BOARD OF EDUCATION. (CLASS IV.) (Hansard, 17 March 1911)

§ Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE
I wish to call the attention of the House to the great inconvenience of this Grant being administered by means of Departmental Regulations instead of under Acts of Parliament, as is the case with regard to the other Special Grants under the 1870 to 1892 Acts. Obviously, it is possible for the Department suddenly to change their policy by altering their regulations, thus creating great uncertainty on the part of the local education authorities, and putting them to great inconvenience when framing their annual estimates. This course has actually been adopted in the past by the Board of Education. Originally, this Grant was supposed to be to enable the necessitous areas to carry on the business of education unhampered by or relieved to a certain extent of financial considerations. The theory on which the Grant was based was that a certain poundage should be paid to the education authorities in accordance with their need. I think the idea of the Government of the day was that the Treasury should bear three-fourths of the excess of the education rate over a 1s. 6d. rate, which was taken as the normal level. But it was found that if that were carried out generally throughout the country the sum of £200,000 originally provided would be largely exceeded. It therefore became a question not of relieving the local education rates by so much in the £, but of dividing a lump sum among necessitous areas as far as that lump sum would go. In order that the demands might be made to fit in with the estimated sum of £200,000 the regulations issued by the Board were altered, with the result that some education authorities were prevented from enjoying the benefits of the Grant which they would have been able to enjoy had different regulations been in force.
2623 It is obviously very inconvenient for any local education authority not to know beforehand what Grant-in-Aid they are to expect form the Imperial Exchequer. In the case of London, for example, at the present moment we have no means of estimating whether we shall be entitled to receive any money from this Grant during the year 1911–12. I hope that in his reply the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us whether the same regulations will be in force during the year 1911–12 as were in force during the year 1910–11. In London the case is a peculiar one, because we are very near the border line. The product of our 1s. 6d. rate which is allowed to rank for the purpose of this Grant amounts to £3,182,000. The actual amount that we are spending for the purposes of elementary education after the proper deductions have been made is for the year 1910, £3,169,000. The House will see at once that we are rapidly approaching the point at which we shall be entitled to draw a substantial sum in respect of this Grant provided the same regulations are in force as are in force during 1910–11. Great inconvenience is caused by the method of procedure adopted by the Board of Education, because in framing our Estimates we have no means whatever of telling whether or not the same regulations will be in force. We therefore have to frame our Estimates wholly in ignorance as to the probability or likelihood of our deriving any money from this source. I quite recognise that the whole of this Grant is simply a makeshift, a temporary expedient, a very necessary but still a temporary expedient, to meet a state of affairs which the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not find himself in the position at present to deal with on some comprehensive scale. I am referring, of course, to the readjustment of the relations between the Imperial Exchequer and local finance. The basis of this Grant is essentially unscientific.
The House is well aware that the system of assessments in different parts of the country, and the basis of valuation as between one district and another is wholly different. There is no common basis for assessment or valuation, with the result that in some districts where you have a low assessment, a 1s. 6d. rate is not nearly such a heavy burden upon the ratepayer as in other districts where you have a high assessment, and where you may have a 1s. 3d. or a 1s. 4d. rate. Therefore, to take as the standard education rate a 2624 1s. 6d. rate it is a temporary expedient which does not rest on any proper or scientific basis. I would point out also that in some respects it might be better if this Grant had been directed more towards encouraging the provision of new school places and of building in spite of the provisions of the Education Act of 1870. I do not wish to go over the ground, which was very fully covered in Committee on this question with regard to the various objections obtaining against this system of making grants, but I do press the Board of Education to give us some indication as to whether the regulations at present in force are going to obtain until the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in a position to deal with the larger question, and whether it is safe for local educational authorities to base their estimates on the assumption that the regulations obtaining in 1910–11 will still obtain in 1911–12.

§ Mr. W. PEARCE
The Noble Lord who has just spoken has touched the real substance of the matter. The education rate in London is rapidly approaching a sum much larger proportionately than in other towns. Therefore, it is a matter of more than incidental importance to the London County Council to know how these regulations are going to be put into force. I would also point out that the fact that London has arrived at this stage is very largely due to the way in which the Education Grant is at present based. The grants are so based that London, seeing that an excess of 2s. per child is earned by the rest of the country, is at a disadvantage of nearly £60,000. As London has suffered in the past, I do hope that, whatever the future regulations may be, they will not be so framed as to work against London. I trust we can get some information to-day from the Under-Secretary that will relieve a good deal of anxiety in London, and that we shall be told how these Grants in the future are likely to be based.

§ Mr. NEWMAN
May I make a further suggestion to the Board of Education? The financial year of the local authorities ends on 31st March. I would suggest that a certain amount of this Grant should be paid to those local authorities who have earned it before the 31st March. Take the case of Edmonton, my division, where the education rate is 3s. in the £. We expect to get the sum of £96,000 at the end of the financial year. We are over-drawn at the bank. We have several big accounts to be met. Only the day before yesterday I 2625 was telephoned for while in this House by the secretary of my local education committee, who asked me to go at once, see the Board of Education, and discover if they could possibly allow Edmonton to have some of the money to save the committee from bankruptcy. I wrote a letter to the Board of Education, and I trust something may be done. At any rate, there is £96,000, perhaps more, due to us, and we cannot get it. We are threatened with bankruptcy, and our goods may be seized. Whereas, if only some of the money due to us on account were paid, we would get on very nicely.

§ Sir FREDERICK BANBURY
I do not know what has gone on at Edmonton, but I happen to know that in many instances the Board of Education seem to be under the impression that they can pay their debts whenever it suits them to do so. The consequence is that these school managers have to go to their banker and borrow money, which they very often can give no sufficient security for, and for which there is often no power to pay interest. I have always understood that it was one of the principles of the Government to settle their debts during the year, and that you should not borrow money in order to defray your expenses.
They do not carry that principle out. They allow these unfortunate people to have large sums of money owing to them, and apparently, for no reason, do not take the trouble to pay their debts. I am not sure that I always take the view held by hon. Gentlemen opposite that all this vast amount of money spent on education is well spent. But at least they should see that the money owing to local authorities is paid. I happen to know, being a director of a bank, a case where we were absolutely told that unless we allowed a cheque to be drawn which there were no funds to meet, the salaries of the teachers would be in arrear. I hope the Under-Secretary who is a great supporter of all this education will see that the money which is collected for this purpose shall be paid when it is due. I do not know what the Board of Education do with this money. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain? It must be somewhere! Has there been something wrong with the Estimates? What has the money gone in—in some of the wonderful and beautiful schemes of social reform by which we are always told the world is going to be regenerated? I hope that my few remarks will induce the Board of Education in the 2626 future to endeavour to conduct their business in a proper and businesslike way.

§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan)
It certainly was a very distressing picture which was drawn by the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Newman), but I am not certain, though I have not looked into the matter, that there has been anything very irregular or unusual in the delay of the grant, but if there has been I can assure the hon. Member that I will see it put right. I do not think the Edmonton authority need have any worry about receiving the grant; they have already received it, and I do not think the local authorities need have any doubt but that they will be paid in time.

§ Mr. NEWMAN
But we want something on account.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
The hon. Gentleman said he did not think it was unusual; I am sure it is not unusual, that is what we complain of; we say such a thing should not happen in the future.

§ Mr. TREVELYAN
We cannot pay grants until we have taken proper precautions to see they are earned. I have no doubt there are very good reasons why this has not yet been paid, and I say I will look into the matter. If there has been an unusual delay, it shall not occur again. With regard to the question raised by the Noble Lord, the Member for Bath, I am afraid I cannot add very much to what was said the other day by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education when the Estimates were in Committee. On that occasion my right hon. Friend spoke almost as strongly as the Noble Lord, or the Member for Limehouse, with regard to the unscientific basis on which this grant is given. It is notoriously of a stop-gap character, and my right hon. Friend was especially anxious to emphasise that. In the course of his remarks he called attention to the fact that the local authorities must not regard this as a permanent grant, and he expressed the hope that the Committee appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider it and deal with it when dealing with the general question of grants; I am afraid I cannot go beyond that. If I were to say definitely that I knew London would get a grant in the next financial year, I should be going beyond the action of my Department. I cannot say because I cannot prophesy.

§ Lord A. THYNNE
The hon. Member misunderstood my point. I asked if he could give us an assurance that as long as this Grant continues, that is to say, until the Chancellor of the Exchequer is able to deal with the wider question, it will be administered under the same regulations that obtained in 1910–11.

§ Mr. TREVELYAN
I am afraid I cannot give any assurance. I can only say that the existing basis is not permanent, and will probably soon be changed. That is the most I can say at the present time. My right hon. Friend will be ready to let London or any authority know as soon as possible whether it may expect the Grant and would be likely to come in under the regulations. In view of the fact that the Government is considering the whole matter, I cannot give any assurance beyond that; but I can give an assurance on behalf of my right hon. Friend that the authorities interested shall have long notice of what policy the Government are going to adopt in subsequent years. Beyond that I cannot go.

§ Mr. W. W. ASHLEY
May we take it that this is the policy of the Government, that in the case of London or any other authority they will give these authorities notice in time before they make up their Budget, so that they may know if they qualify for the Grant and know exactly the amount of money they will receive. I think if that is the policy, until the wider point is dealt with it meets my Noble Friend's point.

§ Mr. TREVELYAN
I do not absolutely know the dale of the London Budget, and therefore I cannot bind myself precisely.