§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis)I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
I have, I hope with sufficient fullness, explained the provisions of this small Bill. The outstanding point is that it will facilitate the payment of education Grants and save an enormous amount of clerical work at the Board of Education, by the local education authorities, and in the schools. I have not heard any opposition from any quarter of the House, and, I hope the House will afford the Bill a Second Reading.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI cannot say that I have heard any explanation at all about the Bill. I presume the right hon. Gentleman refers to the occasion when the Resolution on which the Bill was founded was taken. I suppose I was not here, but that is no excuse, although I heard nothing whatever about it. I do not quite follow what the right hon. Gentleman's explanation of the Bill is. The Bill, as it seems to me, does this, and this only: It allows a Grant to be made in respect of children who remain at school after the age of fifteen. I understand that cannot be done now. This is increasing expenditure, and has nothing whatever to do with the War, and I do not think it ought to be brought in at all. The understanding was that no Bills were to be brought in unless emergency Bills dealing with the War. This 780 may be a good Bill, or it may be a bad Bill, but it is a Bill dealing with the education of children, and I do not think it ought to be proceeded with. Neither do I follow the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI am always interested in economy, and also in the observance of an undertaking given to the House that Bills unconnected with the War should not be brought forward.
§ Mr. LEWISI am delighted to know the right hon. Gentleman is in favour of economy, because that is really the one object of this Bill. It is perhaps a natural misconception, on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, having regard to the fact that there has been a financial Resolution, to suppose that the object of this Bill is to spend some more money upon education. Perhaps under the circumstances it would be desirable that I should make a brief explanation of the purport and objects of the Bill. The Education Act of 1891, which established free education, provided a new fee Grant of 10s. per child for every child in average attendance at the elementary school between the ages of three and fifteen The plan of the Act was to provide that in schools where fees did not exceed 10s. per child no fees should be charged and that in schools where the fee had exceeded 10s. a child the fee should be reduced by 10s. a child. This Bill does not in any way propose to alter any of the main principles of the Act of 1891. Any attempt of that kind would be one of an entirely controversial character, and would very rightly meet, from his point of view, the opposition of the right hon. Gentleman. But I can assure him that no object of that kind is intended in any ray whatever. All that the Bill does is to abolish the provision of the Act of 1891 under which no Fee Grant can be paid in respect of any child over fifteen. Now at the time when that Grant was made there was theoretically no restriction whatever as to age in elementary schools. But that was altered by subsequent legislation. By the Act of 1902 it is provided that any scholar may remain at a public elementary school until the end of the year, which is in some cases the end of the school year, and in others the end of the educational year, in which he completes fifteen years of age, but he may not remain there any longer except at a school which has 781 been specially permitted fey the Board of Education to retain its scholars beyond that age.
All other educational Grants are paid in respect of all the children that are in public elementary schools, but this special provisipn as to age for the purposes of the fee Grant makes it necessary—and here I want to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the great difficulty to which the present system gives rise—to provide separate registers and separate returns to the Board of Education on attendances of scholars over fifteen years of age. The average attendance has to be separately calculated by the local education authorities, it has to be checked by the Board of Education, and the distinction has to be carried on into the forms which notify the payment, and into the forms in which it is recorded at the Board of Education. I hope the House will realise that the existence of this provision in the Act of 1891 does impose a very serious and very unnecessary burden upon the local education authorities of the country. We are constantly having complaints from them as to the number of forms which they have to fill up, and I am bound to say that the requirements of the Legislature—and they have been imposed by the Legislature in that respect—are very numerous and very exacting. This is an attempt on the part of the Board of Education—and I do sincerely hope the House will support us in it—to simplify some of these forms. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the amount of money concerned. May I explain that the number of children in elementary schools over fifteen years of age was, according to the Return for 1913–14 only 2,630. The actual cost of this, therefore, would be about £1,300 a year. It simply means that the ratepayers will have to pay that much less and the Exchequer that much more. It does not mean that another penny will have to be expended upon education. There will be payments to the local education authorities throughout the country, but they will only receive very small sums. Very few of them will get more than £5. I do not know of any authority except London that will get more than £40, and London will only get about £218 altogether. I put it to the House that this is a reform of a reasonable and much-needed character. I think it goes all in the direction that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London wishes to guide all our footsteps, and that 782 is in the direction of economy, and I hope for these reasons the House will allow the Bill to have a Second Reading.
§ Colonel GRETTONAny proposal which makes for the simplification of forms and returns, of course, is to the good, but this Bill appears, after the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, to have something else in it. The State, I understand, is to take over the education of scholars over fifteen years of age in elementary schools. Hitherto the cost of that has been borne by the localities. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the numbers for 1913–14, and placed them at about 2,600 altogether in the Kingdom. If that number was likely to remain stationary, there is nothing very much to be said in regard to the cost, but I should like to know whether this Bill is going further in this connection than mere economy in forms and returns. Is it not opening the way to a large extension of the aid paid for by the State, and, therefore, opening the road, by the very persuasive speech of the right hon. Gentleman, to a very large and extensive alteration in our educational system which will entail ultimately a great cost on the Exchequer? If the right hon. Gentleman can assure us that this Bill does not have that effect, and is really limited to forms and returns, then I approve of it, but this is not the time to alter our educational system by raising the standard of the age. If the right hon. Gentleman can give the assurance for which I have asked, I should be very much obliged.
§ Mr. LEWISI do not think the hon. and gallant Member need have any apprehension upon that score. As a matter of fact, the age is already limited by the Act of 1902, and until the dispositions of parents in this country change very considerably it is not at all likely that there will be any addition in the' future except of a very small character.
§ Colonel GRETTONAny general change would mean legislation?
§ 9.0 P.M.
§ Major WEDGWOODI quite see the advantage to the Board of Education of getting this Bill through, but I do not see that this is a Bill which should pass through during a time of war. I think it is bad in principle. I admit that the amount is small, but you have no right to transfer the burden from the local authorities to the Exchequer. I do not think the local authorities should be allowed to transfer their burdens to the 783 Exchequer, because then they will have to be borne by the mass of the people. On that ground the principle is a bad one. There is another reason why the Board of Education should not have introduced this measure during war time. You are now dealing with only part of the very big problem. You are dealing not only with the Grant for the education of a child and the part concerned in this Bill, but you have another Grant paid by the central authorities on the basis of efficiency, and everybody knows that the solution is to get one uniform Grant and do away with all these different forms of bookkeeping. You have also the Grants for necessitous areas which you are not touching. You cannot solve the education, problem by dealing with it piecemeal. You want some comprehensive measure dealing with the whole question of education Grant and local grants in a solid manner. I am glad the Parliamentary-Secretary to the Board of Education is in charge of this Bill because I know he does take a real interest in the question of education, and particularly in the hopelessly complex working of the Grants and subventions for education. If the right hon. Gentleman tells me that this is a step in the right direction I will say no more about it, but I hope the Government will sum up courage at a' time when there is nothing doing in education to bring forward a Bill dealing with this question of local subventions and central subventions, so that we may get the foundation of a sound system before the end of the War. If we could deal with this problem on a wider basis, you would be doing an enormous service to education, and you would establish a system which would be really useful to the children of this country.
§ Sir HENRY CRAIKIt has been said that this Bill means that there will be a transference of a charge from the local rates to the central exchequer. Is that quite the case? According to the Act of 1891 the managers of a school were prevented from charging fees for children between three and fifteen, and they got in place of that a fee Grant of 10s. They were allowed to charge the children over fifteen, and there was no prevention of this under the Act of 1891. I want the right hon. Gentleman to tell me whether he intends that there is still to be a charge for children over fifteen. If so, that is obvi- 784 ously unjust. Of course, if you were obtaining by adding to your fee Grant further education for a larger number of children, it would be very fair, but there is nothing in this amending Act that takes away, as far as I can gather, the permission that is given under the Act of 1891 to continue to charge fees for children over fifteen. What I want to know is whether the local education authorities are to be allowed, as they at present have power to do, to go on charging fees for these children over fifteen and at the same time to receive fee Grants for those in respect of whom they have the power of charging? If so, I do not really think there is anything very much in the Bill, except to save the local education authorities a little trouble, and to pay into their hands a sum of money to which I do not think they are entitled unless they cease to charge the fee.
§ Mr. LEWISI do not think the hon. Member need have any apprehension whatever upon that particular point. The effect of the amending Bill will be to place scholars over fifteen, as regards the right to charge fees and the schools which they attend, in the same position as those under fifteen. If, however, there is any doubt whatever on the subject, I shall look into it between now and the Committee stage.
§ Sir H. CRAIKYou intend that they shall not charge fees for scholars over fifteen?
§ Mr. LEWISThat is certainly what I conceive to be the intention of the Bill, but, as I have said, I will look into the matter.
§ Sir H. CRAIKI do not think the Bill carries that out.
§ Sir J. YOXALLUnder the Fee Grant the managers of the school are empowered to charge a partial fee, a small part of the former fee, to make up any loss of revenue which might arise in the course of the year. The point arises in this way: If the local authority receive more money in Grants, they could yet go on charging the partial fee. That is the point which will have to be looked into in Committee. If you are going to give the local authority more money in fee Grant, you might at the same time take away any right that they have now to charge fees to the parents.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.