HC Deb 27 March 1922 vol 152 cc939-42
51. Mr. HURD

asked the President of the Board of Education what further measures he has in view to secure the closer co-ordination necessary in the great majority of cases between inspectors of the Ministry and the county inspectors?

Mr. FISHER

It is one of the duties of His Majesty's Inspectors to co-operate closely with the officials of local education authorities and to make arrangements which will, as far as possible, prevent duplication and overlapping, and in the great majority of cases such arrangements exist and are, I believe, successful. The functions performed by inspectors of local authorities are very miscellaneous and are usually supplementary or complementary to those of the Board's inspectors. The Board have no authority to prescribe the functions which local inspectors should or should not perform; but I am as anxious as the hon. Member to prevent duplication and unnecessary expense, and if I see any opportunity of improving the existing arrangements I will certainly take it.

Colonel Sir C. YATE

I heard of a case where one schoolmistress had eight -inspectors at her school in one week. Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these were local inspectors and how many not?

Mr. FISHER

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me particulars, I will inquire into them.

52. Mr. HURD

asked the President of the Board of Education whether, seeing that the majority of schools in the big towns of England and a large number outside the towns are generally classed as efficient, he will consider whether the number of inspectors could be reduced by one half if schools were enabled to win a certificate of excellence, which would exempt them from inspection for, say, three years?

Mr. FISHER

The Board cannot divest themselves of responsibility for ascertaining the efficiency of the schools and the return which they yield for public expenditure. As regards elementary schools the Board aim at such inspection as will enable a proper report to be made on each school once in three years, but I must admit that, owing to the limitation of the Board's staff and the heavy burden of administrative business which, in order to avoid delay and diminish official correspondence, inspectors transact personally with local education authorities and their officials, this object is not attained, particularly in the large urban areas. As regards secondary schools, the Board for similar reasons are unable to undertake a full inspection of each school even once in every five years. The hon. Member's suggestion would involve a very substantial increase of the inspectorate.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

Could the right hon. Gentleman not leave a little more discretion to the local authorities in these matters and so carry out his own great wish for economy in regard to education?

Mr. FISHER

I am very anxious to leave as much discretion as possible to the local authorities. In fact, there is very little inspection in the whole of the London area. We leave it almost entirely to the inspectors of the London County Council. But we do find in many cases that when we propose to reduce our inspecting staff we receive protests from the local education authorities, who rely very much on the judgment of our inspectors as to the efficiency on many points of their schools.

61. Colonel NEWMAN

asked the President of the Board of Education the number of inspectors of schools or scholars who will be borne on the Estimates of his Board for the coming financial year; and, having regard to the recommendations of the Committee on National Expenditure, what will be the deduction in point of numbers and cost to the taxpayer as compared with 1921–22?

Mr. FISHER

The number of inspectors of all grades borne on the Estimates for the coming financial year is 413. Provision has been made in the Estimates for savings on vacancies to the amount of £10,000, and I expect to make a saving of about 20 posts. The net total for salaries and allowances of the inspectorate in the year 1922–23 is estimated at £314,659, as compared with £366,195 for the year 1921–22, i.e., a saving of £51,536, due partly to reduction of war bonus. The estimated cost of administration and inspection for the year 1922–23 is below the figure of £850,000 to which the Committee on National Expenditure recommended that it should be reduced.

Colonel NEWMAN

Can the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of the question as to what the reduction in the number of inspectors is to be?

Mr. FISHER

I have given the answer. I said there would be a saving of about 20 inspectors.

Sir H. CRAIK

Is it not the case that the total cost of administration since 1914 has increased enormously, although a very large part of that administration has been handed over to the local authorities?

Mr. FISHER

It is true that the expenditure has increased, because salaries have increased.

Sir H. CRAIK

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that he has handed over a very large part of the work of the Department to local authorities, and still it is costing the nation more for central administration?

Mr. SPEAKER

We shall debate that on the Estimates.