular religion in other quarters of the world. I cannot believe that a British Government can be putting this forward seriously. If they are not putting it forward seriously, it is, of course, very bad taste. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) spoke of the Buddhist belief in the unreality of material phenomena. To a large extent I agree with that. Therefore, I am the more persuaded by this Clause not to believe in the reality of the material phenomena which I see before me on the Treasury Bench. I hope most sincerely that this Clause will not be pressed.

1.15 p.m

I must confess that while I have a measure of sympathy with the point of view which has been expressed by a number of hon. Members as to the desirability or otherwise of embodying in legislation reference to the civil activities of a number of religious orders, I must express my strong disagreement with the underlying theme of the hon. Member, for Ashford (Mr. E. P. Smith) when he makes his passionate appeal to the Government not to take this step on the ground that we are imposing on the religious community in Burma this electoral restriction. Of course, that is exactly what we are not doing. I will explain to the Committee the course of events in relation to this proposal. The Franchise Committee to which I have referred previously, and whose report I think one hon. Member quoted, are against the giving of franchise to Hpongyis. This is what they said:

"We are of the opinion, with the exception of one dissentient member, that members of the Buddhist Holy Order should not exercise their vote and take active part in politics in view of the fact that they have already renounced the world at Ordination. And Vinaya" —

that is their Bible, so to speak—

"… prohibits them from participating in worldly affairs."

The report of the Franchise Committee eventually came up for consideration by the larger body, the Legislative Council. Incidentally, these are Burmans. We are not legislating for this country; we are legislating for Burma. We hope that very soon they will legislate for themselves. The report came up for consideration before the larger body, the Legislative Council. There was a considerable debate in the Legislative Council and thereupon they decided to seek the views of what is called the Sangha Council of the Buddhist Order in Burma, which is the supreme council, as to what they thought about it.

Is that an elected body?

I do not think it is elected any more than possibly the Church Assembly in this country is elected.

It is elected; the Church Assembly is.

It is the supreme council of the Buddhist Order in Burma. They expressed the view in clear terms that the rules of the Order do not allow Hpongyis and nuns to participate in elections which are purely a secular matter or to support a party or a candidate.

In view of the fact that I have been controverted on this point and told in polite terms that I was a liar, is it not true that what the hon. and learned Gentleman says entirely supports the view I put that the supreme council of the Buddhist Order distinctly said that they did not want to have the vote?

That is so.

1.15 p.m.

Would my hon. and learned Friend say whether the Franchise Committee or the Legislative Council gave any reason for this particular proposal other than the one which has been read out because, if not, he has read out a complete non sequitur?

I had a similar question put to me a little while ago as to whether the Legislative Council gave reasons. I can only extract from the course of the Debate the views expressed by members of the Legislative Council as to what was said. What eventually happened is what happened in this House—there was an Amendment which provided that both monks and nuns should be excluded. The Franchise Committee having advocated, or recommended, that monks should be excluded but not nuns, their Report goes to the Legislative Council.

We want to get at the actual facts about this. Could the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the Supreme Buddhist Council made any discrimination at all between monks and nuns? Would my hon. and learned Friend mind reading to the Committee the sentence about nuns which is the one following that which he has read from the Franchise Report?

It is:

"On the other hand, we feel that Buddhist nuns should not be deprived of the rights of voting."

Would the hon. and learned Gentleman please read the rest of the sentence.

Yes, certainly. It says they are not prohibited by the Vinaya from doing so. That is the statement in the Report of the Franchise Committee. Subsequent to that report, the whole matter concerning both monks and nuns was referred by the Legislative Council to the supreme council of the Buddhist Order. They had before them the question of both the monks and the nuns and they expressed the view that it was contrary to the rules of their Order that both monks and nuns should participate or have anything to do with electioneering. That went back to the Legislative Council. I quite agree that the Legislative Council have not been elected. We have not yet been able to hold any elections and we have had to make do with this Council which is as representative as we can make it with the exception of one main party. They—in their wisdom or otherwise—decided that they do not want the vote to be given to the monks and nuns in their country. I say we are not legislating for this country. This is a question of passing legislation for Burma, at the request of Burma. I think it is difficult to expect the Government, especially in matters affecting religion, to overrule the representations that have been made, especially when they have the support of the Franchise Committee. Therefore, I am unable to accept the Amendment.

I warn the Committee in all solemnity that we are just going to do something which is extraordinarily silly, and which I think is wrong. I am entirely in favour, and used that argument myself in 1931, of going as far as we possibly can to meet the wishes of the Legislative Council, but I remind the Committee that we deservedly have a reputation for political wisdom greater than the Legislative Council of Burma. We have many centuries of experience behind us. The Legislative Council may be expressing their wishes, but they are teaching exceedingly unsound constitutional doctrine in recommending that we should deprive people of the vote because those people say they do not want to use the vote. I feel that the hon. and learned Gentleman and his advisers have blundered, and that we shall regret this matter. It would mean departing from the precedent followed in regard to India, which is the country I know best.

There was no subject on which this House gave a decision with more care than the India Act of 1935. It is madness to depart from all those precedents. I think that in the case of the Jains all their members were to be excluded, certainly all the Buddhists and certainly all the Hindus and a large part of the priesthood are not allowed to vote. The same arguments could have been used in the India Act and were not used, or if used, they were rejected. I view with apprehension any proposal to insert this restriction in the Bill. It cannot go back for reconsideration in another place, as it has come from the Lords. Once this Bill is parted with, it would need an amending Act, unless it were altered on the Report stage. I earnestly warn the Committee that we are going to blunder very heavily if we do this thing. It has nothing to do with party politics, and nothing to do with religion. It is really a case of standing up for constitutional doctrine.

May I appeal to the Minister? He has heard the feeling on all sides of the Committee and I think that the only hon. Members who are against this proposal are the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans), who has left, and may have changed his mind, and the noble Lord the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) who seemed to use the occasion for a private war with the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg). I ask my hon. and learned Friend to reconsider this matter. By the time the Report stage is reached, we may have a different view on the part of the Government. As the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) has said, this is a matter which will have great repercussions in that part of the world, and also on all constitutional doctrine.

I hope my hon. and learned Friend will say that in view of the almost unanimous view of the Committee he will reconsider this matter between now and the Report stage. I hope he will get up and say that. Otherwise we feel that something completely illogical will go on to the Statute Book. I find it difficult to believe that Buddhists who do not believe in the reality of material phenomena should agree that this material phenomena should go into an Act of Parliament.

I have been sufficiently long in this House to know when the sense of the Committee is in one direction or another. Apart from the noble Lord the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) and myself, it is quite evident that the whole of the Committee desire that this exclusion should not be in the Bill. Therefore, I am proposing to accept the Amendment. I can only say that I am not taking time to consider it, but will take responsibility, as this Bill is urgent and we propose to take the Report and Third Reading today. In those circumstances, I accept the Amendment.

Let us have a little more discussion about this matter. Hon. Members can offer their congratulations afterwards. Surely, the hon. and learned Gentleman is prepared to explain what exactly is the effect of this on the new constitution of Burma? Will it have any of the calamitous effects he indicated in his earlier speech? I am concerned with what the people in Burma say and I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman what would be the effect on the Legislative Council. Will they say that in view of the comments of hon. Members who have spent their whole lives in the steamy jungles and have induced the Government to give way, they will accept this, or will they say, "We do not want your Bill now you have chosen to put something in which we do not want"?

It is very difficult to say how this will be received by the Legislative Council, or any other body outside the Committee. But just as the Legislative Council has its responsibilities, so this Committee has responsibilities. Whether the Committee be right or wrong, I am quite sure that I am right in interpreting their view that they do not wish to be associated with any legislation which seeks to take away what they say are the civil rights of priests and nuns in regard to the franchise. As to the effect upon public opinion generally in Burma, or upon the future constitution, I do not think it will have any effect on the latter, and it will be a matter for the future as to whether public opinion approves or disapproves of it.

Let it go out then from the Committee that my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee, as they are perfectly entitled to do, believe that the wisdom of Parliament is very great and want to have regard to local opinion—and I know my words will go to Burma—and that the Government, supported by people who have never been to Burma in their lives, have gone against the unanimous wishes of the Legislative Assembly in Burma, and of the Buddhist Church in Burma. So be it. They will now know the falsity of the suggestion, made particularly by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg), that the only people who love and understand Burma are the Socialist Party and the Communists.

On behalf of some interested hon. Members on this side of the Committee, may I thank my hon. and learned Friend for the action he has taken?

1.30 p.m.

I must rise to say just a word in reply to my noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). He has said that it will go out to Burma from this House that this Amendment was supported by people who have never been to Burma. I fully admit that I myself have never been to Burma, but, surely, my noble Friend is missing the whole point. The point is that there is absolutely no necessity for the inclusion of this Clause. If the Buddhists choose to give their monks and nuns certain religious instructions to prevent them taking part in politics or voting, that is their affair. It is not for us to impose a prohibition as we should do by this Clause.

I should like to congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman on what I think is right from the constitutional point of view. It is a fact that Burmese affairs are and will be treated as the responsibility of the whole House of Commons, just as is the safeguarding of true constitutional government. In a minor way, we have attained something in the way of true constitutional legislation.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

I think it would be appropriate to say that, on both sides of the House—

On a point of Order. I may be making a fool of myself, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but, surely, there is a Report stage?

We have had the Report stage, and we are now on the Third Reading.

As I was saying, I think it would be appropriate to say that I am sure that, although on both sides of the House there were some differences of opinion on the Committee stage, we do appreciate the manner in which the hon. and learned Gentleman has conducted this Bill through the House, and that we hope it will be of value to that attractive part of the Commonwealth, Burma.

I should like to express my thanks to the noble Lord for what he has said and to re-echo the sentiments he has expressed as regards the value of this Bill in dealing with the future life of Burma.

I am reluctant to detain the House on a subject on which we have spent a considerable amount of time, but there are some things which ought to be said before we finally part company with this Bill. I hope that neither the hon. and learned Gentleman nor any other hon. Member of this House will think that we have now done our duty towards Burma and that we need no longer give it any consideration. All along I have felt that there has been a considerable air of unreality about the Debates on this Bill. The truth is that the situation in Burma is very bad indeed and that it is more than questionable whether this Bill will ever come into effect. It is possible, although not probable, that there will be a serious breakdown of law and order in many parts of Burma, and I think the House and the country should be reminded of the fact that we shall hear a very great deal more of and from Burma in the very near future of a nature which we shall not like. That is the first thing of which I wish to remind the House.

The second is that I want to underline the plea I made in the Second Reading Debate, that a Parliamentary Delegation should be sent out to Burma as soon as possible so that there may be more Members of this House with recent firsthand knowledge of Burma. Having said that, I should like to come to the Bill itself and say that I think it is a useful Measure, and that, if it turns out well, it will enable the elections to take place on a fully representative and reasonably efficient basis. I should also like to add my word to the kind words already spoken by my right hon. Friend the noble Lord to the Under-Secretary of State for Burma.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

I do not know whether this is the appropriate point for me to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he has any observations to make regarding the promises which he made in the Second Reading Debate on this Bill, that he would look into the position of at least one or two categories which were not included in the Bill. I should like to invite the Financial Secretary to refer to at least two categories in which I am interested and about which I spoke in the Second Reading Debate. I refer to the category of the "Colour Service to Count" and the "K Company men" category. So far as I can see, the main difficulty which the Financial Secretary had in connection with the categories, in the Second Reading Debate, was that the records, particularly of the Service Departments, were not sufficiently up to date to enable him to meet some of the points put by other hon. Members and myself. But I feel sure that, so far as the Civil Service is concerned, its records will be sufficiently up to date to enable the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to at least include these categories, in so far as the date of this Bill, 1st January, 1919, is concerned. The only difficulty to which the Financial Secretary referred during the Second Reading Debate can very well be got over by reference to Civil Service records which, as I said before, are bound to be sufficiently up to date and comprehensive to go back to 1st January, 1919.

As I said on the Second Reading, we are only asking that non-pensionable service in the Armed Forces, when it is followed by service in the Civil Service, should be treated in the way I am suggesting now. It is not service for which these men might have had some pension in the Armed Forces; from that point of view, it is non-pensionable service.

I should like to refer the Financial Secretary again to the Departmental Committee of 1926, which, after a very exhaustive inquiry into the position of these men, strongly recommended that their service in the Armed Forces should be counted in the calculation of their overall service in the Civil Service. I have one further point to make on that subject. It might be said that if only these men had continued in the Armed Forces they would, in due course, have become eligible for military pensions. Many of them, however, were not allowed to continue their service; they were even prohibited from doing so. Therefore, they came to the Civil Service after a number of years in the Armed Forces and were not allowed to count those years for their Civil Service pension. A further point I should like the Financial Secretary to bear in mind is that a large number of them, through the peculiar incidence of recruitment, came into some of the lower manipulative grades in the Civil Service and their pension was, of necessity, very small indeed, in fact it was hardly sufficient for them to exist on and they had to look for other employment. I should like to hear what is the result of the consideration, given by the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor to this particular category.

Then there is the K category to which I also referred during the Second Reading Debate. I should like once again to emphasise that these people joined the Armed Forces at the express invitation of the Government from the Post Office. They were there to meet an emergency, and when they responded to the invitation they were assured that they would not as a result suffer in their increments or seniority. They were, therefore, very surprised to learn on returning to the Civil Service that all the years they had spent in the Armed Forces would not count for pension purposes. In conclusion I should like to refer to what the Secretary of the Post Office in those days said in regard to this particular category. It is very conclusive, and should encourage the Financial Secretary to make a concession, or, at any rate, to give some assurance to the Committee that he will sympathetically review the points I am making.

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I understand that he is suggesting additions or alterations to the categories at present in the Bill. That, of course, is a matter which he should have put on the Paper by way of Amendment. He is entitled to ask why a category is not included, but is not in Order in putting a case for the inclusion of any such category on the Question that the Clause stand part. That question is, that the categories already set out in the Bill shall stand part of the Bill.

1.45 p.m.

My hon. Friend asked whether the Minister would make a statement as to what was to happen in regard to the promises he made on certain specific points. We have not had that statement yet. It is rather difficult to put down Amendments on the Paper when we are waiting the fulfilment of a promise that something would be reviewed.

The hon. Member could have put down an Amendment to deal with the matter.

I accept your Ruling, Major Milner, but I am rather disappointed that we have had no statement from the Financial Secretary of the reactions of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor and himself to the very specific points brought to the notice of the House on the Second Reading in regard to which we were given certain assurances. Would it be possible for me to do something in that direction when we come to the Third Reading? I would like to have your assistance on that matter?

I am afraid it is only possible, on the Third Reading, to discuss what is contained in the Bill. I have no objection to having a Debate in regard to the various categories, but it must be confined to the reasons why such categories are or are not included in the Clauses.

A suggestion that would overcome your difficulty and mine, Major Milner, would be for the Financial Secretary to agree to make a statement, even at this stage, that would help us to know what he and his right hon. Friend have in mind.

I hope very much that the Financial Secretary will make such a statement, and I hope, too, that the two categories my hon. Friend referred to, which have figured in the list of Civil Service difficulties and grievances during practically the whole of my lifetime, will be covered. Will he also make a statement about the Lytton and Southborough entrants and the "S" class entrants, who entered the Civil Service after the last war, but who were not allowed to count any part of their previous service in the first world war towards their Civil Service pension? In this Bill we are now providing that entrants to the public service who have had service in the Armed Forces, are, from now on, to be allowed to count up to one half of such service for superannuation purposes. It seems a little difficult to give that concession to people coming in now, in regard to whom we have not yet assumed any responsibility, if we do not simultaneously give it to those who are already in, and towards whom we already have more responsibility. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend will deal with the cases mentioned by my hon. Friend opposite and also include those I have mentioned.

I cannot let this Clause pass by without referring to the assurances given by the Financial Secretary on the occasion of the Second Reading. May I remind him that he said, referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. W. Williams):

"Although each of them have criticisms to offer, which we will consider between now and the Committee stage, and in so far as we can do so, we will endeavour to meet them."

He then went on to talk of the difficulties met with in attempting to meet the point of view that has been expressed by hon. Members because of the destruction of 4½ million out of 5 million War Office records. He then went on:

"Although that would not be an insuperable barrier to doing justice, if that is necessary.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st June, 1946; Vol. 424, c. 639.]

He suggested to my hon. Friend that a strong case was made out for those excluded. He really is under an obligation to give us a full statement on the Committee stage on why these have been excluded. I would remind him that in his opening statement he stated that this was

"part of the comprehensive plan for the reconstruction of the Civil Service."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st June, 1946; Vol. 424, c. 610.]

It would be a pity, therefore, when we are considering reconstruction, if we did not have a statement on why certain categories are to be excluded. I am referring to the ex-Servicemen of the 1914–18 war who have not had the opportunity to count their service towards pensions. They are to be excluded under this Clause, and I am asking for a statement in accordance with the undertaking given during the Second Reading Debate.

I am very ready to make a statement if it is within the Rules of Order. Some Members of the Committee to whom I spoke this morning will remember I indicated that we might be under a disadvantage this afternoon, in that it might be difficult under the Rules of Order to deal with some of the points which they properly and naturally wished to raise. With your permission, Major Milner, and with the permission of hon. Members I will, however, endeavour to answer one or two of the points on the Question of the Clause standing part. It is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Randall) said, that I indicated in my brief reply during the Second Reading Debate that I would go through what has been said by way of criticism and see what, if anything, could be done. The difficulty then was that there were other Orders which the House wished to take and I did not elaborate the point, though I did go on to say that there were difficulties standing in the way of attempting to count service in the 1914–18 war. Among those difficulties, I pointed out that owing to fire during this war, a vast proportion of the records, so the War Office had informed me, had been destroyed, but I added that that was not an insuperable difficulty. The real reason why we are not counting service in the 1914–18 war is not because the records have been destroyed—that is a physical difficulty—but that it is felt it would be unjust. The circumstances existing during the war which has just concluded are very different from the circumstances which obtained during the 1914–18 war.

Under the 1834 Act an officer cannot count one period of service for two pensions, and those who have served with the Colours have lost military service for pensionable purposes under that Act. Surely, the implication is that justice should now be done to these men who are preventing from counting that service? They may have lost 10 or 12 years' service because of this provision.

I think we are on two different points, although I agree that they overlap. I am dealing with the narrow issue of the ordinary civilian who went into the Services during the 1914–18 war, and not with those who have served for a long period with the Colours as regulars and were also in the 1914–18 war. The suggestion of my hon. Friend for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) is that service might be allowed to count in the same way as we are making provision for service to count in this war. I do not want to complicate the issue. The arguments are not the same in the two instances, although I agree both have been soldiers and have served in war. I am dealing with the ordinary man who went into the Forces in the last war. The suggestion has been made, and it is rather an attractive one, that he should be able to count the period he served in the Forces towards pension. The answer is that anyone in the Civil Service who went in as a temporary during that war was not allowed to count his service; and it would be unfair to the ordinary temporary now that we are 25 years or more away from that war if we allowed service with the Forces to count for pension.

All we are doing is to put the ex-Service man, so far as the 1939–45 war is concerned, under the umbrella of the 1935 Act. I know that that does not meet fully all my hon. Friends behind me desire, but that is the answer. It is a matter which could perhaps be looked at by the National Whitley Council and if it can be argued further I hope it will be argued. I am only indicating what this Clause covers and I am giving the reasons why we have not thought it possible to include the 1914–18 warriors.

I think that we are in a difficulty. We have passed the Money Resolution which rather restricts our style, and we have not put any Amendments on the Order Paper, which further restricts our style, but as a reasonable man I would accept any compromise which gives me what I want. It would help enormously if the Financial Secretary would indicate these when this matter comes to be discussed through the appropriate channel of the National Whitley Council, that he will be sympathetic and helpful, and that we may have an opportunity to liquidate the whole business when the results of these further discussions come to be dealt with.

That may well be, but I would not pass judgment "yea" or "nay" on what my hon. Friend has said. We are fortunate in the civil service in that we have, I hope, adequate machinery to ventilate these points. Members who believe something more could be done for the 1914–18 class can therefore carry the matter further. All I am saying is that it is felt that if we go back to 1919, when peace was declared after the last war, it is as much as could be managed and there are factors in the case which would set up another set of anomalies, which again might lead to a feeling of grievance if this request were accepted. We are anxious, if possible, not to do that. I personally am more anxious to see the future safeguarded than to go back 20 or 30 years to deal with things which, quite frankly, would be very difficult to deal with now.

2.0 p.m.

The hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. W. Williams) asked me about what are called the K Company men. That Company ceased to exist in 1922. It is true that these men went into the engineers where they did work analogous to the kind of work they would have done in the Post Office service. Because of this it is felt that they should have been allowed to count that time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby has said, the financial Resolution would probably not allow such service to be counted. That and some other points which the hon. Member raised are, I think, real grievances. While we cannot do anything about that here, that is no reason why nothing should be done about it in the future, and I will promise my hon. Friend now that I will have the point considered.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Superannuation of late entrants to Civil Service.)

I beg to move, in page 3, line 5, at the end, to insert:

Subsection (3) of the Clause states that:

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

I observed with very great interest the comments made by the Financial Secretary during the discussion on the Second Reading of this Bill. He said:

"If we are to attract the best brains in specialised fields, as I think the nation undoubtedly desires to do, a provision of this kind is in our view essential. Men and women of ability are normally only too anxious to serve the community, but I think the House will agree that it is unfair that this readiness should be used as a reason for taking advantage of them. If they come in and place their specialised ability at the service of the State it is only right and just that the State should look after them and see that they are adequately remunerated and also receive a proper pension at the end of their service. The provisions of this Clause will be used sparingly but adequately. It is no good having these provisions on the Statute Book if we do not intend to use them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st June, 1946; vol. 424, c. 613.]

I think it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) who expressed regret that Clause 2 made no provision for justice to those already in the service of the State. I was glad to hear the Financial Secretary say that if nothing could be done this afternoon it does not mean that nothing can be done at any time. In the course of my duties as a trade union official I have had to go before industrial courts. I sometimes got a decision that I liked and sometimes a decision which I did not like. I want to draw attention to the position of the president and members of the industrial court.

I hardly think that that is in Order on this Clause.

As I understand it, the Treasury may give direction that established service after the age of 40, and such persons may get certain concessions. The Treasury have power to direct certain things shall be done, and certain regulations made. I am raising the position of wholetime public servants paid from public funds and appointed by a Minister of State. It is perhaps difficult to say whether or not they are already unestab-lished, but I want to ask whether the position of these servants could also be considered in relation to this Clause, too.

I do not want to intervene between the Minister and the hon. Member for East Walthamstow (Mr. Wallace) or stand in the way of a reply on this point. But it might be convenient if I put a question which I have in mind and the Financial Secretary could reply to both at the same time. On the Second Reading discussion of the Bill it was pointed out that the object of this Clause was to enable the State to attract to its service men and women at an age in excess of the normal present age of entry to the public service. It is not disputed in the Committee that that is a worthy object, and it is not disputed that it is a necessary thing to do. But in the course of the Debate on the Second Reading I pointed out that it was not only the men over 40 we should get in, and for whom the Bill makes some sort of provision, nor even the men and women above 35 for whom the Bill makes a somewhat lesser provision, but the people under that age. I urged the Financial Secretary to consider whether he could not look at this again, and I understood he has looked at it. I would be grateful to him if he will make a statement about it.

In answer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), I would say that we have looked at this but, frankly, we think the ages in the Bill give us all we want in the way of attracting into the Service people in their middle years. We think that 35, as the lower limit, will be quite sufficient for the type of person we hope and expect to obtain as a result of the concession in the way of added years for pension purposes. If we find, in time, that it is insufficient, and that we ought to come down to 30 or below it, we shall have to come to the House again and ask for authority. But considering that most of the posts we want to fill in this way usually go to men well into their middle years, who have experience and so on which, unfortunately, is not always found in those who are younger, we feel that the age in the Bill is reasonable. We think that to lower it still further would be, not farcical—that is not the right word—but going too far, particularly as most of these entrants will usually be above 40. In any case if they come in at a much lower age they will have time to qualify for adequate pension.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Walthamstow (Mr. H. Wallace) asked about members of the Industrial Court. They are appointed by the Minister of Labour, under an Act of 1919, they are not civil servants in the strict sense of the term. It is true that the Chairman is a full time officer, but he is not a civil servant. All the others are drawn from a panel, and are entitled to take other work if they are so minded. Though employed by a Government Department they are not eligible to qualify in the ordinary way for pension at 60 or 65. That being so, they have not been, and cannot be, included.

I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would tell me if I am wrong, but I gather that the category of servants we are considering are those who give full time service. My information is that the members of the Court do that.

The hon. Member is wrong. The President of the Court is, in effect, a full time civil servant. His job is equivalent almost to that of a judge, but the members of the Court are drawn from panels selected by the Government and the trade unions, and they are usually men of affairs who have other interests as well.

They get five guineas a day.

If they get only five guineas a day that is another example of gross underpayment on the part of the Treasury. The Financial Secretary is right in saying that they are not full time civil servants.

The members of whom I am speaking are in receipt of salaries, not fees. One has a salary of £1,200 per annum. My information is that they are wholly employed on this work. I know there are panels from which selections may be made, and may be there is a distinction between the permanent members and the other members.

I would like to support the view that the members of the Industrial Court should be included within the provisions of the Bill. Some of these people have served since 1919, approaching 30 years, which is long service in the interest of the State. I cannot imagine a company with any reputation not giving a pension to men with that length of service. These men are of high calibre, knowledge, integrity, and social standing, and I hope the Financial Secretary will see that by some way or other these men are brought into the superannuation scheme.

2.15 p.m.

I am speaking without exact knowledge—it is only fair to say that—but so far as my information and recollection go it is that they are appointed under the 1919 Industrial Courts Act, that the appointments are made by the Minister of Labour, that the remuneration is fixed by him in relation to the time they give. Possibly he may sometimes fix that one individual on the panel should be given a daily rate, and that others receive a yearly salary.

The salaries of these officers were reduced in 1931, when the Civil Service cuts were imposed.

I do not think anything I have said is contrary to what my hon. Friend has just said. The Minister of Labour may fix the remuneration at a daily rate, or possibly, at a total yearly salary. They are not, as the hon. Member for Rugby said, civil servants, and, that being so, they do not qualify for a Civil Service pension. Whether they should get one is another matter. I agree that anybody who gives up to 30 years' service to the State is entitled to a pension when he comes to retire, and I hope that at the proper time something will be done for these very deserving servants of the community.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

First Schedule agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Minor amendments of the Superannuation Acts.)

I beg to move, in page 10, line 20, at the end, to insert: That, broadly, is the reason why I am moving this rather long Amendment to the Second Schedule this afternoon. The statement made by my right hon. Friend was short, as all answers should be at Question time, and I am delighted to tell the Committee that this Amendment covers more than might appear to be the case from that reply. The categories covered are not only the Lytton and Southborough entrants, but also various other classes of temporary clerks, mainly ex-Servicemen—and I am glad to think that there are some women among them—who obtained established posts as a result of the series of special examinations held between 1920 and July, 1925. The so-called age-bar officers and other temporary clerks who failed to get establishment in 1932 and since are also covered.

The provision is deliberately drawn in fairly general terms, because at the present time the National Whitley Council are considering this matter, and we do not want to tie them down too much. The whole thing, therefore, can be looked at in all its phases, and once and for all these grievances can I hope be cleared up. This matter has gone on far too long. At least one Commission has dealt with it, which came to the conclusion that the problem was insoluble. We hope to solve it. When the National Whitley Council get down to the matter—they have already begun—we are anxious that they should not be too limited, by anything that is in the Bill or in the Financial Resolution. I hope, therefore, the Committee will accept this Amendment, and my assurance that as far as we can, we are anxious to do all in our power to clear up grievances which have existed since the last war, and which, in my view, ought to have been cleared up many years ago.

There are two or three things that ought to be said about this Amendment, which makes an addition to the Schedule, in order that the Committee may understand what is happening, and how this particular Schedule fits into the background of the problem with which it purports to deal—the problem of the age-barred officers, and the problem of the counting of unestablished service for pension. This proposed addition to the Schedule is really the answer to the agitation which I have conducted in the House ever since 1943. As hon. Members will remember, it began with a Motion in the last Parliament signed by Members of all parties. Let me make it plain that this has not been at any stage a party matter, and that hon. Members on all sides gave me support in the last Parliament. In ordinary circumstances, we might have hoped that the last Parliament would have disposed of it, but the Coalition Government broke up somewhat earlier than might have been anticipated, there was a General Election, the Motion lapsed, and we had to begin all over again. In this Parliament, too, hon. Members of all parties have been extremely helpful in this matter of trying to get remedied a very long-standing injustice.

We reached a stage when something like 275 Members who had appended their names to the Motion dealing with the age-barred civil servants and the other Motion dealing with the question of unestablished service. We had a little unpleasantness about that. I wanted to secure a Debate on it, and the Leader of the House was slightly reluctant to give me a Debate, and indeed slightingly referred to what he described as my "plebiscitory activities."

Did the hon. Member say "spitefully" or "slightly"?

There was no spite about it.

Is "slightly" the right word?

At any rate, there was a divergence of outlook, temporary in its incidence, but profound in its character. I could not get the Debate, and the Leader of the House spoke rather derogatorily about my plebiscitary activities. I thought he was wrong about that, because I do not know how hon. Members can express their view except in the way that we did. I did not want a Debate for its own sake, I did not want a Select Committee for its own sake. I wanted something done on this problem, and—I acknowledge gratefully that this is so—this addition to the Second Schedule does do substantially what I wanted to secure should be done, subject to one qualification which I must make in a moment or two—not an unfriendly qualification, but a necessary one.

The effect of this addition to the Schedule will be that all these men who were denied establishment because they were age-barred, that is to say, because they had passed the age of 50 at the time when they would otherwise have been established, will now be enabled to have their cases re-assessed. And where it is to the advantage of the men to be deemed to have been established—that is to say, where that would enable them to receive a pension at present denied to them, or enable them to receive a bigger pension than that to which they are at present entitled—the Treasury will have power to effect the necessary adjustment. Subject to the qualification that I must mention in a moment, this deals fairly and squarely with that aspect of one of the two problems which I brought before the House.

As regards the other part of the new addition to the Schedule, this deals fairly with the other question of counting un-established service for pension. It will give the Treasury power to allow one-half of unestablished service, put in from 1919 onwards, to count towards the assessment of pension. I must still bring in a qualification; I do so in no unfriendly way, and indeed, I think there may be common ground on this between the Treasury and ourselves before we are dead. The Civil Service has suffered throughout my lifetime from what I have consistently regarded as a wholly arbitrary and unjustified differentiation between what is known as established and what is known as unestablished service.

I have always regarded it as unjustified. To use the illustration that I have used before, if I have a housemaid or a housekeeper for 40 years and I then say, "My dear, it is time you went on to a pension; you have done 40 years with me, but 20 years of that was unestablished, and therefore, I shall give you a pension only in respect of the last 20 years," we should all regard that as a monstrous evasion of our moral obligation to an old servant, and none of us would do that to an old servant in our own personal capacity. Of course, I am simplifying, and to that extent distorting, for the purpose of emphasis, what in fact we have been doing in the public service throughout my lifetime. The result is that thousands upon thousands of men have gone out of the service with anything up to 40 years' service and in some cases none of it has been allowed to count. Not many months ago, I cited in the House the case of a professional civil servant with 54 years' service to his credit, who was not eligible to receive one penny of pension. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. E. P. Smith) has been active with me in this case, and in another where we have had to obtain help from the Civil List to keep a man out of the workhouse because, after long service, he was ineligible for pension.

2.30 p.m.

In this addition to the Schedule we allow one-half of unestablished service to count. But I want to say to the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary that there will be no permanent solution to this problem until we allow all unestablished service to count. So far as I can speak for my 275 colleagues on this matter, we are accepting this provision for half the service to count because, at the moment, it fits into the framework of an earlier Act of Parliament, that of 1935. If we went beyond the half service here, we should be doing more for one category of civil servants than we are able to do under the present Act for the Service as a whole, and that plainly would be a difficult thing for us to do.

This matter has been considered by Royal Commissions, who have done their best to put a stop to these long periods of unestablished service. I remember that the Tomlin Commission of 1931 recommended that temporary appointments should be restricted to a period not longer than 18 months. Indeed, they recommended that it should be an instruction to all Departments not to carry on temporary engagements year after year, as has been the case, but to limit them strictly to 3 period of 18 months, in order to prevent this problem of the employment of men year after year on jobs, nominally temporary, but in fact quasi -permanent or permanent in character.

I know that I have the Financial Secretary with me in principle in this matter, and I know that he and other Members of the Government recognise that this irrational, arbitrary, and indefensible distinction between temporary unestablished and established service has to go. It is the one condition of a satisfactory solution of this matter. I do not think that we can go further than this addition to the Schedule now, because we are conditioned by the framework of the 1935 Act. But when the present Measure has gone through the way will be open for discussions which I hope will lead to a permanent and final elimination of this form of civil service employment from our Civil Service set up.

In the meantime, I welcome this Clause, and I am grateful to the Government for it. I assure them that the announcement of this concession has been received with very widespread appreciation and satisfaction. I forgive the Government all the obstacles that they put in the way at an earlier stage. They have redeemed their sins, and atoned for their earlier failures. I thank them very much for that, I congratulate them on producing this Clause, and I hope the Committee will give it their unanimous blessing.

I can endorse very sincerely what has been said by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Brown) but unfortunately it is not true that even one-half of unestablished service will count in all cases. The point is the issue of the Civil Service certificate, and I want to call attention to the position of boys who entered the Post Office service as boy messengers under a promise that if, at the age of 16 years, they had passed the necessary Civil Service examination, they would be retained in the Service. Here is the point, however. According to the number of marks secured in this Civil Service examination a youth had the option of remaining in the postal service or passing over to the engineering department as a youth in training, followed by skilled work in unestablished and skilled work in established service.

In 1932, because of the industrial slump, a decision was taken that some 400 boy messengers who had opted to become workers on the engineering side were compulsorily returned to the Post Office side. The effect of that decision was to rob them of from two to four years established service. According to the Treasury they cannot even count these years as unestablished service, although had the youths remained in the engineering department the service would have counted, and would have been taken into consideration for pension purposes later. This is an act of cold, deliberate, injustice and is typical of what the Treasury can do sometimes. I do not hold my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary responsible for this, but these youths came into the service under a contract. That contract has not been observed and I have always been very sorry that the Treasury could not at the time be taken to a court of law. There are only 300 or 400 concerned, and I hope that this grievance will be examined and that the youths shall not be deprived of the opportunity of counting at least half of their unestablished service, although I hope the Treasury will find ways and means of permitting the whole of the service to be counted as pensionable service. The State has betrayed them.

Hon. Members on all sides constantly pay lip service to the value of the Civil Service, but frequently we do not follow up that lip service by providing the conditions necessary to give the country the most efficient Civil Service which it should have, or even to inspire in the breasts of those people in the Civil Service confidence that they are getting a square deal. Because of that, this is a great day for the Civil Service since in this instance at any rate a problem that has troubled the Civil Service for many years, and a difficulty which has become a King Charles's head in every civil servant's mind, is largely being wiped out.

The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) has played a great part in the House and outside in this connection, and I think everyone recognises that. We must also recognise the dispassionate fairness with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury have reviewed this case despite what I may call the hon. Member's provocation. They were willing to examine the case on its merits and that tribute certainly should be paid to them. The hon. Member for Rugby will know how we tried to fight this issue with men walking down Whitehall carrying placards on their shoulders and he will remember the other devices to which we were reduced in trying to obtain bare justice from a previous Government. We failed to do so, and I feel proud to think that it is a Labour Government which has taken this decision after only 10 months in office, thereby wiping out a grievous problem that has existed for nearly 20 years.

I must reinforce what the hon. Member for Rugby has said about the 1935 Act. There really is no justification for fixing on one-half of the service completed by a civil servant before the issue of a certificate. There is no logic in fixing on one-half any more than on one-third or three-quarters. The person concerned sits in the same seat both before and after the certificate is issued and does the same job. In fact, he is often filling a permanent post and we must, at some stage—and I believe we shall have the Financial Secretary with us—face the question, "Why do we still make it one-half and one-half only?"

We shall always have temporary civil servants with us for there has always to be a temporary fringe. As the hon. Gentleman said, we have tried to restrict it. He and I sat on a Committee in 1938 negotiating with the Treasury in which we came to the conclusion, broadly, that no temporary civil servant was to stay in the Civil Service for longer than 18 months. Now we have temporary civil servants who have been in the service for eight years, and this started within six months of signing that agreement. This situation will continue, of course, and we must deal with the 1935 position. I want to ask the Financial Secretary two questions. Can he tell me how many agebarred officers will be affected by this decision, and how many will now be entitled to pensions who have been denied them for so long? Could he also say how many now entitled to pensions will be enabled to count their additional service? It would be most valuable if we could see the extent of this.

I share in the tribute that has been paid today to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown). On occasions he has had some very hard things to say about me in the very short time that I have been at the Treasury and have occupied my present office. I would tell him, however, that, probably unwittingly, some of the activities in which he has been engaged during the past few months have been of the utmost assistance to me. Assistance, from whatever quarter it may come, for the redress of grievances is welcome. I am delighted to think that today a long standing grievance which a Royal Commission considered has been remedied.

The question of established and unestablished service is a very thorny one. In the old days, when people went into the Civil Service because they knew a Member of Parliament or somebody in the Civil Service in a fairly responsible position, this kind of problem hardly arose. Once, however, you decide that people shall enter the Civil Service by means of examinations of one kind or another, you are bound normally, in many grades at any rate, to get these two classes working side by side—those who have come in under the regulations and have passed the examinations, and those who came in without passing the examination as un-established or temporary in the expectation that they will not be there very long. As we know, they do often drift on year after year and in the end possibly put in 20 or 30 years and, under the regulations, have no pension whatever at the end of such service. That, of course, is a shocking state of affairs and one which should be stopped. The Tomlin Commission looked at the matter and made certain recommendations, but almost before their signatures were dry on the report they produced, the same sort of thing was happening again. I hope that in the coming months we shall try to solve this difficulty permanently. Whether we can really solve it in the Post Office I do not know, because there in some of the grades and categories of workers you get special difficulties different from those of other Departments. That being so, we may have to continue to employ casual workers, but I am sure we all agree that where we do have employment of that kind, it should be reduced to a minimum.

I cannot give my hon. Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan) the figures for which he asked. I have looked hurriedly through my papers but I find that they are not here, and it would be unfair of me to try and give them from memory. However, I will try to see that he gets them as soon as possible.

I think I have covered the main points raised. I say again to hon. Members that we will read through this Debate and take note of the points raised. Where they can be usefully passed on to the National Whitley Council we shall see that they are passed on for consideration.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered," read the Third time, and passed.

I would like to thank the Minister of Education for being present this afternoon, and I make no apology for raising this subject in spite of the fact that we are to have a Debate on Monday. I was prepared, if this Debate was to be very short, to forgo the very exceptional privilege of having an Adjournment Debate, but in view of the fact that we have considerable time to discuss this matter, I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give such a satisfactory reply to the questions I shall put to her that on Monday, when the Education Debate starts, these questions will be more or less cleared out of the way, and then perhaps the Committee can discuss education. If it does, it will be unique and possibly the first time in history that this has happened.

It is quite clear to anybody who looks at the present situation that the provision of teachers dominates the whole educational scene. I would like to carry the minds of hon. Members back to the prewar years in order to illustrate my main point. I had some responsibility during the years 1937–40 for educational administration. On the day war was declared, the school leaving age was to have been raised to 15, with exemptions, but the whole thing was put off owing to the war. What was the position? We were, I suppose, about 70 per cent. ready, not more, and it was a risk. During those three years we had been building schools at a rate unparalleled in English history. The supply of teachers was pretty good and we were going ahead. I inherited an Act which made exemptions, but I never thought they would last very long, and in time they would have led to the raising of the school leaving age. What has happened since then? Some 200,000 school places have been blitzed during the war. Virtually no male teachers were recruited for six years and yet, a few weeks before D-day, this House unanimously passed the most colossal Education Act ever placed upon the Statute Book. It was very clear to all of us at the time that only a very superhuman effort could possibly provide the teachers and the buildings if this Act was to be carried out.

The main question before the war was what was called reorganisation. I suppose that we were about 65 per cent. reorganised. The towns were more, and the country was less reorganised but, in the whole country, the figure was about 65 per cent. Some of the reorganisation was not really entitled to that name, especially in the big cities. If we were in that position then, I wish that my right hon. Friend would appreciate that I very much sympathise with her position now. Some of the criticism that has been made is quite ill-founded. It requires a superhuman effort. I first raised this matter on 9th November last year, on a Friday. My right hon. Friend will remember that when she replied to the Debate it was mainly upon the question of the direct grants. We did not debate this question very thoroughly. Since then, there has been a continuous stream of questions from hon. Members here, and three very important circulars. I could quote examples of what I still think were rather over-optimistic expectations, but I do not think anything is to be gained by going in detail over the last eight months. I must come to the immediate situation.

The target of the Ministry is to get 12,000 teachers trained in the emergency colleges by 1948. So far, 318 students have completed their training. My figures are taken from answers to questions during the last three weeks, and no doubt my right hon. Friend will correct me if there is any inaccuracy. By 1st April, according to figures given to me last week, there will be another 2,048, which makes a total of 2,366 who will be ready by the school-leaving age date, which is to be 1st April, 1947. Those are in training now. Anybody who comes in afterwards will be trained after 1st April. I only mention in passing that my right hon. Friend did say, on 25th October last year, what was only an expectation: that if all the existing colleges have a second output, if the 24 fresh colleges are established which have been promised in the last circular but one, and if they are actually opened during this year, the target of 12,000 will be reached during the year 1947–48 I appreciate that it has to some extent to be staggered over the year and that the full effect of the raising of the school-leaving age will not be felt until the end of 1948.

There are 25,000 ex-Servicemen and women who have been accepted as students. Even under the most favourable conditions—and I have given my right hon. Friend the benefit of every doubt and have conceded that these colleges will be built during the year and that there will be a second output—there will be some 12,000 men and women who will have to wait for six, 12, or 18 months, or possibly for two years, before starting their training. The question which is worrying me is, Can we afford to let 12,000 to 15,000 ex-Service people whom we have accepted as suitable—there are grave doubts whether some of those who were rejected are not equally suitable—wait all that time? I could cite cases of friends of mine who were rejected, and who have since been accepted for the university, but we will not go into that aspect of the matter.

About the quality of these people there can be no possible doubt. They are a breath of fresh air in the teaching profession. I have visited a number of colleges. I will quote from a book which has been written by the Vice-principal of Goldsmith College about his experience of this first year. This is what the students themselves say: about £400 a year, but turned it down to come home and become a schoolmaster. Distressed to find he is having to wait from six months to nine months. He is married and is starting a family. He has been found a temporary job by my friend in a preparatory school. Has again been offered a job at £400 a year, but he sticks to teaching because he wants to go into the profession. His hopes have been raised by all the talk of the Education Act."

The other case is that of a man who served as a captain. He has been advised to stay between six months and one year in the Army but he is sick of it. He has been in the Army for between five and six years. He wants to get married and teach. The headmaster said: "He was head boy at my school, a born teacher. It would be a tragedy to lose such material." Here is the case of another man, who has written to me this week. He says:

We are dealing with an increasing number of applications. I remember that my right hon. Friend herself said some months ago: people in. My right hon. Friend, quite rightly in my opinion, asked inspectors to go round, and they personally encouraged further numbers to enter this profession.

Just over a month ago, on 22nd May, Circular 106 was issued. It is quite frank, faces all the facts and says that something must be done, that there will be a waiting period, and that this waiting period must be filled. That Circular was greeted by the education Press with some doubt. The journal "Education" said it was unsatisfactory. A leading article in "The Times" expressed the same alarm. What did the circular say? It said that there was bound to be a long waiting period and that they might fill in their time by private reading, part-time courses, temporary appointments and, in suitable cases, youth service work or clerical jobs in education offices. It was possibly an attempt to meet the situation, but I have asked friends of mine in education authorities if this was workable, and I have been told on all hands that it is not, that the number who will be absorbed by these interesting devices can only be very limited. I was worried about that.

Only last week, on 21st June, another circular was issued which pointed out there was likely to be maldistribution according to sex, that we were liable, in time, to get too large a proportion of men compared with women, and that the vacancies, which at present are just under 12,000, are mostly in village and infant schools, and for these schools women would very largely be required. The circular advocated a sort of musical chairs, that the junior teachers should go down to the infants schools and senior teachers down to the junior schools, and thus make room for these ex-Servicemen to come direct into these secondary, or what we used to call senior schools. I have no quarrel with that. Over five years it is a good line to take, but it cannot be done suddenly. There is still a dual system in this country. Many of these teachers are teaching in church schools. During the war there was a process the other way, some 20,000 teachers being moved to make up for the absence of the men who went to the war. People cannot be shifted about in schools. They are part of the life of the schools. It is not like rationing, it is a subtle matter. Neither of these circulars can make any serious difference to the 12,000 or 15,000 people who will be waiting about for anything between six and 12 months, probably longer.

There were other suggestions, with which I do not quarrel, for greater flexibility in the employment of teachers. Again, I think that that is a good idea, but it cannot make any difference to this problem. I am, therefore, faced with a dilemma which I am sure my right hon. Friend appreciates. It is why I have raised this matter on the Adjournment. After putting certain Questions, I said that they raised matters too long to be discussed at Question time, that I knew my right hon. Friend was equally interested, and that we should settle this question in debate rather than by question and answer.

What is the position? At the moment there are 12,000 vacancies in the schools waiting to be filled. There are 2,000 girls waiting to enter the training colleges of the country. There is an indefinite number of girls who will not get into a university this year or next year. Heaven knows what will happen to them. I have received a number of letters and no doubt my right hon. Friend has received more. In the 10 per cent. allowed to ordinary school-boys and girls after the ex-Service men and women are catered for, I am afraid the girls are bound to come off pretty badly. One suggestion which has reached me, and I think it has reached the Minister, is that admission to the training colleges might be postponed for a while until these girls know whether there is any chance of getting into a university. Otherwise, they are definitely prohibited from getting to a university, possibly for three or four years. If they join the Services we do not know whether they are to have further education grants afterwards. At any rate, here they are. There are 12,000 vacancies and 2,000 girls waiting to go to training colleges, an indefinite number waiting to go to universities, and something like 15,000 ex-Service men and women who are waiting to go to emergency training colleges.

I would like to ask the Minister another question. It appears at the moment that the Ministry are nervous of having too many teachers at a certain period. I want her to give a categorical contradiction today to say that there is no question of having too many teachers over the next five or six years. She will agree with me that the only question is to how we shall dispose of this material during that time. I appreciate also the difficulty about prefabricated buildings. Perhaps on Monday this question will be raised in greater detail. My friends on the education authorities are becoming nervous with the Ministry of Works because the prefabricated buildings are not arriving. Leaving aside the figure which I have already admitted could be provided by raising the school-leaving age between 1947 and 1948, I estimate that a further 20,000 teachers will be needed in order to reduce the size of the classes. A further 3,500—that is double the present number—will be needed for further education, technical education, and so forth. Twenty thousand will be wanted for county colleges which at the moment are due on 1st April, 1950, three years after the raising of the school-leaving age. In addition, there is the question of the training of specialist teachers in handicraft, cookery, physical training and in nursery school work. I estimate in toto we shall want 70,000 teachers by 1950 if we are to pursue a reasonably progressive policy and to—

Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the 70,000 teachers should have this one year course of training?

Not for a moment. I am suggesting merely that in addition to this limited number, which would enable us to raise the school-leaving age in 1947–48 if the buildings go up, we shall want this additional number over a slightly longer period. The thing that worries me is that if we let this good volunteer material go now it is gone for ever. Already these people are finding alternative jobs. I remember my friend Sir George Schuster speaking in an education Debate. He said that at the end of the last war when he came back as a major he was very keen to enter one of the Fisher continuation schools. He said: "I waited, and nothing happened." He was one of them then. I begin to see the same thing happening now.

I wish to make three what I hope are constructive suggestions to the Minister to see whether something can be done. On 9th November I made two suggestions. One of them has been carried out, the other has not. The first one was that this work should be devolved on local education authorities for all executive operation. My right hon. Friend issued a circular about a month later in which that was done partly but not wholly. There was still, I think, too much control kept at the centre. The second point, as I am sure the Minister knows, is that the Ministry of Education was never devised to do executive work. The Ministry run nothing except, by accident, the Royal College of Arts, South Kensington. Generally, they are a suggesting body, a financing body, an encouraging body, but they own nothing. They do not employ a single teacher. That is done by 145 education authorities. They know how to get buildings. They know how to employ the staffs and to recruit people. They are doing it every day. I wish the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) were here. He started this on the wrong lines, and it is a tribute to this Ministry that they have changed it. If in the first place he had said to the 140 authorities, cutting out Rutland and some of the smaller ones, "Each of you put up a training college to deal with the emergency," I am absolutely certain that it could have been done. It is being done, a little late now, by some of the education authorities.

I remember the days when staffs were collected by the Ministry. I believe it was before the right hon. Lady was there. Staffs were collected in Bradford and Manchester and then allowed to disperse. A central machine cannot run anything for education. If the Minister can say that the Parliamentary Secretary is effectively controlling this, I am satisfied, but I would like to see teachers and local education authorities associated with him. I wonder if the House realises that teaching is the only industry in the country where you can effectively control introduction and recruitment. Yet, before the war, we actually had unemployment. If that cannot be done in this industry, I doubt whether it can be done in great industries like coal and iron, where the problem is far more complicated. We must have some reviewing authority at the centre to see that we have the right people, of the right age, and the right sex at the right time. Is the Minister sure that the Parliamentary Secretary—for whom I have the greatest admiration—and the people around him are equal to this task and have the right staff to see that we do not get a situation suddenly arising in which we have too many men or women or not enough in any particular type of school and are asked suddenly to reverse the whole process of recruitment and training? The second suggestion I wish to make is about education in the Services. Only yesterday the Secretary of State for War said:

I am sure my hon. Friend is not suggesting that the work of the Army Educational Corps during the war was not the most remarkable work that has probably ever been done in this country in the field of education.

It is because of that that I am asking that we shall not go back to the old Army Education Corps of before the war. My hon. Friend knows only too well what I mean by that.

My third suggestion is in connection with the youth service, for which I have a little responsibility, for I had something to do with the launching of that service. My right hon. Friend will recall the letters in "The Times" recently from Professor Brian Stanley and Professor M. V. C. Jeffreys, backed up by Mrs. Walter Elliot, and many others, about the lack of training for youth services. What is the position at the moment? Putting it on the Home Office side, in 1938 there were 26,000 young people under the age of 17 charged in the courts. Last year then were 39,601, in other words, 14,000 more. I am putting that on the Home Office, the delinquency side. But that is only half the picture. What I hoped was going to happen after this war was that we were going to take about 2,000 men from the Services and put them into Youth Service in this country, and that we were going to utilise Anchracarry and the place which my Noble Friend, Lord Rowallan, the Chief Scout, ran in Scotland for training some of these boys between the ages of 14 and 18, instead of which we are short of youth service leaders throughout the whole of this field. It only requires an imaginative conception now to take 2,000 of these young men who are waiting and send them, not necessarily into the emergency colleges already established, but to establish more colleges in, say, North Wales and Scotland and use a little bit of the old Commando training. I do not mean covering seven miles in the hour with full pack, but some of the more exciting outside activities, such as climbing, and so on. We could produce 2,000 first rate people in two or three years and they would go into the youth service. At County Colleges in Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and the other great cities we should have trained material instead of people trained in the ordinary way later on. That is my third suggestion which I submit to my right hon. Friend. These suggestions will have to be sifted by her officials, and I cannot vouch that they can be put into practice tomorrow. I have thought about them a great deal, and I believe they are all within the realm of practicality.

May I mention one more thing? I have here a most extraordinary document sent out by the Ministry of Education which I am glad has, at last, been released to the public. During the war, the Ministry of Education trained 300,000 people for posts ranging from radar technicians to canteen managers. It is the most extraordinary story and has never been put across before. These were ordinary people in the technical colleges, working away in the humdrum style. They trained about 80,000 people for the new specialist job, radar. I ask my right hon. Friend to try and recapture some of that imaginative administration for this job, because I am trying to help. I appreciate that she is faced with a difficulty, but she has got to do one of two things—cut her losses and say, "We cannot take these men," or else say, "At all costs we will use them in some way or other, and not just as clerks in education offices."

I am not concerned with the reputation of any one Minister or person, I am only concerned with the main question, and I raise it today in the hope that we may get some reply. I know my hon. Friend the Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. George Thomas) will support me from another point of view, and I believe the hon. Gentleman whom I now see temporarily acting as a Parliamentary Private Secretary would also support me from the point of view of physical training, in which he has very great experience. If this were not Friday many other hon. Members would also be in their places. Perhaps the Minister will be able to give us a fuller reply on Monday when we have a Debate on education.

3.21 p.m.

The quality of the teachers of this country is a question of the first importance and, therefore, I am grateful to the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) for raising the subject of the emergency training of teachers this afternoon. We only too often forget that this scheme can only be justified if the emphasis is on emergency. No great profession likes the dilution of the quality of entrants into its ranks, and the quality of teachers is, of course, a most essential issue if the standard of teaching in the schools is to be maintained. I must confess that I believe the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) has credit given to him which is not rightly his. I am sorry he is not in his place, but I must say this. It was in 1943 that the right hon. Gentleman was touring the country talking about this emergency training scheme for teachers and I have a suspicion—the Minister may deny it—that when the Minister went into office she found nothing substantial at all had been done to produce the teachers after three years' talk about this scheme.

What do we find in connection with the Principality of Wales? I must reluctantly be very hard in what I say about the Welsh Department, which I think lags deplorably behind in the preparation of colleges for the training of teachers. After three years of preparation the Welsh Department of the Ministry of Education has produced only one college. Today, there are 3,250 students in training in the emergency scheme, and of that number only 226 come from the Principality and are being trained there. I never like being boastful about the Principality, of course it is not necessary, but my fellow countrymen whose eyes look towards teaching have, I believe, certain gifts which are useful in the profession. I know there has been a tremendous flow of applications from the Principality of Wales, and there is this awful bottleneck that only in Wrexham, in North Wales, can accommodation be given. I have raised this question, as the Minister knows, on many occasions at Question time. I have often asked about Llandrindod Wells, and the Minister, who possesses a tremendous fund of faith and optimism about Llandrindod Wells, always bids me look to the future.

I am now told in the circular issued by the Ministry that there is a college, not yet opened, at Cardiff. I think it ought to say "to be at Cardiff," because as yet I fear it is a dream in the mind of my right hon. Friend. I feel that in the Welsh Department there is insufficient initiative and drive for the training of these students. I ask the Minister what proportion of the applicants who have been accepted under this scheme come from the Principality of Wales. Is it a fact that applicants who are accepted for this scheme from the Principality have to go to the Welsh colleges? I know a great number of young people anxious to get into the teaching profession do not want to tie themselves to the Principality. I should like to think that in the English colleges there is a fair sprinkling of Welsh applicants, but I fear that if we look at these colleges we should find only one which has a substantial number of Welsh candidates, and that is Wrexham. It is unfair, and it encourages that inferiority complex which finds expression in the nationalist movement of the Principality.

I wish to say a word about the waiting period. My hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Univerties has already mentioned a case, but that turned out to be a very poor example because, at any rate, he was better off in worldly means. I feel that we are in danger of losing some of the finest young people. The Minister has been very helpful, and a circular has been sent out asking local authorities to have what are termed in the jargon of the trade "floating teachers." They have been asked to take one extra above the normal staff accommodation of the schools. I am wondering whether the Minister will be able to tell the House whether any local authorities have shown that they are responding to her invitation to overstaff for a short while to give employment to those waiting for training at colleges. A most important issue in connection with this waiting period is the payment of grants to students. We had the humiliating and disgusting position at Wrexham a short while ago of the staff having to lend money every week to the students to keep them going. As soon as the attention of the Minister was drawn to it the matter was ended. I am still receiving letters from students, which I faithfully pass on to the Ministry, who are having to borrow from their parents and feel their position considerably. We made a great noise about the grants which were to be given to those ex-Service people. There was a wave of propaganda both on the air and in the Press. There is a danger that we shall make these young people cynical, and that they will lose faith in the administration of this important Department if money is not forthcoming at the right time.

I believe that the teaching profession, to which I have had the honour to belong for 15 years, will hold out a hand of welcome to these new recruits. I believe that the recruits will find when they come to the schools that teachers are anxious they shall be happy and successful. I wonder how many local authorities have intimated to the Minister that they are going to take a fair share of these recruits. While I agree entirely with the plea of the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities for the Minister to prepare for full administration of the Education Act, I can envisage a period when she will run into difficulty in regard to the full occupation of these people. I appreciate the difficulty of the right hon. Lady, although she may not always think I do. I ask the Minister to make sure that every local authority will appoint its proper proportion and quota of these teachers. I hope that they will be kept well informed of the people who have left their area, and that the Minister will make an effort for the establishment of this college for day students. Lots of these recruits have been preparing for anything up to six years, and then they come home. They do not want to leave home for another 12 months if it is possible. Nonetheless, here is a great human problem. I believe we could help in hastening the training of these teachers and get far more if we did not provide residential accommodation for those who are anxious to live at home and still go to the college by day. I think it ought to be done. I am grateful for this opportunity of having taken part in this Debate. I hope that the Minister will feel that the Welsh Department should be more vigilant and certainly more than it has been before. She will appreciate that the whole of the teaching profession lends its full support to her in bringing some spirit of urgency to this problem.

3.32 p.m.

The House is indebted to the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) and to the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Mr. G. Thomas) for raising this subject which is of such immense importance. I should also like to support the appeal made by the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities and the hon. Member for Central Cardiff for an emergency training scheme. It is a fact, as my right hon. Friend knows, that much of the old school tie has been cracked up and cracked down, but the old school tie is generally regarded by those who wear it as an emblem of which they are proud. It is generally regarded as a fact that education at a public school is of a high character. It is also a fact that practically no teachers at public schools have been taught how to teach. It is a fact, too, that there is no teacher training for those responsible for education at a public school, and yet public schools are held up to the right hon. Lady as a pattern for the whole of British education. Without expressing an opinion one way or another on public school education, I am sure the right hon. Lady will bear in mind that one would be very grateful if she would indicate what she regards as a limitation of teachers under a training scheme. It cannot be the shortage of buildings; one feels certain that there are plenty of spare buildings all over the country that could be taken for this purpose. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will indicate clearly what is the limiting factor, because there is strong evidence that the overall figures could be increased. I have had, from one source or another, over 100 letters from those who are registered under the scheme, and all of them are horrified at the length of the waiting period. I think it is fair to say that the average waiting time is something like 12 months.

indicated assent.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend is not satisfied with that. Cannot some emergency measures be taken by every means by my right hon. Friend, who has been unorthodox on occasions in the past, so that this problem can be relieved?

3.36 p.m.

I approach this subject from a rather different point of view from those Members who have already taken part in this Debate. I have no knowledge of the subject comparable to that of my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay), whose impressive speech I listened to with the utmost admiration, and neither have I the practical experience of the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas). I am one of the "throw-outs" of the teaching profession. It is true that I threw myself out, but if I had been making a meteoric rise to the loftiest heights of the profession I might have remained in it. However, I did have some experience which increased my interest very much. I undertook a year's training course after I had taken my degree at Cambridge, and at the same time I was doing a certain amount of practical teaching. I had certain other preoccupations, and I failed on the theoretical side, although I was told that I should have taken distinction on the practical side.

That raises a question of the exact time that training should take in the making of an ideal teacher. There are many ingredients which go to make up the ideal teacher—such as character, personality, and, above all, love of the art of teaching. Of course, there is value in training, but when we all talk about being taught to teach we must remember that the best way to learn to teach is to teach. I do not suggest that training can be dispensed with, but I find myself very much in sympathy with the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn), when he suggested that we should improvise at this moment, that we should be content, on the training side, with something a good deal less than the ideal. A man who is coming into the profession because he cares for it will make good, even with the modicum of teaching he can receive today.

3.39 p.m.

I would like to reinforce some of the remarks which have been made by earlier speakers, and to say how grateful I am sure we all are to the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) for raising this subject today, and thereby giving the House an opportunity of putting its views before the Minister. If the objectives of the Education Act, 1944, are to be realised it is essential that attention should be given both to the supply of teachers and the provision of the necessary buildings. I think everybody will agree that the response of those who have come forward as potential teachers under the emergency training scheme has been most impressive. The numbers are at least as satisfactory, probably more so, than the Minister, or her predecessor, envisaged when the scheme was announced. It would be a thousand pities if full advantage was not taken of that satisfactory response.

I very much hope the Minister will go further than she has done in the circular which has been referred to, in stimulating local education authorities into any kind of improvised measures that can secure that the teachers who have been accepted for training can be immediately harnessed to the work of education. I think it must reduce their enthusiasm if a waiting period of anything like six, nine or twelve months is allowed to intervene before they take up their duties. They may find other vocations or interests, and may be lost to education altogether, at a time when the demand for teachers has never been greater, and must increase if the objectives of the Act are to be carried out, if the school-leaving age is to be raised and the number of classes is to be reduced.

Therefore, I would like to reinforce what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn). If these people, having been accepted as teachers, are ready to work, let them-be taken into the schools, let them be given practice in teaching, and let their period of training, if it is still thought necessary they should undergo it, be postponed. I would not rule but the possibility of their having some practical experience now as teachers and undergoing the course at an emergency training school at a later date. Whether that would be necessary in every case, or only in certain cases, is a matter for determination. The Minister, in her circular, suggested that this should be done in the case of those who may only have to wait for three months. In my opinion, it is even more necessary in the case of those whose waiting period is to be longer, because there the risk of leakage is so much greater.

On this matter of the recruitment of teachers, as on all other matters which will no doubt be debated in the House much more fully on Monday next, I urge the Minister to stimulate and galvanise local education authorities into action. One of the criticisms of local education authorities is that their methods are too rigid, and that they do not admit of sufficient improvisation. Conditions vary throughout the country. I have no particular experience of Wales; I have some experience of London. The problem in London is particularly acute. There is a shortage of teachers and a shortage of school buildings. It seems to me that, as the ultimate duty of dealing with this matter will fall upon the individual local education authorities, all we can do is to press the right hon. Lady to send round a further circular urging local education authorities to make the fullest and most immediate use of the people who are available, to employ them in the school service, to give them work as teachers, and consider later whether they should undergo training, and if so, for how long. I would like also to endorse the suggestion that if the Minister cannot find the number of residential emergency training colleges that she hopes to find, she should open some day emergency training colleges in order that teachers, while employed, can also be attending day emergency training colleges, and so combine practical experience in the schools with their course of training.

3.45 p.m.

I appreciate the generous attitude of the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Lindsay), who opened the Debate, and of hon. Members who have spoken subsequently. I have certainly felt that there is a general desire to be helpful in what everybody has admitted is a very difficult situation. I will deal with certain of the points in a general survey later, but first I should like to answer the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities. I agree entirely with his opening sketch of the situation, particularly with regard to the prewar situation, of which he knows more than I do. He said that after the war, and in this situation, to raise the age to 15 would require superhuman efforts. I can assure him that it will and does, and I therefore pass on this compliment to the men who deserve it, those in this particular branch of the Ministry of Education who really have worked to the limit in trying to get this scheme working in times of the utmost difficulty.

I propose today to deal only with the emergency training scheme for teachers and not with other points which have been raised because I will deal with them more fully during the Estimates Debate on Monday. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for affording me this opportunity to put out of the way, as it were, straight away, this very difficult and detailed section of the problem so that we can deal with more general, although not necessarily more important matters on Monday. First of all, I think we must be quite clear what we are planning in this emergency training scheme. The scheme has a quite limited objective, and it is only for a limited objective that we could ask the National Union of Teachers to take the generous attitude they have taken towards what they must regard as a wholesale dilution of their profession and of their highly trained personnel.

The limited objective of this emergency training scheme is to obtain sufficient teachers to raise the school age to 15, coupled with a definite beginning in the reduction in the size of classes. The scheme is not the whole story of training, and there is a great deal being done towards expanding the corps of trained teachers through the permanent colleges and universities. Therefore, I cannot today deal with the suggestion that our real need is for 70,000 teachers; I will deal with that in part on Monday. It is not proposed to produce 70,000 teachers from the emergency scheme nor would it be fair to the teachers of this country to attempt to do so. What we are seeking to obtain, as I have told the National Union of Teachers in a comprehensive balance sheet which I have given them, are the 13,000 new teachers required for September, 1948, plus a number which for the moment I leave open to enable a reduction to be made in the size of classes.

May I say that it is really not quite accurate for the hon. Gentleman to say that no men are coming back to take the place of married women and people over retiring age who have stayed on? Already 13,000 qualified teachers had returned to the schools from war service by April of this year. The hon. Member for the Combined English Universities has two suggestions—

This is the key to the whole question. The right hon. Lady said that the use of emergency training was in raising the school-leaving age and reducing the size of classes. I beg the right hon. Lady to widen this before she goes on because she does include emergency training teachers for a wider purpose than these two objective.

No, and I want to make quite clear that I do not. I must underline the word "emergency"; the emergency has arisen very largely because we are raising the school age and thus bringing an extra age group into the schools.

What about the infant schools?