BOARD OF EDUCATION.

HC Deb 22 July 1926 vol 198 cc1523-47

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question proposed on Consideration of Question: That a sum, not exceeding £28,300,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Education, and of the various Establishments connected therewith, including sundry Grants-in-Aid.

Question again proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £28,299,900, be granted for the said Service."

Mr. R. SMITH

I should like to underline what has been said by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove) in relation to the paucity of provision for our junior technical schools. There is no greater problem before the country in respect of education at present than that of adapting our public educational system to the requirements of British industry in the 20th century. In my recent visit to America nothing impressed me more than the large and wide way in which the Americans are endeavouring to adapt their educational institutions to the requirements of 20th century industry. Nothing I think, is more impressive to Europeans in visiting that Continent than to see the wide policy for encouraging young boys and girls in definite vocational training, and to see the very expert way in which they are harnessing the varied aspects of modern industrial life to the laboratory and the classroom for young people in order that they may get a logical and practical connection between the schools of the country and the great needs of modern industry. I would therefore underline what my hon. Friend has said with regard to the need of a very large extension of junior technical school policy in order that we may come much nearer solving the problems that confront the country if we are to rediscover ourselves in the 20th century setting of our industry.

I do not want to spend time following further the general criticsms which have been made of our present administration of education, but rather to concentrate upon two practical points, not bearing upon elementary or secondary education, but having to do with adult educational policy, for which the Board is responsible. I should like to pass away from the realm of criticism and complaint and offer a word of sincere congratulation to the present administration for the way in which they have been not only keeping up the tradition of adult educational expenditure and administration, but actually improving the administration in the course of the past 18 months. I would draw attention especially to one or two very practical matters. One is in regard to the work the Board has done in providing books for the libraries of the country. Hon. Members in all parts of the Committee will agree that there is no more fruitful expenditure which the Board undertakes than that of providing first-class text books, through the libraries, for the service of working-class students.

Before I came to this House, I spent a considerable number of years as a tutor of the Workers' Educational Association, under the Tutorial Classes Joint Committee of the Sheffield University, and I know from the number of years that was engaged in that work what a change—tantamount to a revolution— has taken place in the actual conduct of tutorial class work, due to the social expenditure upon tutorial class libraries throughout the country. I can recall scores of instances of the extraordinary difficulty under which working men and working women had to carry out their non-vocational studies. When it is remembered that working men and women who attend these tutorial classes have to conduct their studies, as a rule, in their own homes, often with children, and with all the noise of conversation which characterises family life, that they have no study room of their own, and that they have to attempt to concentrate on their studies at the end of a long working day, it will readily be appreciated how tremendous is the service which the Board is rendering in support of this practical work, through the provision of libraries.

I remember many cases where the best of my working men and working women students suffered a grave handicap. A working man cannot afford to pay 15s. or a pound for first-class books, and again and again they had to waste their time and could not derive such satisfaction as is possible under these difficult conditions of study, because they could not get books. I should like, therefore, to offer sincere congratulations to the Board for the work they are doing in helping on bodies like the Central Library for students, and in getting together so large a number of first-class and indispensable text books for the assistance of working men and women students in connection with the Workers' Educational Association tutorial class system. In View of the considerable utility of that kind of service and the need there is for its future extension, I ask the Noble Lady to plead with the Board to see whether they cannot add to their good record in this direction by giving a further grant of money for the purpose.

A further point is in regard to the provision for extra-mural education, and especially the facilities which are given for providing a first-class education for men like trade union leaders, co-operative administrators and others, in addi-to other men and women who benefit by this opportunity. Whilst there is so much that we can criticise in regard to other aspects of the Board's policy, I should like to say that in this respect the Board this year and last year have maintained the high traditions which have been set by the Department. I was particularly impressed with the way in which the present Board have administered the special grants which were made under the Oxford and Cambridge Universities Act, 1923, for the purposes of education. I think that under that Act it was proposed to set apart £5,000 per year for extramural work. I should like to congratulate the Board on having made possible the acquirement by the working people of this country of education of first-rate significance in this way. When it is remembered that at Oxford and Cambridge through that scheme we have been able to get together not a few men and women who would otherwise have been entirely deprived of this particular education, men and women of first-rate significance to the public life of this country, too high praise cannot be given for the policy of continuing the work which the Board have maintained. Here again, in view of the value of this extra-mural work, and the importance of working out the broadening conception of what a university should do in a modern democratic community, I would ask whether the Noble Lady will press upon the Board of Education that this year we may have a further extension. A sum of £5,000 out of £80,000 is not much to devote to this phase of education. A larger amount of money might be spent in that direction.

I should like also to draw attention to the Report of the Adult Education Committee in 1919. They said: It is essential that there should be greater opportunities to enable adult students to study in the universities for longer or shorter periods. Summer schools should be so extended and arranged as to offer throughout the whole year opportunities of study for extra-mural students. Universities should also provide opportunities for study for municipal civil servants, teachers, trade union officials, and other groups of people. In pleading for an extension of grants for extra-mural work in connection with the ancient universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and bearing in mind the work of a similar character which has been done in the provincial universities, I would ask the Board to consider the wider ramifications of this policy. They realise as well as we do on this side of the House that, confronted as we are with the present industrial impasse, with the breakdown of contractual relations and the breakdown of any kind of common plan for settling the difficulty in a great basic industry of this country, in the long run it will be the Minister of Education much more than the Secretary for Mines who will provide an abiding solution for this industrial problem. I would, therefore, ask the Board whether they cannot, in considering the possibility of extending the system of extra-mural education, bring into more generous application the point of view which was laid down by the Adult Education Committee in 1919, namely, that it is just as important for the purpose of 20th century life in this country that trade union leaders, and co-operative administrators, men who belong to specific working-class organisations who have large responsibilities in industrial and public life should have opened up to them possibilities for education of a first-class character, in order that we may in the course of the next 25 years have such a multiplication of first-rate ability throughout every section of the community, that we can be perfectly certain that, while the Secretary for Mines is engaged in the hurly burly of dealing with pressing and urgent practical industrial problems, the Board of Education, in its quiet way, is so broadening the foundation of our public education that a generation hence we shall have such a wealth of educated people in the secure possession of this country that we can do far greater things than the 18th and 19th centuries did in the way of renovating and re-creating our whole industrial system, in the service of the men, women and children of this country.

Mr. MORGAN JONES

I propose to engage the attention of the Committee for a very short time, because I gather that the Noble Lady the Parliamentary Secretary has a large number of questions to which she desires to reply, and I also understand that an arrangement has been arrived at to raise another equally important subject later. In order to enable sufficient time to be devoted to that subject, I propose to reduce my remarks within a very short compass. I have listened to the Debate from the beginning. I heard with great interest the speech of the Noble Lord. The oftener I hear him address the House on the subject of education the more difficult I find it to understand the things he says outside the House. He has a sort of duel personality, a Jekyll and Hyde arrangement. On the platform and in this House he speaks with enthusiasm and carries our complete agreement, but when he is at the Board of Education, removed from the public gaze, he fills us with apprehension. The Noble Lord since his accession to office has undertaken a sort of pilgrimage throughout the country in which he has been exhorting laggard authorities. For that effort we are extremely obliged, and we gather that as a result of that pilgrimage he anticipated not merely a verbal continuity of the policy of his predecessors, but an actual continuity. What in fact has happened? I doubt whether any local authority could tell us, or each other, what they conceive to be the sustained policy of the Board of Education. I have been reading with some interest what the Prime Minister declared was the policy of the Government in the matter of education. In a book called "Looking Ahead" he wrote this: The Unionist party is in favour of securing for every child effective and practical education, which will develop individual character and yet give to everyone the chance of making the best out of his or her talents and improve his or her position in life. With this end in view the party will desire to see all schools conducted in healthy and well-equipped buildings by qualified and adequately remunerated teachers, would maintain close co-ordination in elementary, secondary, technical and higher education, and see that all secondary and university courses should be brought within the reach of every child in an elementary school who may be desirous and capable of taking advantage of them. 9.0 P.M.

The Noble Lord has been in office for about 20 months. Is he satisfied that all schools are at the moment conducted in healthy and well-equipped buildings? Are they staffed by qualified and adequately-remunerated teachers? Is there a close co-ordination between elementary, secondary, technical and higher education; and are secondary and university courses brought within the reach of every child in an elementary school who may be desirous and capable of taking advantage of them? In fact, is this policy to which the Prime Minister committed himself, as he says in the foreword "after consultation with his colleagues," now in actual operation or are we to take it that it is his desire some day, somehow, to achieve it? He has talked this evening of taking a survey of our educational services. May I direct his attention to a quotation from an article he wrote himself in a publication, which I think is a Unionist publication called, "the Man in the Street"—though what connection a Unionist publication has with the man-in-the-street I do not know. In this publication he says: Ever since the present system came into force seven years ago, though great progress has been made in England, that progress has been made jerkily by fits and starts. One of our criticisms is that the Noble Lord's policy has been in fact a series of jerks. First it was progress; now it is reaction, at least in fact if not on the platform. But he says further: If a local authority is to undertake work of this kind it must be sure not merely as at present that the State will pay part of the cost of the first year's working but that it can rely on a continuing amount of help from the State year by year over a period of years, and that it runs no risk of being stopped in the middle of its scheme because other local authorities have spent more than the Government expected. It is one of our chief points against the present policy of the Noble Lord, not merely that local authorities have to meet their own local needs in their own local way but that the Noble Lord is, in fact, at this moment pulling up local authorities and telling them they cannot do this because it is in advance of their neighbours. The consequence of all this is, as the Noble Lord will not deny, that a sense of apprehension exists in the minds of local authorities, north, south, east and west.

Lord E. PERCY

indicated dissent.

Mr. JONES

The Noble Lord shakes his head, feeling, no doubt, that wherever he happens to go everything is best in the best of all possible worlds, but, as a matter of fact, he knows perfectly well that it is so. We have heard one of his own supporters this evening give point to the criticisms which have been advanced from this side. The Hornsey local education authority, upon which, I understand, there is not a single Labour member, is very apprehensive lest they may find that the President of the Board of Education has broken his word and pledge. If we needed any confirmation we have it in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Hornsey (Captain Wallace). There are one or two questions I want to address to the Noble Lady before she replies. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove) asked what the attitude of the Board of Education was in regard to the question of training colleges. It is a very vital problem from many points of view. It is very material to know whether the Board of Education has now come to the conclusion that one year of intensive training is adequate for the purposes of our elementary schools. I very much doubt whether one year will prove to be satisfactory.

The hon. Member for Wellingborough and I have some personal experience of the training that is obtained in these training colleges, and he will agree with me that one of their chief values is not so much the actual instruction obtained as the happy period of association with people drawn from all parts of the country, with different views, different outlooks on life, the social association that exists, which broadens the outlook of each teacher, gives him an idea of the educational methods in operation in various parts of the country and an entirely new point of view concerning the function of the school in the social organism. I consider that the proposal to reduce the period to one year is a thoroughly reactionary proposal. Everyone with whom I have discussed the matter has argued that the desirable thing in connection with teachers' training is a linking up of that training with the universities as far as possible, but if you link it up with the universities it is obvious that the period of training should not be reduced but rather extended from two years to three years, so that the teacher in that atmosphere can obtain the same benefit from the full university course as the other university student obtains. By reducing the period of training to one year we shall do the whole educational system a grave injustice.

Is there not a danger, if we reduce the course to one year, of our turning out a larger number of students than the system can absorb easily? The persons who have secured their second certificate will naturally cram as much as they can. They know that resources are limited and that by getting successfully through the one-year course they will better themselves financially. They will win one extra year as trained certificate teachers, and one extra year towards their superannuation. Those considerations will obviously weigh very heavily with teachers, who will want to get their college career through as quickly as possible. Here the question arises: if you turn out a very large number of one-year course students, duly qualified and certificated, what guarantee is there of employment for them? Even for the teachers coming out in July, the two-year course teachers, is there any guarantee of places in the schools? I will give two cases. Under the operation of the Noble Lord's policy for the staffing of schools two big authorities in South Wales have been at loggerheads, or temporarily at variance, with the Board of Education. As a result of pressure from the Board the Rhondda Education Authority have agreed that they will not dismiss old teachers and that they will not employ new teachers. It is the same with the Merthyr Tydvil Education Authority. What is going to happen to the people from those areas who this year will be emerging from the training colleges? Obviously they will swell the ranks of the unemployed, unless we can be given an assurance to-night that the policy of reducing the staffing of the schools is not to be carried further than hitherto.

I would like to know exactly what is the principle upon which this new edict, this ukase of the Board of Education is being issued? You tell a big education authority like that of the West Riding or that of Glamorganshire or Durham, "You have a certain number of teachers in your area. We will not allow you to have more teachers than this number henceforward." If you lay down such a rule as that what is the inevitable consequence? They have to rearrange their staff in various ways. Surely one of the natural consequences will be that again the rural schools, the small schools, will run great risk of suffering. We know what happens. The pressure of public opinion in the big towns makes itself felt. The out-of-the-way village of the countryside has no organised public opinion to express itself, and, therefore, the village school suffers inevitably. Already the staffing in many of the village schools is shamefully bad, to say the least. If we are going to readjust and rearrange the staffing of our schools, what precisely does the Noble Lord think is going to happen in some of the infant departments in various parts of the country? He knows as well as I do that the method of treatment of children in infant schools to-day is not what it was ten or fifteen years ago. It is not what it was even six years ago. We have had the introduction in recent years of methods such as the Dalton method, which is a method of specific individual treatment, each individual child working out its little schemes in its own way. All that involves a far more intensified individual attention on the part of the teacher. If we are to have larger classes in the schools it obviously means that this work will be far more scamped than would otherwise be the case.

What is the main criticism that we have to make in regard to the administration of the Board in the last 12 months? Broadly speaking it is this: We feel that the great promise which the President of the Board gave to us and to the country at the beginning of his period of office has not been realised. Personally I would forgive him for much of his failure in so far as it arises from financial difficulties, but I feel that the trouble arises from something far deeper than that. I am convinced that the Noble Lord does not, in fact, look upon this question of education from the same point of view as did his predecessors, nor does he desire to see the development of education as his predecessors did. The Noble Lord and his colleagues regard education from a different angle. With them education seems to be a privilege granted to the people on the lower rung of the social scale. To us education is a social right, and it is because it is a social right, and one which must be realised in the immediate future, that I take so great an exception to the reactionary proposals adumbrated by the Noble Lord. I am reinforced in that objection by another quotation, which I will read to the Committee, from the statement of Unionist principles and aims given by the Prime Minister. He says: Disraeli said that you can never achieve success without a comprehension of the spirit of the age. The spirit of this age is a spirit restless and dissatisfied; and yet that restlessness and dissatisfaction do not arise wholly from motives otherwise than good. One of the leading motives is the desire of the bulk of the men and women of this country to be able to enter into the wonderful heritage that science, knowledge, education have opened in all branches of learning, to all those who can take advantage of it, during the last generation. It is a hunger for better things, and it will be our duty to do what we can to make it easier for our people to satisfy that most legitimate hunger. It is because hunger is not being satisfied by the Noble Lord that I support the reduction of this Vote.

Duchess of ATHOLL

Although the hon. Member who has just sat down concluded his speech with a charge of a general and serious character, the Debate, as a whole, has centred on various details of the Board's administration during the last year. As is inevitable in education Debates, a considerable variety of details has been touched upon, but criticism has centred chiefly around two items in the administration of the Board. The first is the new staffing arrangement outlined in the new Code for elementary schools; the second is the proposal for allowing a one-year course in the training colleges. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan) told the Committee that in this new Code, all standards of staffing in the elementary schools were being swept away. I think the right hon. Gentleman in his study of the new Code must have omitted to glance through the Circular issued with the Code to local education authorities. Had he read that Circular, he would have seen that the Board specifically stated that though no express standard had been mentioned, Circular 1360, which represented the latest word in detailed requirements, was still to be considered as the view of the Board as to its minimum standard.

I want to make it quite clear to the Committee that the standard laid down in Circular 1360 is regarded by the Board as a minimum. It is a minimum which, as we have been reminded by hon. Members, is exceeded by many authorities, and the Board, in excluding mention of that circular from the Code itself, did so in the hope and expectation that the establishments that would be proposed to the Board by the various authorities, as representing their policy of staffing in the future, Would be considerably better than the minimum outlined in Circular 1360. The right hon. Gentleman I am sure will agree—at least it is an opinion which we often hear stated from the benches opposite—that a minimum tends to become a standard, and if the Board keeps Circular 1360 in the background and does not expressly state to the authorities that it is to be the minimum standard, it is because they hope for something better from, at any rate, most of the authorities of the country.

Mr. WALLHEAD

I have here a circular which you have sent to Merthyr Tydvil, and they have had to cut down most abominably.

Duchess of ATHOLL

I do not think that circular refers to establishments. I was dealing with the point raised by hon. Members opposite who criticised us on the ground that we were asking the local authorities to submit establishments and had not indicated to them that we had any standards in this matter, and that view I hope I have answered. Then we have to remember that, sometimes, authorities have no very defined policy in the matter of staffing. We hope by asking for their establishments to get them to define a policy, both as regards quantity and otherwise. We hope this will mean that staffing will become a more considered matter by the local authorities, depending less than it does at present on the exertions of a head teacher or on views of managers. If an authority puts forward a particular establishment it is something to which it can be held. That, we hope, will tend to keep the standard of staffing up to the level agreed upon between the Board and the various local authorities. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that if an establishment is fixed for an area as a whole, and not merely considered as concerning separate schools, it will be easier for the Board to see the tendency to departure from that standard either up or down and, therefore, it will be easier to know how the staffing as a whole stands, and to apply such remedy as seems necessary and possible. The right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members spoke of the letters sent by the Board to certain authorities dealing with their expenditure in staffing and other items. The motive that prompted those letters was the conviction that it is the duty of the Board to see that the country gets full value for the expenditure of the local education authorities. In the case of Hornsey, which has been mentioned, the expenditure is much above that of other urban authorities; but Hornsey has not provided the opportunities for its older children which other areas can provide. Hornsey has little or no advanced instruction for older children and no central schools and, on the other hand, it has some classes which are very much below the average size for similar districts. Therefore, we say that if other districts can give children better instruction at less cost, there is a reasonable case for taking up the matter with the Hornsey authority, and pointing out to them where we think their system can be improved and at the same time made less costly. The right hon. Gentleman spoke as if we went into no details with the authorities in this matter, and simply called blindly for reductions. But it is just because the Board is communicating with individual authorities in regard to individual items that I feel the authorities concerned are given an opportunity of making their case in regard to any item which is challenged by the Board.

Mr. WALLHEAD

Does the Noble Lady think that the nation will get full value for the money expended on education, if the classes are increased to 50 children per class?

Duchess of ATHOLL

There is no suggestion of sending the classes in Hornsey up to 50.

Mr. WALLHEAD

Not in Hornsey?

Duchess of ATHOLL

The authorities with which the Board is in communication are urban authorities who have for some unexplained reason classes very much below the usual size, some of which on the other hand are not giving their older scholars the opportunities of advanced instruction to which we attach so much importance. The case of Hornsey has been specially mentioned to the Committee this afternoon. There has been consultation in the first place between the Board's inspectors and the authority, and between my right hon. Friend personally and the chairman of the Hornsey Education Committee. Hornsey made an offer the Board made a counter-proposal. My right hon. Friend will shortly receive a deputation from Hornsey which will doubtless submit their own counter-proposal. My right hon. Friend has no intention whatever of asking for unreasonable reductions this year, provided the authority can show they have a scheme for reorganisation which can be spread over two or three years.

Mr. TREVELYAN

Is it intended to make Hornsey reduce the expenditure and spread it over a series of years?

Duchess of ATHOLL

I have not suggested any figure to which the Hornsey Council should reduce. I may mention that Hornsey has, I think, 15 classes with about 20 children on the roll

Mr. TREVELYAN

It is being done on the basis of Hornsey being asked to reduce to the tune of £10,000.

Duchess of ATHOLL

I think the right hon. Gentleman will realise from what I have just said that the matter is still open for communication between the Board and the local authority. In regard to this question of staffing in general, great fears have been expressed by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove) and the hon. Member for North-East Ham (Miss Lawrence), who expressed the opinion that we wanted to reduce the total number of teachers in the country. I do not think my hon. Friends can have studied the Estimates or the Estimates Memorandum, because, if they had, they would realise that, not only had we 1,100 more teachers in employment in March, 1926, than we had in December, 1924, but the figure for this year allowed for a further increase of 1,100 teachers.

Miss LAWRENCE

Is it not the case that 400 teachers have been cut off during the period since the change began in September?

Duchess of ATHOLL

I think the hon. Member remembers that between September and March there was probably the usual drop at that time of year. The Board's Estimates are drafted to allow for an increase of 1,100 teachers in the financial year. The numbers fluctuate as was shown at different periods of the year. In regard to the fear which the hon. Member or another hon. Member expressed as to unemployment among teachers, it is cheering to remember that last autumn, within a short time, practically all the young teachers who had come out of the training colleges in 1925 had been absorbed in the schools, no doubt contributing to the increase of 1,300 certificated teachers. The hon. Member for Wellingborough who I am sorry not to see in his place—

Mr. COVE

Here he is!

Duchess of ATHOLL

—put a question as to whether the Board is not working to a standard of 50 children in the junior school and 40 in the upper school. I do not think the hon. Member could have been here when my right hon. Friend was speaking.

Mr. COVE

Yes.

Duchess of ATHOLL

Perhaps he was not listening. Had he given my hon. Friend his careful attention, he would have noticed that he said specifically that he did not desire 50 to be a standard. We regard 50 as a maximum. Forty will be regarded as a maximum for the older children in the elementary schools.

Mr. COVE

May we take it that the impression which the Hornsey authority have gathered from the report of the discussion with the educational committee is entirely erroneous? It states that a message was brought from the Board of Education through the mouth of the inspector that 50 was the standard for under 12 years of age, and 40 above 12. May we take it that is an erroneous impression regarding the policy of the Board?

Duchess of ATHOLL

Certainly, and we do not accept that account of the conversation as an authoritative one. If there be any doubt, the Hornsey authority will have the opportunity of putting it before my right hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Wellingborough further asked me whether any pressure was being put by the Board to lower the size of large classes. The first answer to that lies in the figures that my right hon. Friend gave, showing the reduction that has taken place in the number of classes over 50. Then I think it was realised as long as two years ago, when the right hon. Gentleman was in office, that it is not possible to make all the advances desired in the reduction until many buildings have been replaced or improved, because very often there is no additional classroom to which to send the children.

Again and again the authorities' hands are tied simply by the arrangement of the building. Therefore the key to this whole question lies in the provision of better buildings, the replacement of some schools and the improvement of others. That is the step that is necessary in most cases to the reduction which we all so much desire, and it also is the step which is necessary to lead to the better grading of the older children which we all recognise is necessary in their interests. Therefore, our pressure on the authorities is to proceed with their buildings, and if we can induce them to replace the worst of the buildings—my right hon. Friend has shown there has been considerable progress in spite of the difficulties—we can say truthfully we are continuing on the path which inevitably leads to a reduction in the bigger classes. My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Sir T. Davies) compared the work of a single teacher in a small rural school with that of the teacher of the large class, and I was interested to hear the applause that his comparison drew from the benches opposite. I take it from that applause that they realise how essential it is to do everything possible towards the better grading of the older children. It is the older children who are chiefly suffering in these small elementary schools.

The right hon. Member for Central Newcastle said something about the reduction in the inspectorate. That reduction has to a considerable extent been in the lower ranks, and it is hoped, when the reorganisation has taken place, that the inspectorate will function to better advantage. It is a step towards removing unnecessary barriers between different types of schools, to which more than one speaker has alluded. Then the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Shepherd) and the hon. Member for Wellingborough expressed anxiety about the question of handicraft instructors. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Darlington that it is much better if you can get these subjects taught by trained teachers, provided they have acquired a thorough knowledge of the subject required, because technical instruction can then be related to the other lessons in a way that will tend generally to the benefit of the scholars. The fact is, however, that we have not enough teachers who can teach handicrafts. We are training them, but we have not enough for the needs of the schools, and that is shown in one rural area, which has done more in the way of supplying practical instruction than most authorities. In that area no fewer than 12 centres have been without teachers. No teachers could be found to give the handicraft instruction needed, and, therefore, the County Councils Association have asked the Board to allow them to employ men who, though not trained teachers, are trained craftsmen, and who, therefore, should be able to give efficient instruction in their crafts, though obviously they could not give instruction in other educational subjects. Therefore, it is really quite beyond the mark to suggest that this marks the entrance of the unlettered and untrained craftsman into the schools.

Then I come to the question of the proposals that have been made to allow training colleges to admit to a one-year course pupils who have taken a second examination in secondary schools. That is described by the hon. Member for Wellingborough as a reactionary proposal, but I would like to remind him that it was a proposal made by some members of the Departmental Committee on the Training of Teachers, and that most of the signatories to this proposal were distinguished members of the teaching profession. The object in view when that proposal was made was to encourage pupils to remain in a secondary school for a full secondary course, because the great majority of the students, or 65 per cent. of them, entering the training colleges to-day are young men or young women who have not enjoyed a full secondary course. They have been pupil teachers, student teachers, or others whose secondary school course has been cut short, and the Board attaches very great importance to secondary school scholars attending secondary schools until the age of 18. That has been the main aim in view, to try to encourage young people to derive the fullest benefit possible from a secondary course. But, as my right hon. Friend has said—and again I do not know that the hon. Member for Wellingborough has derived all the benefit he might have from the announcement—he has deferred this proposal until he has received reports from the joint bodies which he hopes will be set up as a result of his suggestion to the training colleges. He feels that it is only right to give the joint examining bodies that he hopes to see set up the opportunity of expressing some opinion in the matter, and he is willing to wait until that time.

The right hon. Member for Central Newcastle spoke somewhat slightingly of the training colleges. He spoke of them as providing second-class academic education. I do not feel competent to compare the academic training in the training colleges with that in the universities, but I should like to associate myself with the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), who spoke of the value that can be obtained from a training college training. I have not had the advantage of experiencing it myself, but I am quite prepared to believe that a great deal has been done and is being done for thousands of young people to-day in our training colleges. But we feel it will add to the status of the training colleges to link them up with the universities for examination purposes, and that that should lead to a broadening of outlook and help to bring the training colleges into the main stream of university life, to the great benefit of the students. Yet, I trust, the training colleges will be able to continue giving students the value of their special experience and knowledge of the requirements of the teaching profession.

The next point is the somewhat surprising statement of the hon. Member for East Ham North that the retardation of 10 per cent. of the grant for higher education was an entirely new departure in financial policy. The hon. Member, I believe, is a member of the London Education Committee, and I think she will remember that, for some years past, it has been the practice of the Board to defer payment to local education authorities of 10 per cent. of the grant for elementary education, which is a considerably larger sum than the amount for higher education. This, therefore, marks no new departure in the financial policy of the Board, and it was a practice suggested to the Board by the County Councils Association some years ago. We had a hope expressed by the hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) that young people in the evening classes were not decreasing in numbers. I should like to re-assure him, though I do not see him in his place, that the steady increase in attendance in evening classes which has been going on since 1923 is believed to have been fully maintained in the last year and to be continuing in the present year.

As to technical instruction, about which various hon. Members have spoken, an unofficial inquiry on technical instruction is preparing the ground for what will possibly be a more extensive inquiry. My right hon. Friend fully realises the importance of technical instruction, but I think it is only fair, in view of what was said by one hon. Member, to state that a considerable advance has been made in mining instruction in recent years, through the institutes which have been provided jointly by the Miners' Welfare Fund and the local authorities. Then the hon. Member for North Southwark (Mr. H. Guest) spoke at some length about different types of schools, and rather exaggerated, I think, the gap that there may be between what we know as public schools and schools provided under the national system. One thing I should like to say in answer to that is that every day we are trying more and more to introduce what is know as the public school spirit into the elementary schools. We realise the great value of the instruction in games in the public schools, and I think nothing is more characteristic of education to-day than the desire of every person interested in elementary schools to see the children enjoy more opportunities for playing organised games and for learning all that there is to be learned from them.

Mr. H. GUEST

Might I tell the Noble Lady that there is not a great opportunity for games in Southwark; there is only one acre there for organised games.

Duchess of ATHOLL

I am very sorry to hear that, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, many efforts are going forward to secure more playing fields, and there is generally a greater desire to facilitate these matters in schools in many places. Then there has been a steady increase in secondary school places and of free places. The expenditure allowed for under this year's Estimates, on Higher Education is greater than in any year since the War. It has actually exceeded that of the peak year, 1921–22, and we are therefore making a steady advance. I should like to remind the hon. Member for North Southwark in regard to what he said about scholarships from the elementary schools, that one great public school, Harrow, has a system of scholarships for young people coming out of the elementary schools, and personally I should be very glad to see that system further extended, because I quite agree that it is very desirable that the boys and girls, in the elementary schools, as in other schools, should have the opportunity of benefiting by such a system. The cleavage between the different classes of schools is steadily lessening, while on the other hand that cleavage can be exaggerated.

Mr. H. GUEST

Can the Noble Lady say bow many have gone to Harrow under that system?

Duchess of ATHOLL

I am afraid I cannot give the numbers. It is gratifying to note the progress that has been made in adult education. It must be difficult in small houses to keep up the continuous study that is necessary to meet the work of the adult classes, but it is interesting to know that there has been in this matter also an advance, and that advance has been particularly marked in the case of the three-year tutorial classes.

The arrangements for co-operative inspection under the Central Welsh Board, I may tell the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), have been approved by the Board, the Central Welsh Board, and the great majority of Welsh local education authorities, and I know no reason why the new arrangement should not be put into operation from the beginning of next school session. Financial arrangements have been suggested which the Board have said they would be willing to submit to the Treasury if generally agreed in Wales. These have been agreed to by the Central Welsh Board and three-quarters of the local education authorities. The agreement, though very general, is not complete, and my Noble Friend has learnt to approach the Welsh dragon with some caution. In view, however, of the safeguards contained in the scheme we hope that we may be able to proceed with it with the good will of all concerned.

I think I have answered all the specific points that have been raised in the course of this afternoon's Debate. I would only say in reply to what the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) said about the pledges of our party at the Election that we do not forget those pledges. We quite admit having given a considerable number of pledges, but I think our first year's record, though attained under very severe financial limitations, especially in the last eight months, is sound, and though the fulfilment of pledges has proceeded more slowly than we hoped and intended, we have no reason to be ashamed. If hon. Members will look at the Estimates they will see that the capital Expenditure approved by the Board last year is higher in the case of elementary, secondary, and technical schools, and medical services than in any year since the War. Therefore I do not see how it is possible to say that the Board is standing still. I should like to point oat that this question of better school buildings is really fundamental to any advance. It lies at the root of everything. There has been, as I say a steady advance in special services. Since the 1st July, 1925, the Board have sanctioned proposals and certified new schools which will result in 3,800 more special school places, and we have some 2,000 more places than we had a year ago. It is impossible to ignore the state of trade, but we must get the best possible value by organisation as well as by quality of teaching. If in time of great financial difficulty—and times are certainly not easier to-day than they were nine months ago—we are able not only to hold our ground but make an appreciable and steady advance in essentials we shall be laying our foundations. We may hope before long to see a far better structure erected, and an all-round advance resumed.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON

I am sorry that circumstances over which I had no control prevented me from hearing the speech of the Noble Lord, but I am glad to have heard the Noble Lady. I do take some hope from what she has said, but apparently the action of the Board in determining whether we can go forward with education depends upon the wealth or the poverty of the particular area affected. In the county which I have the honour to represent we have done our best to impart education all round and to do it in such a way as not to make it too great a financial burden. We are very anxious that

schools should be built so as to house the children and to allow us to have classes of not more than 40 where the pupils are over 12 years of age and not more than 50 when they are under 12. Unfortunately, our assessable value is very low and we cannot be allowed to go forward. We, in the county of Durham, have an assessable value of £26 per child, whereas in the North Riding the assessable value is something like £42; yet we are expected to do as much with our money as the North Riding does. It cannot be done. [Interruption.] I am sorry for this interruption by my hon. Friends, but this is a subject which interests me and in which I have been interested all my life, and I wish to see our county in a better position. We have done the best we can, and we ought to be encouraged instead of thwarted.

As an instance of this, I may say, what is no secret to the Noble Lord, that in one case we are using what was originally erected as a granary as a school. Many of the shifts to which we have had to resort are a disgrace, and I would plead with the Noble Lord to be a little more sympathetic than he has been in the past towards this great county. I realise, however, that he is not to blame. Another Minister has stepped in. Both the Noble Lord and the Noble Lady are prepared to go on with education, but if the Minister of Health who, after all, holds the purse, refuses to give us money in our present necessity, our education must be spoiled. I do not want the sins of the fathers to be visited on the children, and I want him to give the children an opportunity.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £28,299,900, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 97; Noes, 221.

Division No. 384.]	AYES.	[10.0 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Charleton, H. C.	Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Cluse, W. S.	Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Ammon, Charles George	Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)	Greenall, T.
Attlee, Clement Richard	Cove, W. G.	Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Ahertillery)	Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)	Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Barr, J.	Crawford, H. E.	Grundy, T. W.
Batey, Joseph	Dalton, Hugh	Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)
Beckett, John (Gateshead)	Davies, Rhys John (Westhouehton)	Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	Day, Colonel Harry	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.	Dennison, R.	Hardie, George D.
Broad, F. A.	Duncan, C.	Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)	Dunnico, H.	Hayday, Arthur
Buchanan, G.	Gibbins, Joseph	Henderson. Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel	Gillett, George M.	Hirst, G. H.
Cape, Thomas	Gosling, Harry	Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
John, William (Rhondda, West)	Ponsonby, Arthur	Townend, A. E.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Potts, John S.	Treveiyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Jones, T. I Mardy (Pontypridd)	Purcell, A. A.	Viant, S. P.
Kelly, W. T.	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	Wellhead, Richard C.
Kennedy, T.	Saklatvala, Shapurji	Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Lawrence, Susan	Scrymgeour, E.	Watson, W. M. (Dunfertmilne)
Lawson, John James	Scurr, John	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Lee, F.	Sexton, James	Welsh, J. C.
Lindley, F. W.	Shepherd, Arthur Lewis	Westwood, J.
Lowth, T.	Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)	Whiteley, W.
Lunn, William	Smillie, Robert	Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)	Smith, Rennie (Penistone)	Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)	Snell, Harry	Wright, W.
Montague, Frederick	Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)	Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Morrison. R. C (Tottenham, N.)	Stephen, Campbell
Naylor, T. E.	Sullivan, J.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Oliver, George Harold	Sutton, J. E.	Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.
Palin, John Henry	Taylor, R. A.	Hayes.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.	Tinker, John Joseph
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)	Lord, Walter Greaves-
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Albery, Irving James	Everard, W. Lindsay	Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)	Fairfax, Captain J. G.	MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Applin, Colonel R. V. K.	Falls, Sir Charles F.	Macdonald, Capt. P. D, (I. of W.)
Atholl, Duchess of	Fielden, E. B.	Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Atkinson, C.	Finburgh, S.	Macintyre, Ian
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Forestier-Walker, Sir L.	McLeon, Major A.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Forrest, W.	Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Balniel, Lord	Foster, Sir Harry S.	Macquisten, F. A.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Foxcroft, Captain C T	Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Barnett, Major Sir Richard	Fraser, Captain Ian	Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Beamish, Captain T. P. H.	Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony	Malone, Major P. B.
Bann, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)	Galbraith, J. F. W,	Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Bethel, A.	Ganzoni, Sir John	Margesson, Captain D.
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)	Gates, Percy	Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Blades, Sir George Rowland	Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham	Merriman, F. B.
Blundell, F. N.	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Meyer, Sir Frank
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Goff, Sir Park	Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.	Gower, Sir Robert	Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Braithwaite, A. N.	Greene, W. P. Crawford	Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Brass, Captain W.	Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)	Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Briggs, J. Harold	Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.	Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Brittain, Sir Harry	Gunston, Captain D. W.	Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Hacking, Captain Douglas H.	Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Nelson, Sir Frank
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.	Hail, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)	Hammersley, S. S.	Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berke, Newb'y)	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Buckingham, Sir H.	Harland, A.	Penny, Frederick George
Burman, J. B.	Hartington, Marquess of	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)	Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey	Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)	Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Haslam, Henry C.	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)
Campbell, E. T.	Hawke, John Anthony	Pileher, G.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)	Pilditch, Sir Philip
Chapman, Sir S.	Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)	Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.	Hennessy, Major J. R. G.	Preston, William
Clarry, Reginald George	Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)	Price, Major C. W. M.
Clayton, G. C.	Hilton, Cecil	Radford, E. A.
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.	Raine, W.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.	Holland, Sir Arthur	Ramsden, E.
Conway, Sir W. Martin	Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)	Rees, Sir Beddoe
Cope, Major William	Hopkins, J. W. W.	Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Cooper, J. B.	Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)	Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Courtauld, Major J. S.	Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Moseley)	Remer, J. R.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington. N.,	Howard, Captain Hon. Donald	Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney. N.)	Richardson, Sir P. W (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)	Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)	Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert	Hume, Sir G. H.	Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Curzon, Captain Viscount	Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)	Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.	Hiffe, Sir Edward M.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Davies, Dr. Vernon	Jacob, A. E.	Rye, F. G.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset. Yeovil)	Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)	Salmon. Major I.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)	Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)	Sandeman, A. Stewart
Dawson, Sir Philip	Kindersley, Major G. M.	Sanderson, Sir Frank
Dean, Arthur Wellesley	King, Captain Henry Douglas	Sandon, Lord
Dixey, A. C.	Knox, Sir Alfred	Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert	Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)	Shaw, Capt. Waiter (Wills, Westb'y)
Eden, Captain Anthony	Little, Dr, E. Graham	Shepperson, E. W.
Edmondson. Major A. J.	Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)	Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Elveden, Viscount	Loder, J. de V.	Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Smithers, Waldron	Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)	Waddington, R.	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)	Wallace, Captain D. E.	Wise, Sir Fredric
Steel, Major Samuel Strang	Ward. Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)	Withers, John James
Storry-Deans, R.	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.	Womersley, W. J.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.	Warrender, Sir Victor	Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)
Strickland, Sir Gerald	Watts, Dr. T.	Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.	Wells, S. R.	Wragg, Herbert
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser	Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.	Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid	White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple
Tasker, Major R. Inigo	Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Thom, Lt.-Col. .J. G. (Dumbarton)	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)	Mr. F. C. Thomson and Major Sir
Tinne, J. A.	Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)	Harry Barnston.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be Reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.