HC Deb 04 June 1946 vol 423 cc1959-68

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Challen (Hampstead)

I beg to move, That the Training of Teachers Grant Regulations, 1946 (S.R. & O., 1946, No. 630), dated 29th April, 1946, a copy of which was presented on 6th May, be annulled. Hon. Members might take exception to many things in this Order, but there is only one aspect of the subject which I propose to touch on. The Order is concerned, as is indicated by its title, with the training of teachers in training colleges, and it is concerned with conditions relating to the obtaining of grants from the Ministry with respect to training colleges for teachers, and for hostels. The Order deals with voluntary colleges in addition to other colleges. "Voluntary"Is defined as meaning a college or hostel maintained by a body-other than a Local Education Authority, a Joint Education Committee, or persons authorised by any such Authority or Committee. Paragraph (3) of the first Regulation says that a voluntary college, in addition to its compliance with these Regulations, shall comply with the requirements of Schedule I. So that, cutting out all the paragraphs and conditions applicable to these, I come to Schedule I, which is the part of the Order I am speaking against. I am aware that this is not a completely new Order. There was an Order similar in effect in 1941 under the Act of 1921, and it may be that this Order is being initiated to comply with the new Education Act of 1944. Be that as it may, it does not prevent anyone in this House from reconsidering the whole matter, and I cannot imagine that the Minister of Education is going to take the view that it is not open to us to reconsider this whole matter now. It is before us, and I want to draw the attention of the House to its provision in relation to what are called voluntary colleges.

Schedule 1 starts off: No Catechism or formulary distinctive of any particular religious denomination may be taught in the College except in accordance with this paragraph. The Schedule continues: If the instrument under which the College is governed requires, or does not prohibit, the giving in the College of religious instruction distinctive of any particular denomination, the Governing Body may provide such instruction for those students who desire it. There is then the further provision that this must be done out of funds not provided by the Minister or any local authority. Then, we come to the next sub-paragraph, which says: In the selection of candidates for half the number of places which will be vacant, the authorities of the College must not reject, or invite the withdrawal of, the application of any candidate not belonging to the denomination of the College on the ground of religious faith, or by reason of his refusal to undertake to attend or abstain from attending any place of religious worship or any religious observance or instruction in religious subjects in the College or elsewhere, etc. In other words, half the candidates have got to be people who are under no obligation to receive this denominational instruction which the college is established to give, and the college is under no obligation to require that that instruction shall be given. The words of Paragraph 3 of the First Schedule are: The instrument under which the College is governed must not require any members of the teaching staff to belong, or not to belong, to a particular religious denomination. I do not see how much further one can go in getting secular instruction in education into denominational colleges.

I speak for no particular denomination, but obviously this applies to every kind of denomination in this country, whether Nonconformist, Church of England, Catholic or any branch of the Christian religion as established in this land. It seems to be an astonishing thing that colleges set up for the definite purpose of training teachers according to a particular denomination should have this requirement imposed upon them by the Minister as a prelude to their receiving any grants at all. As I remarked before, it may be said, and, indeed, it will probably be said, that this is not an entirely new Order. That does not affect the issue before us. This Order is being made new and it is before Parliament, and I myself and those who think with me would very much like to hear from the Minister a statement as to what this policy really means and what is the real justification of it.

Times pass fast and views change. We are living in a time when many changes are taking place and many people are feeling very seriously the undercutting of requirements such as these in established institutions. Surely if there is to be legislation and the basic requirements in institutions of this nature are to be taken away, there should be debate in Parliament, it should be subject to an Act of Parliament, and the whole matter should be done openly and above board and in the light of day. It hardly seems to me to be a matter for Regulation in relation to education grants, to remove essential requirements from these colleges of the nature which I have described. I think I have shown that this is a matter which should be above being the subject of a Regulation, and certainly we are entitled to some real explanation from the Minister as to the policy which is being followed in this matter.

11.14 p.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre (New Forest and Christchurch)

I beg to second the Motion.

I concur entirely with the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Challen), who said that there is really nothing new in the terms and provisions of this Order. I believe I am correct in saying that the principles laid down in it are already established in so far as they affect primary and secondary schools. I suggest, however, that the whole basis on which these Orders were originated has changed. I believe I am correct in saying that the first time the problem of these Orders arose in this House was in 1908, and that since then they have been the subject of some contention; but equally I would suggest that, since then the whole policy of this House and the whole policy of successive Governments to this question of education since 1908 has altered. From 1908 until 1944 the policy of education, the scale of education and the scope of education have gradually progressed. Whereas in 1908, when this question first arose, the whole of our education schemes were in their infancy, today, under the 1944 Act, they have reached maturity. Under the 1908 Act it was perfectly possible for any Minister to say that there were limited means, limited powers and a limited field they would be able to cover, that consideration is now no longer true.

I believe it is the boast of Members in all quarters of the House that the 1944 Act has laid down a real and genuine basis on which education can be brought to all the members of the community. If that is so, this House is equally responsible for the effect of any Order on an individual citizen. That is a sine qua non if we accept the principle that the 1944 Act achieves its genuine position. There are millions of people in the country who still believe that education does not consist in passing examinations, or reaching a high theoretical standard which is applied by the Minister, but consists in preparing children for their future life, and grounding them in principles in which their parents believe. The Minister has forgotten that in promulgating this Order. She, with her scope and wisdom, has adopted the principle that the Navy applies to every ship—that it should be painted battleship grey. The right hon. Lady wishes to paint this grey conventionalism over the whole field of education, in which all the minor points of difference shall be swept away. Thus she hopes she will safeguard herself from any criticism. I am sorry to see that.

I am trespassing on your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, but it is essential to make that point, for if teachers are not properly trained then children cannot be properly trained. The structure of this Order must have an effect on education. I suggest it will have a devastating effect on the quality of education. The right hon. Lady no doubt considers that she is safeguarding the interests of taxpayers, but surely if you are to expect all citizens who believe in religion to subscribe to taxes you must make some provision in your Order to help to safeguard the rights of every denomination. It seems to be absolute common-sense, if I may put it like that. One of the things every family values is the knowledge that their own children can be brought up according to the way in which they themselves believe. An Act has been passed which lays down the scale of education over the whole country. It has been received with appreciation by the country, but here we have an Order which goes against the very essence of that great Act which was to provide real education for everyone irrespective of class or denomination.

This Order will make it impossible for any properly conducted college, or hostel, to fulfil the duties for which it was established by those who believe in their own denomination. No doubt the Minister will say that nothing new is involved here, but it is important to emphasize that the circumstances in which the first Order was made have changed. Whereas it was possible for a Minister to say in the past that the action taken was for the benefit of the whole country, such no longer applies when you have an Act governing all people and all classes. Therefore I do hope that the Minister will consider tonight making a relaxation of this Order, which can only cause grave harm to the purpose which she has set herself, to provide for everyone the means whereby children can be educated according to the wishes of their parents.

11.20 p.m.

The Minister of Education (Miss Ellen Wilkinson)

If I may first take the speech of the hon. and gallant Member who spoke last, I really wonder whether he consulted his right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) before he spoke as he did, because, as a matter of fact, the whole of these Regulations were drawn up by the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman the present Home Secretary. I am, however, amazed at the idea that I desire to paint the whole of the teacher training colleges of this country with a grey conventionality. I beg the hon. and gallant Member not to tempt me to say, for I am surprised at my own restraint in these matters, that if he would really like them painted in the colours that would appeal to me, he might find them not quite to the preference of the right hon. Gentleman who held this office before me. In any case, the hon. and gallant Gentleman was talking complete nonsense. I wonder if he has taken the trouble to read the Regulations he is talking about or anything to do with them, because, as a matter of fact, far from it being the case that no provision is made for denominational teaching, and that nothing was being done for colleges that were being provided by the two denominations, the actual facts of the case are that at least 50 per cent. of the expenses are met and paid by the State. Really there is no reason for him to complain on that score. If he would just look at the Schedule which upset the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Challen), who considers that the colleges, being voluntary institutions, should have more complete freedom in regard to the students they take, what is the present position?

Voluntary bodies who are running colleges have to make no contributions to maintenance expenses, and in most cases they have had very substantial help from the Government in capital expenses. Really, is it reasonable, when the financial contributions from the Government are so large, to leave the college authorities with complete discretion to select the candidates as they might choose to the prejudice of candidates who do not belong to those particular denominations? I would remind hon Members that 45 per cent. of the places in the whole of our 80 training colleges come under the heading of denominations—mostly the two denominations, the Church of England and the Roman Catholics. Would it be common-sense or fair when, as I say, the State pays the whole of the maintenance expenses and has made large contribution to the capital expenses that the colleges should say that only members of their own denomination should go into those colleges? If they did, there would be very real reasons for complaint on the part of the ordinary citizen whom the two hon. Members have been trying to defend.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

I think Regulation 23 of this Order is the one about which the right hon. Lady is speaking. Is it not a fact that only one half of the expenditure over £500 is granted by the Government in regard to capital improvement? That makes a very great difference to the right hon. Lady's argument.

Miss Wilkinson

Oh, no. It still remains true that the maintenance expenses are paid by the State. If the State is to bear 100 per cent. of the cost of maintenance of these places and 45 per cent. are under the heading of denominational colleges, is it reasonable to expect that these denominational colleges should train the whole of the 45 per cent. for their own denominations? I may say that no responsible authority for these denominations in fact makes that claim.

It has been said that I must not use the argument that what has been done in the past necessarily should be done in the future. I am the last person to make that argument, but I submit that the two hon. Members are the last persons, if they are really keen denominationalists, to want to upset what in fact is a very delicate balance. The whole of the period when these things were first established at the beginning of the century was a time when education was bedevilled by the fiercest denominational passions. During the years, these have settled down. Why have they settled down? It is largely because there has been general agreement on behalf both of the State and of the denominations to be reasonable in this matter. Therefore, we have a reasonable compromise. The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden and the right hon. Gentleman the present Home Secretary had a great deal to do with the drawing up of these Regulations. They went into these denominational matters with the Catholic hierarchy, with the leaders of the Church of England, and other denominations. They maintained a balance, though it may be said that large numbers of people might not agree with them.

If this question is to be reopened, believe me it will not be reopened to the benefit of the denominations. There are large numbers of hon. Members on this side of the House who might like to see the question reopened from a different point of view. And people who believe that denominational teaching should be a matter for the denominations themselves and not for the sake of the colleges at all might be able to find a majority in the lobby. Therefore, I say that my hon. Friends show very considerable restraint in this matter in the fact that they have not been the ones to suggest the upsetting of this delicate balance. That is what has guided me in bringing forward these Regulations. I have not desired to upset that balance because I know perfectly well that if we did we should once again throw education into the cockpit of denominational controversy. That is the last thing that anyone who is really keen on education wants to do, because the moment you do that the child no longer becomes the centre of the picture, and other vested interests take its place.

Therefore, I do not think of altering these Regulations. I am prepared to maintain this, and I only want to warn hon. Members opposite that before they come forward with irresponsible speeches they should first of all consult their own leaders on the matter, they should consult the man who for several years held the honoured place in the Ministry of Education, and if they wish to throw this leadership over, they should consult the leaders of their own churches and not some person who has an axe to grind. This is a very delicate matter, and it is best dealt with by leaving it where the Church leaders have been content to leave it, and letting us get on with the job of educating the children.

11.32 p.m.

Mr. Challen

I feel I must say a word in answer to the Minister. I am not concerned to press this matter to a Division, but I do feel that the Minister really has ignored the criticism I have ventured to put forward. She has based her case upon a mere financial basis; because the money, she says, is supplied to these colleges, therefore these Regulations must be brought into effect. But I pointed out that the Order expressly states that any religious instruction must be from the institutions' own funds and not from the grants made by the authority. Therefore, if the institution is prepared to give this instruction of its own funds, is the Minister to go to the extent of legislating against the institution in this matter of instruction and preventing the authorities from requiring that denominational acceptance on the part of candidates which its foundation requires? That was the point I endeavoured to make.

The other point that the Minister has made has been a kind of veiled suggestion of delicacy on this denominational question, and a kind of veiled threat against Members on this side because party leaders have at one time or another said this or that. I get very tired of always finding discussion of this question being stopped by these veiled suggestions of the delicacy of the situation, that you must never probe into the matter. Please do not argue, please do not probe," we are told; " otherwise you will hear something from us."I am not advocating any particular denomination; I am simply standing for freedom and I am simply urging that this question be really faced argumentatively and logically and not dealt with by these arguments about the delicacy of the situation and " Please do not discuss it because it is delicate." We always have these arguments raised, and I suggest that it is not relevant to this particular subject. We are not talking about the religious teaching of children, but about the training of teachers, and about colleges instituted for the training of teachers and colleges instituted upon a certain denominational basis. The Minister, by an Order tantamount to an Act of Parliament, prevents those colleges from exercising the requirements of their constitution. If we are to face this subject properly, it should, be done by an Act of Parliament.

Miss Wilkinson

I did not say, or in any way intend to imply, that I was preventing the colleges from acting upon their constitution. Quite the contrary. The colleges are acting on their constitution, and so am I.

Mr. Challen

The Order says that the colleges must admit half of the members without any requirement of religious observance, and it says that notwithstanding the instrument under which the college is governed, the members of the teaching staff must not be required to belong to that denomination. Therefore, I say that the Minister is legislating for these colleges by Order, and it would be better if these colleges were legislated for by Act of Parliament, so that the matter could be fully debated. It is only because the Minister has now made a new Order, under the new Act, that those associated with me have ventured to bring the question forward for debate in the House. It is time that fundamental matters of this sort were debated on the Floor of the House, whatever views we may hold, instead of being settled by Order promulgated by the Minister behind the scenes. That is the purpose for which I moved this Prayer.

Question put, and negatived.