§ 32. Mr. Tomlinsonasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has considered representations from the Lancashire educa- 2481 tion authority respecting the differentiation in grant between the air-raid precautions works of the education committee and that of the air-raid precautions committee of the county council; and what action he proposes to take with respect thereto?
§ 44. Mr. Lipsonasked the Lord Privy Seal why the Cheltenham Education Committee has been informed that the Board of Education will pay only 50 per cent. grant on expenditure for purposes of air-raid precautions in public elementary schools, when the Government grant for general air-raid precautions expenditure is 70 per cent.?
§ The Lord Privy Seal (Sir John Anderson)The exceptional rates of grant provided under the Air-Raid Precautions Act are directly related to the discharge of the general responsibilities of local authorities under that Act and are not in any way relevant to the measures which local authorities, in common with other bodies and persons, may have to take, and expenditure which they may have to incur, in meeting the requirements of civil defence in the sphere of their own specific responsibilities. Normally, Ciivl Defence measures in connection with a grant-aided service attract grant at the rate appriate to that service.
§ Mr. TomlinsonIs the right hon. Gentleman aware of the grave dissatisfaction which is felt in all local education quarters in consequence of this differentiation; and can he not do something to deal with a position in which the same people, administering the same Act of Parliament, are to receive two different rates of grants for what is to all intents and purposes the same service?
§ Sir J. AndersonI think it is a purely accidental circumstance that they happen to be the same people, and I would point out to the hon. Member that the anomaly, as he sees it, is not confined to the case of education, but applies to public utilities and in many other respects.
§ Mr. LipsonIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that local education committees and also local authorities regard this decision of his as a breach of the undertaking arrived at with them; and is it really worth while antagonising the local authorities, and losing their good will by 2482 allowing this question to arise; and will he re-consider the matter?
§ Sir J. AndersonIt is not a decision of mine at all. My responsibility in this matter is confined to air-raid precautions in general.
§ 51. Mr. Denvilleasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that the St. Helens Borough Council, following a deputation to London, were informed by the Home Office, the Board of Education, and the Treasury that sanction could be given for protective measures by local authorities for council schools but not in the case of non-provided schools on the ground that it is the responsibility of the managers to provide protection in time of danger; and will he take action to grant the same measure of assistance to non-provided schools?
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay)My hon. Friend appears to be under a misapprehension. As indicated in paragraph 11 of the Board of Education Circular 1467, issued on 27th April, of which I am sending him a copy, approved expenditure incurred by local education authorities on the construction of shelter trenches or the provision of equipment and materials for sandbagging, protection of windows and first aid equipment in respect of non-provided as well as provided elementary schools will be eligible for grant from the Board. A deputation from the St. Helens local education authority were informed to this effect on 20th April last.