HC Deb 14 July 1938 vol 338 cc1510-2
52. Mr. Thurtle

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether his Department has at any time since the passing of the Act of 1936 threatened to withhold from any local education authority any of the grant normally due to it on the ground that it has adopted a scheme under the Act too favourable to the church schools?

Mr. Lindsay

The answer is in the negative. In some cases where unsatisfactory schemes of reorganisation have been suggested, the Board have indicated to the local education authorities concerned that they would not feel justified in recognising for grant any expenditure which the authorities might incur on such schemes.

Mr. Thurtle

May I take it that there can be no scheme which is so generous to the church schools as to bring down upon it the disapproval of the Board of Education?

Mr. Lindsay

I do not think that point arises.

54. Mr. Thurtle

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education why his Department is proposing to stop £180,000 annually from the grant due to the Liverpool education authority; whether he is aware that this action is regarded locally as a measure of coercion designed to compel the authority to acquiesce in sectarian demands for public funds; and whether he is aware that the Act of 1936 gives the local authority freedom of choice in the matter under dispute?

Mr. Lindsay

The action of the Board in withholding £15,000 from each of the monthly instalments of grant which, in view of the fact that three months of the financial year have elapsed, is not tantamount to withholding £180,000 a year, is due to the failure of the authority to perform their duties under the Education Act, 1921. Judging from the Press reports which I have seen, there is at least as much local support as there is criticism of the Board's action. I am aware that the making of grants by local education authorities for voluntary schools is a power and not a duty, but this does not absolve authorities from discharging their obligations under the Education Act, 1921.

Mr. Thurtle

Is the hon. Member aware that, although this action is not claimed to be coercion on the local authorities, it is in effect coercion because it is compelling the local authority concerned to yield to the extortionate demands of the churches?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member is raising an argument.

Mr. Thurtle

On a point of Order. Surely one is entitled in a supplementary question to draw an inference from a reply which has been given?

Mr. Speaker

It is too much like an argument.

Miss Rathbone

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the decision to refuse grants for Roman Catholic schools was a decision taken by the Conservative majority in the Liverpool City Council and was opposed by the Labour opposition, and that it resulted in the Conservatives gaining nine seats at the municipal elections?

Mr. Thurtle

Is the Minister aware that the failure of the Liverpool City Council to carry out the scheme, which has incurred the displeasure of the Education Department, is due to the fact that the Church has made extortionate demands upon the city council?

Mr. Silverman

Is the hon. Member aware that a good deal of local support—

Mr. Speaker rose

—

Mr. Silverman

On a point of Order. I do not know whether you can give me guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to whether, in circumstances where the facts have been wrongly given in the question, a Member is entitled to put a supplementary question in order to make the facts clear?

Mr. Speaker

We have already had three or four supplementary questions, and I appealed to the House the other day to assist me in getting through questions more expeditiously.

Mr. Silverman

Further to that point of Order. In this case the question refers to a particular locality and no supplementary questions have come from Members either residing in or representing that locality.

Mr. Speaker

I cannot go into all those points.