HC Deb 19 June 1930 vol 240 cc564-6
39. Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE

asked the President of the Board of Education the estimated amount per £ which will be added to the rates for the conveyance of children to school in the counties of Somerset, Cornwall and London, or any other large town?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir Charles Trevelyan)

According to the estimates submitted with the programmes of the respective authorities, the additional cost of conveyance of children to school in the year 1932–33 will represent a rate of, approximately, 2d. in the case of Somerset and .04d. in the case of Cornwall. In London and other urban areas it is not, as a rule, necessary to make arrangements for the conveyance of children as a result of the reorganisation of schools.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE

Does that not show that very small percentage grants are handicapping the country districts as compared with the towns?


I think that point has already been answered.

40. Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the cost of conveying children to school will add at least 2½d. in the £ to the rates in Devonshire; and whether the will consider increasing the Government grant for this purpose to a higher figure than 20 per cent.?


I am aware that the preliminary programme submitted by the Devonshire Local Education Authority contains a provisional estimate of £30,000 as the annual cost of conveying children to school when their scheme of reorganisation has been completely carried out, and that, on a basis of an Exchequer grant of 20 per cent., this would represent a rate of some 2½d. in the £. In regard to the second part of the question, I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that, while expenditure on this particular service attracts grant at the rate of 20 per cent., it is estimated that 70 per cent. of the total estimated cost of raising the school-leaving age will fall on the Exchequer.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE

Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the giving of such small grants encourages local authorities to build very much smaller central schools, whereas larger grants might save money? Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to have small central schools, and would it not be a better policy to give larger grants?


Is the Minister of Education not aware that that policy is penalising the rural areas?


I do not think so. There are other advantages which

Produce of 1d. rate per child in average attendance. Cost per child in average attendance. Board's grant per child in average attendance.
s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d.
Bournemouth C.B. 12 8 12 18 2 6 8 9
Blackpool C.B. 11 2 13 12 11 6 16 4
Leeds C.B. 4 4 12 18 4 6 14 8
Bradford C.B. 6 3 14 17 10 7 6 4
Hull C.B. 3 3 11 16 7 6 12 7
Walsall C.B. 1 11 11 1 8 6 18 3

they get. By using the grants they are able to abolish a certain number of schools, and make economies in that way.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE

Would not larger grants induce them to build larger schools?

Forward to