§ 59. Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the extension of the school age to 15 years will involve the Glasgow education authority in an increased expenditure of at least £500,000, and that the further raising of the age to 18 years, provided for in the Education Act, will increase the charge by about £750,000, the total rates being thereby increased by about 5s. in the £ beyond the present figure for this, the first year of the Act; and will he postpone the raising of the age until Parliament has considered the matter, after ascertaining at a general election the views of the electors?
§ The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro)I am informed that a statement prepared at the instance of the Glasgow education authority estimates the additional annual expenditure in their area which would result from the operation of Sections 14 and 15 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, at £499,000 and £523,500 respectively. On the present basis of valuation, these sums together represent a rate of less than 4s. in the £. It may, however, be safely assumed that a proportion of this increase will be met by grants, and that the rise in rates will be much less than the figure stated. As regards the last part of the question, I am not prepared to give the undertaking asked for. Parliament has already fully considered and determined the matter. But it is obvious that, in Scotland as in England, the process of bringing the full provisions of the Act into operation must be more gradual than was hoped for when the Act was passed. I will only add that no steps will be taken to raise the school age without giving such notice as will allow ample time for the consideration and discussion of the questions involved.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENDoes the right hon. Gentleman not see that giving notice to people about a thing which he says is already decided is of no value to those 1702 people? Are not the parents of the children whose age limit is to be raised the proper persons to be consulted, and ought not they to have the definite issue brought before them?
§ Mr. MUNRONo, I am not aware of that. I do not think my hon. and learned Friend has read the Education Act of 1918. Parliament has decided that the Department shall give notice on the appointed day for this purpose, and that is the question of which full notice must be given.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENHave the parents any means of reversing the decision of the Department? There is no provision for it in the Bill.
§ 60 Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that by Section 13 of the Education Act, 1918, the sum required from the rates has to be allocated on the parishes in the area according to their valuations in the valuation roll; whether the Education Department has ordered the allocation to be intimated to the parishes before 15th July, 1920, there being then no valuation roll in existence other than a roll bearing to be from Whitsunday, 1919, to Whitsunday, 1920; whether the now valuation roll by the Valuation Act is not required to be published till a date in August, and, in point of fact, few rolls are available till October; whether the effect of these proceedings is that the assessment is made upon one roll and the levy upon another; whether it is the case that rural areas let are largely upon long leases and their valuations practically constant, while the urban areas have had the house rents raised 20 to 25 per cent, within the period of the two valuation rolls; whether the further result is that a grave rating discrepancy is created between urban and rural areas; and what steps does he propose to take to remedy this matter?
§ Mr. MUNROThe date—15th July—for the purpose of the intimation referred to by my hon. and learned Friend, was fixed jointly by the Scottish Education Department and the Scottish Board of Health in terms of Section 13 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, in view of the fact that the Budget Meeting of 1703 Parish Councils for the purpose of considering the Estimates of Amounts to be raised by rates is annually held, in accordance with Statute, in July. I have no information as to the relative effect of the Increase of Rents Act in urban and rural areas in the current year, but if it has been as stated by my hon. and learned Friend, it would appear that the rural areas in the matter of rents have an advantage over urban areas which more than compensates them for any disadvantage such as is suggested in the allocation of the cost of education. It does not appear to me, as at present advised, that any remedy—even if practicable—is called for.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENIs it not a wrong method of estimating the levy for the rates to levy on one roll and make the valuation on another roll? Should not both be done on one, roll?
§ Mr. MUNROI do not think that on this occasion my hon. and learned Friend's supplementary question is either well intentioned or well founded.