CLASS IV. (Hansard, 21 February 1898)

§ MR. T. LOUGH (Islington, W.)
There are several discrepancies in these Estimates to which I should like to call the attention of the Committee. First, as to the Annual Grants for Day Scholars, the Revised Estimate is for 4,470,000 scholars at 19s. 7½d., whereas the original Estimate was for 4,407,614 scholars at 19s. 4d. I think I am right in assuming that the gross deficiency, which amounts to £48,000, arises from the abolition of the 17s. 6d. limit, which was taken as the basis of the original Estimate. I should like to know whether we may not expect that this particular item will be larger in future years than it is now. Then, going through these Supplementary Estimates, it appears that the Government were wrong not only with regard to day schools, but with regard to evening schools. As to the Annual Grants for Evening Scholars, I regret to see that the excess is not very large, only £5,539; but I rejoice to read the note that— The deficiency is caused by the average attendance having increased at a more rapid rate than was anticipated. I should like to ask whether there is not a prospect of a still greater increase 1329 there, and whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks that this amount will be sufficient for the coming year. Then, with regard to Grants to School Boards, there is a very important difference between the original Estimate and the revised Estimate. Instead of £132,900, £142,000 is required. The note says that this deficiency is caused by the grants claimed being higher than the statistics at the disposal of the Department when the original Estimates were prepared showed to be probable; but I should like to receive some rather more detailed explanation. And, generally, I would like to ask for some explanation as to these discrepancies.

§ MR. J. H. YOXALL, (Nottingham, W.)
I regret, Sir, that the sum which the right hon. Gentleman has to propose to-night is not even larger than it is. The number of scholars in evening continuation schools—179,000, according to the Revised Estimate—is far from satisfactory, and does not compare favourably with the number of evening continuation scholars abroad. If you go to the small country of Saxony, with only three millions of population—one-tenth the number of our population here—you find they have half as many evening scholars as we have. I hope that everything will be done in the direction of encouraging a greater attendance of scholars at these schools. I would also point out, if I may, one or two reasons why this matter of evening continuation schools is so unsatisfactory. I do not think you can expect children who leave school at 10 or 11 years of age to have any idea of continuing their education in evening schools. Such is our lax system of attendance and the low standard of attainments required before a child may leave school, that only one child out of every seven remains on the day school register after the age of 12. That being the case, it is not to be wondered at that the evening continuation schools are empty when they ought to be full. Another reason why these evening continuation schools are not so successful as they should be is to be found in the way they are managed with regard to the Education Grant. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to devise or accept some plan to remedy the present cumbrous system of registration, which is most tedious, and wastes a great deal of time. Then, I should like to call attention to the way 1330 in which the Estimate of the "Annual Grant for Evening Scholars" is made up; 179,000 evening scholars at 17s. 11d., as against 172,017 at 18s. in the original Estimate; that is one penny difference in the rate per scholar. That is typical of the penny wise and pound foolish policy which the Department pursues. You will never get a satisfactory attendance in evening schools until——

THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
It is not open to the hon. Gentleman to go into the general policy of the Department on this Supplementary Estimate.

§ MR. YOXALL
I am pointing to this difference of one penny between the original and the revised Estimate as typical of the vicious principle——

THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
The hon. Member is not entitled to discuss what he calls the vicious principle on this occasion. The proper time to discuss this is when the Education Vote is before us. At the present the only question before us is this Supplementary Estimate.

§ MR. YOXALL
I regret, Sir, that I am not able to pursue that line of argument, but, of course, I am bound by your decision. At any rate, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether by improving the system of registration and in other ways, he cannot increase the attendance at these schools. We cannot hope to have a satisfactory system of education until we have a greatly-increased attendance at these evening continuation schools, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will recognise the importance of doing everything in the power of the Department to encourage them.

§ THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir J. GORST,) Cambridge University
The discrepancy between the original and the revised Estimate of the grant for day scholars is due, as explained in the note, to the fact that when the original Estimate was made the Department had no right to assume that the 17s. 6d. limit would be repealed. No Bill had been introduced into this House to repeal it, and therefore the Estimates were framed last year on the basis of the 17s. 6d. limit being continued. It was on that hypothesis that the amount per child was estimated at 19s. 4d. When Parliament, by the Voluntary Schools Act of last year, set aside the 17s. 6d. 1331 limit, the grant became greater to the extent of 3½d. per child, and it became necessary to submit to the House in the present Session a revised Estimate, taking into account that increased grant. Then, concurrently with the increase of the amount of the grant per child, there was a reduction in the number of scholars earning the grant. That reduction, of course, from an educational point of view, is a great misfortune; it shows that the number of children in the schools has not increased to the extent which a year ago was anticipated. When the Estimates were under discussion last Session, I warned the House that the means of securing the attendance of children at the schools appeared rather to have lost their efficacy, and that the attendance was not improving as fast as it had been in former years. This accounts for the saving of £42,000 which we anticipated on sub-head H. There have been fewer children in the schools than was anticipated, and there is a less fee grant by £42,000. Then, with regard to evening continuation schools, I am very glad to say that there is greater increase in attendance than was anticipated a year ago, and I am sure the House will view that increase with satisfaction, although it may not be altogether satisfactory from the point of view of the Exchequer. Then, with regard to the new grant to School Boards under the Act of last year, I think it was pointed out in the Debate last year that our information on the subject was very imperfect, and that it was difficult to ascertain the number of scholars that would secure this increased grant, and still more difficult to ascertain the exact amount which they would be in a position to claim. The note on page 6 of this Supplementary Estimate shows that in both particulars we were wrong in our anticipations; we rather over-estimated the number of School Boards that would apply, while we under-estimated the amount that they would be entitled to receive; and the nett result is a deficiency of as much as £9,010. Considering that this was an entirely new kind of Estimate, I do not think it at all discreditable to the Department that they should have got so near as that. It is only a difference of £9,000 on a total of £132,000.

§ MR. LOUGH
That is on balance. All the estimates were wrong.

§ THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL
I said so; we over-estimated one side, and under-estimated the other. I dare say the hon. Member would have done better, but I really think that it does credit to the officials that, upon very imperfect information, they came so nearly right.

§ MR. J. SAMUEL (Stockton)
Will the right hon. Gentleman explain whether the 710 Boards will receive £200 a piece, or whether some will receive more and some less?

§ THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL
Each Board will have £200.

§ DR. CLARK (Caithness)
I should like to point out to the House that, in consequence of the Government refusing to abolish the 17s. 6d. limit in Scotland, England will be getting a much larger share of this grant than is her right.

MR. J. C. WILLIAMS (Notts, Mansfield)
This is a very important vote, and it should be properly discussed. I beg, Sir, to move that you report progress.