EDUCATION

HC Deb 31 July 1947 vol 441 cc647-83

4.3 p.m.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson)

In introducing the Estimates for this year, I think I ought to ask for the indulgence of the Committee. This is the first time for close on two years that I have had the privilege of addressing the House, and I remember that on the last occasion I dropped a few bricks. I hope I may escape that today. The Estimates with which we are dealing cover a total of £213 million, £138 million Exchequer payments, and £75 million expenditure incurred by and found by the local education authorities. I think it is always as well, in thinking in terms of educational expenditure, that we should remember that this is a co-operative effort, and that not only the State but the local education authorities must always play their part. In justifying this expenditure, one must naturally think in terms of what has been happening since the Vote was put down.

In everybody's mind, I think, the first big step in what I would call the implementation of the 1944 Act was the raising of the school leaving age this year. There was some honest doubt in the minds of some people whether we should have taken this step at this stage. Personally, I have never been in any doubt. I think from every point of view, and particularly from the economic point of view, which is so often stressed, it would have been a mistake not to do so this year. Having decided that it would be done, necessary preparations had to be made. First, it was realised that if we were to include in our school population this year the additional numbers who would be required to be catered for, we had to find somewhere to put them. So the H.O.R.S.A. programme was devised. I have been asked what H.O.R.S.A. means, and I must confess that at first I did not know the answer. Then I discovered that it was a sort of military term, and stands for "Huts Operation Raising School Age." It is not good English, not even basic English, but it means something to the people who have been carrying out this programme, and that is what matters. The huts that were thought to be needed were many in number and were required in many places.

The question has been put to me, "If you find it necessary to provide huts to accommodate these children, why not make a job of it, and erect permanent buildings instead?" The answer is that that was not a practicable proposition. The only way in which this accommodation could be provided was by this programme. In 1946 the local education authorities, with all the will and desire in the world, were able to spend only £1 million on permanent building. To make the necessary provision other than by huts, by permanent buildings, would have cost £25 million. So we see at a glance that one proposition was practicable, and the other was not.

In defence of the huts, I would say that they are very good. When I was at a previous Ministry I had some responsibility for them, and was not then able to say just what I thought about the Minister of Works; it would have been unbecoming; but I think the Minister did a good job, and I think my right hon. Friend who is following in his footsteps is also doing a good job and that these are very good huts. From the standpoint of all that is essential in the way of amenity, they are far better than a good many schools which we will be compelled to use for quite a long time yet. The progress that is being made with the provision of these huts can be measured perhaps better by giving the figures as to the contracts which have been let, the work that has been started, and the number completed. The total number of huts required by September of this year is 3,440, and by the 26th of this month contracts had been let for 3,240, in other words, 96 per cent. Work has been started in the case of 75 per cent., and some 420, about 12 per cent., are actually completed at this date.

The huts themselves are no use unless there is something to put in them. Therefore another programme was devised, that we called S.F.O.R.S.A. This is another example of borrowing names from our military friends to meet a requirement. This relates to "School furniture operation for the raising of the school age" so that H.O.R.S.A. and S.F.O.R.S.A. provide the huts and the furniture to put in the huts. Again, I desire to say that everybody who has been interested in this, and everybody who has been connected with it, knew exactly what was meant by S.F.O.R.S.A., even though the Minister did not. Because of that, and in spite of what has appeared in the educational Press, although we did not get off the mark as quickly as we ought to have done in this matter, I not only have the assurance of the people responsible, but I have had it as late as last week, that the furniture required for September, 1947, will be there and available on the date. If it is suggested, as I see it suggested from another source, that we ought to have made materials available to the trade generally and have bought what they were prepared to provide, in order to meet the requirements, I say that we should not. Not only would they not have provided the things we needed in the numbers we required them, but they would have been, as it were, in competition with the other forms of school furniture which are also needed, but which are not vitally essential to this particular programme.

Not only had we to take into account the provision of furniture, which is coming along, but also, at the same time while we were working on the two programmes of huts and furniture, we had to think in terms of what we call the operational programme. In this programme, we take into account not only the school leaving age, but provision for the new housing estates that will be required before the end of 1948. We decided that it was necessary to cut a good deal of red tape in order that the operational programme might make provision over and above that which could be supplied by huts between 1947 and 1948. We had also to devise a permanent building programme to meet the requirements of the new areas and the additions brought about by the raising of the school leaving age. Between January, 1946, and January, 1952, we have in addition to this, to take into account the effect of the increase in birth rate. Keeping in mind what our requirements were this year and will be next year, and the continuing requirements that will come as a result of the bulge in the birth rate, we have to make provision for an increase in the number of children, by 1952, of some 860,000, that is, the increase due to the increased birth rate and the raising of the school leaving age.

In the preparations we have made for the programme of permanent building, in the cutting of red tape and the seeking of ways and means of providing the new buildings for the new housing estates, and to meet the additional requirements, we have asked the local authorities not only to give us their plans, but to see that those plans are brought to fruition at the earliest date. In the first six months of this year we sanctioned expenditure and approved plans to a value of about £11¾ million. I have no doubt that, although we may find that we have not got completely all we require on what might be described as the appointed day in 1948, we shall have gone a long way towards smoothing out the difficulties and making the provision which is necessary for this conception of the educational programme.

Arising out of, and in addition to this operational programme about which I have spoken, the question will be asked what we are doing in regard to those schools which are already in existence and which are in need of attention. I am now thinking in terms, not of the older schools but of the infant and junior schools, and I know that a good many of them are in need of improvement in respect of all the amenities. We have not forgotten this, and whatever can be done will be done to improve the amenities of these schools, which have to remain for a time until we can implement our bigger programme. The need for this is not being overlooked. We have 650 schemes in train—in our short-term programme—I mean those which will cost under the £5,000 level, and which received sanction at the Ministry without all the formalities having to be gone through of submitting plans and the rest of it. A good deal of painting, etc., is also being done, as are a good many minor jobs which do not figure in this programme. Much of the ordinary maintenance work is being carried out.

Having made provision for the buildings, what is the position with regard to teachers? I remember some four years ago, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) was piloting the 1944 Act through the House of Commons, discussions were taking place as to whether it would be possible to implement that Act particularly in regard to the raising of the school age, because of our inability to provide teachers in time. Every one's mind was turned upon the importance of making this provision. It is due to the provision which was made by my predecessor—I do not want to claim any credit for it, because the credit goes elsewhere—and by those who advised him and to the coming into operation of the emergency training scheme that there is no question of our being short of teachers to implement this policy. I am delighted that it is so. The fact that in the difficult period since the passing of the Act—only a few short years—it has been possible to get together all the materials required in the building of these emergency colleges, and for the building up of the staffs, is a tribute to the education service of this country. It is an achievement of which those who were its authors are entitled to be proud.

As one who has visited a number of these emergency training colleges, I can say that we may be proud of the material that has come forward from the Services. What are the numbers? It was stated that the men and women coming out of the Forces would not respond. They have responded, and in a way that no one, I believe, anticipated. We had no fewer than 100,000 applicants who desired to be trained as teachers. Forty thousand of them have been accepted. At the moment, we have open 48 emergency training colleges for ordinary training and three for technical training. From the emergency colleges, which provide for a one year course, the annual output is 11,600. Further, the annual output from those colleges which provide for a course of two years or more, is 10,500. What does this mean? It means that some people have come to the conclusion already that we are preparing teachers for unemployment. I want to dispel that idea. I want those students who have responded to the appeal to come forward for training to believe me when I say that the Government are determined that this particularly valuable material shall not be wasted, and that there are ways and means in which I believe—and I think that the local authorities agree—that the teachers we are training can be absorbed. I know of nothing which could disturb those who have come forward in such good numbers, and who have proved to be of such good quality, more than the fear that at the end of their training they might be unemployed. We have already taken steps to see that this situation should not arise.

Everybody knows that we have had more men than women. The men have come forward in much greater numbers. There are difficulties in regard to the proportions of men to women, but it should not be beyond the wit either of the Ministry or of local education authorities so to adjust the numbers as to put them in a different proportion and thus to overcome the difficulty. In the training colleges where we have taken what I would call an over-abundance of men, it is possible to make a re-adjustment in the next two years by opening some of the emergency colleges for the full-time training of teachers and at the same time speeding up the training of the women applicants.

Mr. George Thomas (Cardiff, Central)

The Minister is not suggesting a reduction of any sort in the number of men to be trained?

Mr. Tomlinson

No. What I suggest is that, if it should be necessary, there should be a larger spreadover rather than that we should train all the men immediately and thus put the two out of balance. We should bring into proportion the number of men and women available. We have taken steps in consultation with local authorities to see what can be done in that direction.

This leads me to refer to one of the problems which has been discussed many times here. I myself raised the matter before I was a Minister. I refer to the problem of smaller classes. The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden and my hon. Friend the Member for Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) on more than one occasion have stressed this point. If anybody can tell me any way in which we can get smaller classes other than by increasing the number of teachers, I am prepared to give in. I know that it has been suggested time and again that we were restricted in the number of teachers we could employ because the buildings were not available. I am not prepared to accept that argument. Never has it been the limiting factor in the past. Never has it been one of the determining factors m the staffing of our schools that the buildings were either too big or too small. I would ask those who say that it is a limiting factor whether it is easier for one individual to teach 50 children in one classroom, if it is possible in these conditions for teaching to be done? I do not suggest that this is an ideal solution, but if one teacher has not a chance, two, at least, would have a better chance if they did the teaching for half an hour at a time and then rested to get their breath. The point is that the buildings themselves ought not to be the limiting factor.

Sir Ernest Graham-Little (London University)

What is the position of the black-listed schools? A very large number of schools were condemned as long ago as 1925 and they are still in use.

Mr. Tomlinson

That is true. There are a good many of them. My argument is that whether or not a school is blacklisted does not for one moment interfere with the ratio of the teachers who should be employed. In fact, additional teachers may be needed at a black-listed school because it has not got the amenities.

There are two problems which have become notorious in the last few weeks and it seems to me that we are in danger of getting them out of proportion. The first is in regard to science teachers. I know the fear in the minds of many people because the number of science teachers has not been as great as previously. I think that for the first time we have been so successful as educationists in convincing industry of the necessity for utilising educated persons, that industry has become our chief competitor. It may be that for a time we shall have difficulties in competition with industry but, judging by the numbers entering universities who have indicated that they intend to go into schools, I think the position will improve. In any case, I do not think that we are likely to get an improved position as a consequence of what I call "pressure groups" seeking to bring pressure to bear upon the Burn-ham Committee at a time when that committee is sitting, and the Minister himself, by Act of Parliament, is not permitted to influence the Burnham Committee. If it is "hands off" to the Minister, the same should apply to the "pressure groups."

I appreciate the difficulties with regard to teachers in infant schools. I am just as disturbed about the shortage of these teachers as I am about the shortage of science teachers. Unless we fill our infant schools and have teachers there, when the children come to be taught science they will not be able to take it in. We must begin with the infants. It is essential that we should attempt to improve matters in both directions. They can be improved not only by pointing out the need but by other methods. I have suggested to local education authorities that the girls who are awaiting entry into colleges this year—and there are something like 2,500 of them—might be taken into the schools as helpers in the meantime. Judging from our experience with the emergency training colleges, that time will not be wasted. The experience they will gain will be worth while. As a result of the experience of the last six months, I am convinced that the value of the break between school and college, or college and school, cannot be over emphasised. I hope that local education authorities will consider this suggestion favourably. I have asked them to do that and, if necessary, I will plead with them. We cannot afford to lose the valuable material because of our inability to make provision at once.

May I now say a word about the development plans that have been coming forward and which are fundamental to the implementation of the 1944 Act. Complete plans have been submitted by 117 local education authorities, 48 counties and 69 county boroughs, instalments by another 10, nine counties and one county borough. There are 17 local education authorities which have not yet submitted any part of their plan, and the delay in these cases is due to special local difficulties such as area replanning, shortages of staff and consultations with voluntary schools and their representatives. What I want to emphasise is that they are not lying neglected on the Ministry's shelves. They are being looked at, and I want to tell the Committee that we are pressing these authorities in order that they may get on with their development plans. I want to examine them as quickly as possible, within the terms and the meaning of the Act, and to give what I would call an overall approval before the whole of the details have been settled. I know that, if an order is to be made, some of the details will have to be settled, but I do not want the local authority to feel that what might happen in 1947–48 is what happened in 1918–19, when plans were prepared which are still, in many instances, lying in the pigeon holes.

It is our intention, as it is the intention of the Act, to see that secondary education for all, which is inherent in the Act of Parliament, should become a reality when these development plans unfold themselves. I know what they want in their proposals for carrying out or implementing this policy, but they do envisage in the development plans the provision that we are asking for. I am looking for equal opportunity for all to develop the faculties with which all are endowed, and I would emphasise, as I have said on more than one occasion, that we seek no reduction in the standard of the grammar school. A good deal of talk has been going on in different parts of the country with regard to the position of the grammar schools, and I want to emphasise that it is no part of our policy to reduce in any way the status or standing of the grammar schools. To the friends of the grammar schools, who are crying out loud sometimes, I would say, "Do not cry 'stinking fish'; otherwise, it may begin to stink. The value of your school is not determined by the position it occupies in relation to the other schools."

While I would emphasise the necessity for retaining the standard of the grammar schools, I also want to emphasise the necessity for the new secondary schools to come up to the same standard. I know the difficulties of new schools making their appeal to parents if we seek all the time to emphasise differences, and to look upon academics as the only form or the highest form, of development. The confidence of our people, if they are all of the same status, will be increased a thousandfold.

There is room and need in our secondary education for experiments. I have recently sent out a pamphlet trying to define the different types of schools which are being suggested under the development plans—the multilateral, the bilateral, the unilateral, the comprehensive and the school base. I would emphasise the necessity for all to speak the same language, when speaking about the multilateral, the unilateral or the comprehensive school. They should at least know what the Ministry means and is thinking about when issuing a circular of that kind. But whatever the need and the form of the school, it will not achieve its objective unless it has got one purpose—to give the child, whoever it may be, the best opportunity of developing to the full the faculties which it possesses That is our aim and object.

There are some five million children in our schools, a fairly large family, but amongst that family there are 75,000 handicapped children—only 1½ per cent. it is true, but I believe that this nation will be judged as much by what it does for the 1½ per cent. as by what it does for the 98½ per cent. Therefore, I am pleased to say that, in dealing with this problem of the handicapped children in our specialist organisations and services, we have made some progress. During the past few months, one of my officers has been visiting different parts of the country getting the local authorities together in groups to consider their needs and to attempt to meet their needs on a co-operative basis. Every authority does not require special schools of that kind, but every authority has some children whom it could send and, therefore, in ascertaining the needs, it has been possible to assess the requirements of a wide area, and schemes are now being drawn up and submitted for joint approval making provision for these areas.

I had the privilege the other Saturday of visiting Oxted in Surrey, where the Moor House School has been established. There are only 30 children in this school, but it is the only thing of its kind, not only in this country, but in the world. This school is dealing with 30 children, 21 of whom are suffering the after effects either of an operation for cleft palate or for harelip. They are being taught to speak and they are making progress. In addition to these 21 children, there are nine aphasic children. I understand that there are only 40 in the country, and there are nine of them in this school. What the cause of this trouble is nobody has yet discovered. The children can hear and they have their faculties, but they cannot speak; language means nothing to them. At this school, in which these experiments are being carried out, speech therapists are being trained at the same time as the children are being taught. That is something of which I, when called upon to open this school, felt very proud. There was a child who, in eight weeks' time, had been taught, for the first time in its life, to say the names of the children among whom it was living and working in the school, and I can imagine something of the joy that will enter the home of that child in Wales when it goes back able to speak and make itself understood.

What we are doing in that school is pioneer work of a kind the value of which cannot be over-estimated, and I take off my hat to the individuals who have been responsible for it, who have spent a lot of their own money and given a great deal of their time as well as making real sacri- fices, and who are now getting their reward by seeing these children restored.

The same thing is true in regard to spastic children—children who suffer from cerebral palsy. In Croydon, again, we have the only school in the world where these children are being dealt with. I can see that the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities is questioning that.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay (Combined English Universities)

On the contrary; I am very much interested in the subject, but as a good internationalist, I think it should be mentioned that some very good work is being done on it in America.

Mr. Tomlinson

I am not anxious to boast about this. I checked up to see whether it was taking place anywhere else, and I thought it worth while to mention it. There are not many things in which we are leading, but I think that this is the most important thing of all. If we are leading in any degree in the treatment of children whose needs are greater than those of the average child, I think that we have reason to be proud of the fact. All I want to say is that those responsible for the development of these experiments are entitled, not only to all the credit, but to the thanks of the nation for what they are doing in this direction.

There has been a good deal of talk in the, last few months about our milk-in-schools scheme. A few weeks ago, I had the privilege of visiting a school in Liverpool where 30 children of about 4½ years of age were lined up waiting for milk. They got their milk, and within three minutes they were lined up with the mugs waiting to hand them back. I wondered at the time whether the Member who asked me in this House what we did with the milk which was left over, had ever visited this school. I do not think that we should be bothered answering questions of that kind if more people visited that school. I only say that because I am just as anxious as any other hon. Member to prevent waste. In all my inquiries with regard to the milk-in-schools scheme, I have found that if, by any chance, there is a child who does not need it or does not want it, some other child gets a double quantity. I do not think that there is any hon. Member who would object to another child drinking it rather than have it wasted. The rise in the number of children taking milk in schools has been pretty remarkable. In June, 1946, the number was 3,370,000, or 72 per cent.; in June, 1947, when it was free, the number was 4,300,000, or 92 per cent. In answer to suggestions that have sometimes been made that there is the possibility of harm coming to children from drinking unclean milk, I would say that 94 per cent. of all milk given in schools is either heat-treated 01 tuberculin-tested.

With regard to meals in schools—another question upon which there have been a good many inquiries—I can tell the House that about 50 per cent. of the children to day are receiving such meals. If we have not been able to make the progress which we wanted to make, and are anxious to make, with regard to bringing that 50 per cent. up to 100 per cent., it is simply because we have put the provision of huts, in preparation for the raising of the school-leaving age, before the feeding of children. In view of the difficulties which have been experienced with regard to the shortage of materials, implements, and all the rest of it, I Would like to pay a tribute to the Department responsible for the progress that has been made.

I will now come to the question of further education, and by "further education" I mean what the Act says, which is: (a) a full-time and part-time education for persons over compulsory school age; and (b) leisure-time occupation, in such organized cultural training and recreative activities as are suited to their requirements, for any persons over compulsory school age who are able and willing to profit by the facilities provided for that purpose. I want to pay a tribute to those responsible for introducing that provision into the Education Act, 1944. This is the first time that further education has been imposed as a duty upon local authorities. In the past, it has been a pleasure, and one that was either accepted or not according to the temperament of the members of the local education authorities. Now, for the first time, it is a duty, and it is a duty that is being tackled. I need not emphasise the importance of technical education today, or of any spread of it through further education, which is essential. If all that is said about the economic situation is true, then it seems to me that, purely from an economic point of view, an increase in technical education is a first necessity. This is also being realised by other people. The numbers being released from work on a voluntary basis today, compared with the numbers before the war, are, although not yet too great, rather remarkable. In 1936 and 1937, there were 36,000; in 1947, there are 127,000. That is only four times as many and it is not yet enough, but it is an indication of a realisation of the value of further education from the standpoint of the employer.

As hon. Members know, we have been setting up regional councils all over the country, in order that further education might be properly organised. We have in mind the setting up of a national council, as envisaged by the Percy Report. If the working party set up to advise on the constitution of this national council is going to give it a representative character, with all the administrative interests of the country represented on it, then, every time a meeting is held, it will have to take place in the Albert Hall. I do not think that is the way that we shall get any work done. I want to be sure that the working party finds the best way in which this conception of a national council for technical education can be brought into being.

With regard to evening classes and then value, I do not think I need speak at any length about them. We have all experienced their value. But I think there is something to be said for the students coming fresh to the classes on at least one day a week, and for their being released from work in order to do that. In the planning of further education and county colleges this year and next, and in asking the local authorities to do that, I have in mind that, while at the moment they are occupied with their development plans, it is essential that they should be thinking in terms of the requirements of further education and county colleges, so that when the material and the manpower situation improves, they will be able to go ahead with what is necessary in this direction. Meantime, we are going ahead with the provision of technical teachers and instructors.

In this connection, may I say that industry has a contribution to make towards what we are seeking to do? It can make a contribution by helping in the re-equipment of our technical schools and colleges. When a technician is compelled to work with out-of-date tools, he is not nearly as much value to his employer, who is already engaging his operatives on other types of machinery. Therefore, the necessity for bringing the equipment up to date is obvious. Here may I publicly thank Messrs. Courtaulds for having provided, in connection with their own industry, equipment in the colleges to the tune of £149,000. That is a lead which might well be followed by other far-seeing and intelligent boards of directors. The expenditure of this sum of £149,000 is a good investment for the future, in that it will enable the students, as a result of their training, to give something worth while to the industry. Another way in which industry can assist is by releasing industrialists to give instruction.

I have a lot of confidence in the part-time teacher in technical education. In my young days I had the privilege of attending a technical college at a little place called Accrington, where the pupils were taught the theory of the work which they had to do during the day, and it was of inestimable value. We have all heard of "tatlers' tales"; I have no time to tell any tatlers' tales, but I do know that the tatler, as he is called, or the overlooker in the weaving shed, can be of invaluable assistance in the technical colleges when it comes to teaching. I ask industry, not only in Lancashire but all over the country, to recognise that it has a part to play in further education. But I do not want employers to think only in terms of technical education as it affects their own industry. If further education is to be of value, it must be a liberal education, and not confined to technicians and technicalities. It must be broad in its scope. I remember on one occasion many years ago, when I was working in a mill, I had forgotten the looms that were all round me, and was reading. The overlooker came round, tapped me on the shoulder and said, "What are you doing?" I said, "I was just playing Hamlet." I had a threepenny copy of Shakespeare's "Hamlet"; there was no paper shortage in those days. The overlooker brought me to my senses by saying, "Now I am going to play Hamlet," and he did.

Why should it be thought wrong for the working man to be interested in the best literature? Why should it be re- garded as outside his sphere? We must get away from that attitude. I want the factory worker to be interested in literature, music and the arts. I want a scheme of education embracing technical and other spheres which will give the person engaged in industry an opportunity of utilising such knowledge for his own advancement. If we are moving into an age in which tasks become more monotonous because of the constant inroad of mechanisation, the necessity for thorough training applies not only to a man's technical skill but also to his thoughts while he is doing the monotonous job. If we want an alternative to the football pools, we should fill people's minds with something worth thinking about, and then perhaps they would not waste so much time thinking about pools. From the point of view of the development of further education, the life of the nation can, will and ought to be enriched, for I hold the view that just as the individual dies when he ceases to learn, so does the nation.

I have no time to refer to all the details I wished to talk about, but I would say, with regard to university facilities and the scheme for providing further education so that a man who has spent a period in the Army may resume his studies, that up to date 40,000 awards have been made, and 40,000 individuals are continuing their education under the scheme. I do not know whether one can make comparisons, but in comparison with what took place after the last war, there are already about 15,000 more awards and 15,000 more individuals coming to the universities as a consequence of this scheme. Although we did run into trouble in the early days of the scheme with regard to providing the grants at the right time, we have now reached the stage where we are receiving testimonials. A short time ago the National Union of Students wrote to me: I am directed by the above Committee to write to you on behalf of all the ex-Service students to convey to you and your staff their appreciation of the very prompt payments of grants at the beginning of this term. The original of that letter can be seen in the Ministry. I have no time to deal with the plans which have been made for continuing the education of people when they finish their National Service. When this scheme of further education comes to an end something in the nature of a permanent scheme must take its place, not only for the implementation of the principles of State scholarships but to provide opportunities for those who have spent some time in National Service.

I would like to say a few words on the subject of visual aids, and the great contribution that can be made by the cinema and other forms of visual aids in the classroom. Committees have been established, both on the production side and on the consumers' side, the Ministry and the local authorities, so that we shall be able to ensure that we shall obtain the films which we require for our purpose.

Mr. Cove (Aberavon)

Educational films?

Mr. Tomlinson

Yes. I would add that U.N.E.S.C.O. is doing a practical job. I appreciate that all international organisations take time to become established. U.N.E.S.C.O. has now become established and is getting down to work, and I do not think anybody would deny that this country must play its full part.

I would also have liked to say something about the new grant formula, but that is at present under discussion. While the discussions are going on, we have in mind the necessity for seeking a simple formula so that even the Minister can understand it—and it would be the first time—with the purpose of ensuring that even the poorest authority will be able to carry out the provisions of the Act. The purpose behind the Estimates, and, indeed, behind education, is to provide equality of opportunity—opportunity to develop to the full the faculties of every child, irrespective of his walk in life.

I do not want to underestimate the economic value of education. At this time, especially, it would be foolish to suggest that education has not a contribution to make to our economic recovery, by means of productivity. I believe it has. Nor do I want to suggest it should be the means whereby an individual can obtain a better job in life—even becoming a Member of Parliament. What I do say is that these things, valuable though they may be, are not fundamental. The one purpose—and the primary purpose—of education is to develop to the full the faculties of the child in order that he may be of service to the community and able to live a full free and useful life. Education to enrich life is, I believe, of vital importance.

I have not said anything in the course of these remarks about religious teaching in schools because I believe that religious teaching is not something which is only to be had in the schools at certain times; I believe it has to run through the whole of the child's education, and can be got just as much on the playing fields as in the classrooms. But unless all these schemes we have put forward and all these things we have provided lead at the same time to a development of character, then they are useless. For it is not so much the content of education that determines in the long run what is going to happen; what is going to happen is determined by the use to which the knowledge and the education are put. Therefore, I place first the development of character. I believe all these other things can assist in every walk of life in the development of character The poet said: Be good, sweet maid and let who wilt be clever. I do not like this idea that dullness and goodness go together. I believe it is possible to be clever and to be good, and I do not believe it is of much good to be clever unless one is also good.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler (Saffron Walden)

I am sure the Committee would like me to express our gratitude to the Minister for his review of the position. He conducted it in the style we associate with him, and we are grateful to him for that. He said at the beginning of his speech that he hoped he would not drop any bricks, and I can assure him that he has managed to avoid doing so; but, if he is looking for a few bricks to pick up, let me refer him to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, who stated in the Debate on 28th July—only three days ago—— We are having to close down in certain bricykards because they cannot get orders."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th July, 1947; Vol 441. c. 89.] My advice to the Minister is to make immediate application to the Minister of Health to obtain some bricks, and to build a few more buildings, and all of us in the world of education will be extremely grateful to him. I think there is a moral in that illustration, because if there are brickyards closing down because they cannot get orders, surely we in the world of education should be the first to have a chance to use those bricks which are available.

The 1944 Act was an act of faith. At the time, those of us who were responsible for it—and we were a very large team, including the right hon. Gentleman who is at present His Majesty's Home Secretary—realised that it was an act of faith. We realised, I think, the history that had followed upon the 1918 Act; we realised the lags in the education services that were bound to occur after the war; and I think we all realised the economic difficulties which would follow the war period. It has been satisfactory to the world of education that we have retained a certain priority in the midst of the extreme difficulties which the country has been facing. Certain actions have been taken which have illustrated that we in the world of education still command a great deal of public notice, and that the subject to which we are devoted is still in the forefront of people's minds.

But I must say that we are now facing a far greater economic storm than even the language of the Minister of Education revealed to the Committee today; and we are facing what is going to be a great crisis of postwar education in the immediate future. Nothing that I say today will be designed to make the task of those responsible, in the authorities or in the Ministry, more difficult; but I must put it to them that unless they grip essentials, and have hard and certain priorities, and unless the Minister can obtain from his own Government the priorities he and his subject deserve, the country must be made aware that we cannot carry out all these essential reforms as quickly as we should like. I think there are bound to be disappointments. I must say that, because I was so largely responsible for the reforms. I can only hope that the Government will bring to this matter in the months that lie immediately ahead some of the energy and drive which they have used in changing the economic order. I hope they will do that. I think it will be done only by sticking to essentials.

That is why I ask the Government to devote their utmost attention to the administrative problem of actually running the Department, in conjunction with the authorities—getting buildings up and getting teachers into the right places. That is why I am not going to say anything today about the projects which are near my heart, such as U.N.E.S.C.O. or other matters, because I do not believe that energy should be diverted at the present moment to any channel other than that of actually making the educational machine work and providing as many opportunities as possible for the children. The Minister himself, at the end of his remarks, mentioned U.N.E.S.C.O. I would only say that with the shortage of clerical assistance I now have, and the shortage of transport, I was unable to bring with me all the documents sent me from the U.N.E.S.C.O. offices, and from their representatives in London. In fact, I have not even been able so far to go through all of them. The remarkable fact is that they contain far more sense than I imagined they would when I first started perusing them. I am obliged to the Minister for giving me the opportunity to serve on the National Committee. But even in that international venture let us stick to the simple points people can understand, and then the real worth of the venture will become more readily appreciable to our own citizens and to this Committee. Meanwhile, I wish those responsible for it well, in pursuing their work and in clarifying their objects.

The Minister concluded with some remarks with which I am entirely in agreement—that character is the essential need in the content of what is taught. I appeal to him to link education, as I believe he would like to do, with the practical side of living in this country. There are two aspects—one of which he mentioned, and the other of which I will mention—of that linking, to which I want to refer. First, I am convinced that in this country there is an immense body of people who are devoted to the cause of education. What in America, where I have just been, would be described as the "education lobby" is a very large one. Those who are devoting their lives to education, whether as administrators, teachers, parents, whoever they may be, cherish the ideal which was, I think, born in the period when we were passing the 1944 Act, that we should create in England a system of education which, for the first time in the history of the world, would prove that a mass system was a possibility and could be a working success. That has never yet been proved, and it is up to our small country to prove it. Unless we can prove it, I do not believe that Britain's social experiment, in which so many of us on both sides of the Committee are involved, can possibly succeed. Therefore, on the psychological and the social side, I consider education is the most important matter in England today.

The second aspect was referred to by the Minister. It is the practical contribution that education can make to our economic recovery. I claim—and, I believe, without the possibility of contradiction—that many of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues, and certainly many of my own, and many on all sides who are not here today swelling our ranks, may feel that a day on education is a convenient occasion for some to spout their views and enjoy themselves on their own pet subject. But, in fact, do they realise that the educative process lies at the very basis of our recovery or non-recovery from the present crisis, and that unless we encourage skills in the industries, we cannot possibly produce those products which will make our balance of payments a great deal healthier than it is at the present time? In industry generally, I believe that skills will be the absolute test of whether or not Britain resumes her proud industrial position in the world. Therefore, I believe that our subject, far from being an academic subject, is the most practical in the world, and absolutely vital to present discussions on the economic crisis. I think it is socially, psychologically and practically imperative that the Minister should retain a large degree of priority in his work.

I do not want to apply a sort of machine-made generalisation to the content of education itself, for I do not believe the Minister did. Recently I met an economic planner—I hasten to say he was not the chief planner—who said to me: One value I can see in your education "—of which he obviously had a very low opinion—" is that you can gradually produce in the schools children who are planning conscious, who will themselves be so accustomed to linking each other's lives together that they will never be sundered as they leave the schools. Thus, our children can start planning from the schools themselves." That is exactly contrary to the view which we on this side of the Committee hold, and which is, I trust, held throughout the ranks of the Committee this afternoon. The vital thing is to produce individual character in children. If children are strong enough they will survive even the operations of economic planners, and, as a result, they may in the end even produce a good plan. But if they are not strong, they will never coalesce and form a team out of which we can build the unity of this country and ensure its success in the years to come.

What the Minister said in the concluding part of his speech was once summed up by Matthew Arnold in the words: "In education information is really the least part." If that be the case, let us concentrate, as far as we can in our present difficulties, on the right content in the schools. In this connection I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to what extent His Majesty's Inspectorate has been enlarged; to what extent its terms of employment have been improved; and to what extent its inspectors are at present able to visit schools, revert to their proper duty, and report on the content? I do not believe that the inspectorate is an ideal piece of machinery for use as a sort of delegated administration from Whitehall. Although through out the war years, inspectors, with great agility, and sometimes great concealment of their incapacity to do the job, undertook tasks which were quite unknown to them—such as the fixing of stove pipes and similar matters—I do not believe they were chosen for that purpose. Their object is to go into the schools, to help the teachers, and to present reports to the Minister so that the content of education can be improved the country over.

While I am dealing with the content, let me deal also with the physical welfare of the children. The Minister referred to the meals and milk service. My information, from what I can pick up from authorities, is that there has been a slight recession in the milk consumption since the maximum figure which the Minister quoted. If that be the case, I should like confirmation of it. There are also considerable advances to be made in the provision of meals. I believe there are some 25 authorities feeding less than 30 per cent. of their pupils at the present time, 73 authorities feeding between 30 and 50 per cent., and six or seven who have reached the 70 per cent. level. I should like an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that the priority given to school meals and milk by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor will be maintained, because in the difficulties we shall encounter in the next few months we shall have a position similar to that which I had to face during the war. If we can get the right priorities from the Minister of Food, it is certain that the children will get at least their midday meal at school and not have to eat their fathers' or mothers' rations. That will be just as important in the months that lie ahead of us as it was during wartime.

I now want to touch, quite briefly, on the different types of school and on the development plans. Just as I hope the Minister will chase up those authorities who have not had great success over their meals plan, so I hope he will also produce from the 17 local education authorities the development plans, of which a draft has been submitted, without undue delay. There are only one or two things which strike me as being possibly wrong in the development plans—which again I have had to obtain by hearsay from the authorities. First, it appears that certain authorities have gone rather mad on the multilateral idea, and have decided that something in the nature of factory schools must be established with an indefinite number of pupils. I want to make clear that I am not against the multilateral principle as an educational principle. Many of the best schools in this country have, for some years, been multilateral, until their discovery by the official side. Therefore, when the multilateral principle is put into force and approved in plans by the Ministry, I hope that it will be approved in cases where the school is able to retain a life and a personality of its own, with a contact between teachers and taught.

I am not against the large school in itself, but I am in favour of the retention of as many small schools as possible. I am not in favour, and I do not think any hon. Member on this side of the Committee is in favour, of the retention of, for example, small, disused, unhealthy village one-teacher schools. I do not want to stand for that. So in what I want to say now about the Church schools I hope the Committee will be patient with me, because there are two technical matters to which I want to refer. As the Committee probably realise, the negotiation of what was known as the religious settlement took a very long time—some two or two and a half years—and I hope that it has, in the end, done away with one of the most grievous religious and political subjects in our public life. If that be the case, I am most anxious to see it working in the way its authors intended, and I want to draw attention to two difficulties which have arisen in regard to what I call the religious settlement.

The first arises through the development plan. There are certain county authorities who have decided not to include in their development plan a large number of Church schools. They have decided this, I believe, under the fear of economic difficulty, because of teacher supply, access to buildings, and so forth. Some of them may have done it from prejudice, but I am not claiming that in every case, or in very many cases. Whatever be the reason, the fact is that if a large proportion of the two-teacher and bigger Church schools are not included in the development plan at all, the whole object of the religious settlement, which was to give to these schools the option between aided and controlled status, is removed at birth, and a sort of massacre of the innocents takes place. Here, I do not want to deny a word of the settlement—and I believe the controlled status was one of the great discoveries of the Act—nor do I want to stop the small schools to which I have referred, which we never thought should be stopped. I merely want to appeal to the Minister, when he is examining the development plans of county authorities which have decided to mutilate at birth the old option of Church schools, to give proper consideration to the retention of such voluntary schools as he thinks are sound and suitable for their district, and then to give them the option which we intended under what I have described as the religious settlement. To the managers and governors I say that I hope they will take the opportunity, under the requisite Section of the Act, of making their case known now, throughout the length and breadth of the country, so that a fair decision may be reached by the Ministry.

Secondly, the Anglican community, at any rate, is very distressed about something in the Act, for which I must accept full responsibility, namely, the need for voluntary schools to opt between aided and controlled status within a six months' period after the approval of the development plan. That puts the managers and the community in a very difficult position, because, although it is quite clear that with the priority already given to building by the Government, these schools cannot be altered or rebuilt, or new schools provided, for many years ahead, this choice has to be made now, when there is no certainty what the building costs will be 10 or 15 years ahead. I know the difficulties of amending legislation, but if there were any such suggestion, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it would receive very sympathetic consideration from Members on this side, and that we should endeavour to bring to bear on any suggestion made, the attention it deserved, in the spirit in which most of us approached the religious question during the discussions on the Act.

I want to refer next to the plight of the primary schools. Sometimes I think that many of us are apt to spend too much time on the magic formula of a free secondary education for all, and to forget that a real crisis is arising in our primary schools, apparently because the Minister has recruited some four men teachers to each woman teacher. I do not believe many of these gallant male recruits to the teaching profession will be particularly useful in the primary sphere, or that women in the secondary sphere will want to go back to primary status. There seems a real danger of shortage among women teachers, and a real danger of crisis in our primary schools. There was one phrase in the Minister's speech which I think was too optimistic. He said that there was no question of a shortage of teachers preventing the carrying out of the Act as a whole. I believe that for some years ahead the Minister will have considerable difficulty, and I should like a further reply on what views the Interim Committee have about the bigger recruitment of women teachers, and the possibility of setting aside some of the existing colleges for girls waiting to do their two years' course, and taking active steps to recruit more women for the teaching profession.

For goodness sake do not lose any of the men, because there are plenty of jobs for them all. When looking at the size of classes, we realise how many teachers are required, and that the Minister has a great problem to solve in this connection. I am informed—and these are optimistic figures—that there are still over 2,000 classes of over 50, and nearly 3,000 with more than 40 pupils over 11. I know of many cases, especially in some of our great cities, where classes are so large that the fundamental educational conception of the relationship between teacher and taught simply does not exist. Until we can get over that, we shall never have real educational reform.

The last point about primary schools is this. I have been informed by primary school teachers that some rather startling literature is apt to be circulated in these schools. I do not want to give the name of the periodical I have in my hand, because one is rather nervous at the moment about any contacts with these matters; nor do I want to give this document any spurious publicity. I notice it claims on the outside to have educational features, but inside I can find only an extreme precocity in the art of love-making and other such activities, which seem to me to be rather unsuitable for children of seven. At a time when the newsprint question is so serious, the right hon. Gentleman might examine whether schoolbooks might not have more paper, and some of these documents, however cheerful—I do not want to spoil the fun—a little less paper.

In the secondary sphere, I want to ask the Minister one or two questions on a danger which is arising, namely, that of administrative interference in the lives of some of our aided schools. It was always the intention under the Act—and I am reading from the White Paper—that aided secondary schools should be: ensured, under the Act of an independence hardly, if at all, less than they enjoy at present. Under the articles of government as they have been considered, amended or approved, I must confess that certain authorities, and notably the L.C.C., seem to us to be interpreting these sentiments in a way not intended at the time. We do not feel it is right to reduce the governing bodies virtually to a state of im- potence, with the payment of teachers' salaries being made from the central office, with school supplies being obtained centrally, taking away the initiative from the teachers and governing bodies, and with holidays being regulated from the central office. I appeal, therefore, for some assurance that liberty will be left to these aided schools in their struggle to preserve a real school life for themselves.

On the subject of the Burnham Award, I agree that it would be unwise, while it is sub judice, for us to press the matter. Those who have been speaking about the difficulties of staffing secondary schools should realise that the salary scale is not the only difficulty they have to face. I am convinced that there is a great leakage of teachers into industry with its higher rewards, particularly in the realms of science. Let us take at its face value the statement of the Minister that he is offering encouragement to the grammar schools. Academic excellence is at the basis of all good education. It is by no means the only education, as the Minister said, but it is vital if you are to develop your brain to the best of its ability and encourage the highest standards among all the pupils. That has been the tradition of the grammar schools, and I confidently hope that when the Burnham Committee reports, we may find that grammar schools especially will be able to recruit their staff more easily.

On building, I wish to say this. I was responsible for approving the building regulations, but in my opinion some of these regulations are too severe in present times and in the present emergency. I notice that at least one major authority has made representations on this subject in a published statement. I hope it may be possible for the Minister to re-examine the standards laid down, not with a view to letting shoddy and second-class buildings pass through, but with the view to showing a little commonsense about the use of certain classrooms existing at present, not built to those standards we laid down. I was not particularly anxious at the time to reduce the standard of the building regulations, because I realised they formed part and parcel of the general understanding with the religious denominations. Even those who have to administer the Act, and those who are most keen to see the regulations as stiff as possible, are now making representations to the Minister that a little more common sense is necessary. Therefore, as I have stood in a white sheet, I hope the Minister will pay attention to this matter, and enable buildings to be passed which, on grounds of common sense, are healthy and proper for schoolchildren.

The Minister made some interesting and valuable remarks on the subject of relationship between school and work. He referred to the efforts of certain industries to help, and I should like to say—having had some contact with education in industry as an occupation in leisure moments, and having done my best to encourage it—that I have been extremely gratified by the spirit which prevails in industry on the subject of education. There is hardly a big firm which has not appointed an education officer and started an education department. That all the big firms know where they are going I would not like to say, because it is difficult to know where all this will lead. But in the economic crisis we are now facing I believe that the Minister can get some first-class assistance from industry. I would not, however, like him to be inspired by some of the language in this pink document I have here, which is entitled "School and Life." In it there is this curious piece of English: The object of education is men and women, industry aims at producing coal and textiles breakfast cereals and cinema films, newspapers and cosmetics, and other economic goods. In industry the worker is part of a process ending in goods; in education he is an end in himself This means that industrial organisation, of which a worker forms a part, will not be concerned with the claims of the whole man, which education develops, and it would be surprising if industry could ever supply a full education. Leaving aside that somewhat staccato English, I do not agree with these sentiments. I think it would be wrong for anybody connected with industry, whether nationalised or private enterprise, to regard men or women, or adolescents in industry, as not being whole. I think we must bring education and industry much closer together, and not have in the minds of educationists the sort of idea that anything organised anywhere near a works is something wicked which bloated capitalists will exploit for their own ends. Most industries I have had contact with would be ready, if only there were enough Government inspectors of schools, to put the whole of the content of any schools they might undertake under the control of those inspectors. They also wish that the teachers should come from the general teachers' pool. I believe that you have here a partner who will become invaluable in the years to come. Make sure that the motives are right, and that there are the right controls, and I am convinced that here is an opportunity of carrying out part of the objects of the Education Act.

I agree, however, with the latter portion of the document from which I have just quoted, which says: Works' schools are no actual substitute for county colleges. A lot of us have been trying to release young people and give them an opportunity of starting the continuation idea before the Government introduce their national scheme, and I hope that those schemes which have been started in industry will be encouraged. Remember that Fisher in his Act included the same provisions as we put into the 1944 Act. They broke down because some districts were allowed to start, and others lagged behind. We cannot face the shame, however great the economic crisis might be, of letting the continuation portion of this Act break down again. Let us use every device for starting it off. If the crisis is too difficult to enable us to provide immediate buildings, let us use every device and every element of compromise to get children used to the idea of proper daytime release. In this connection, I was glad to hear from the Minister of the 127,000 releases which are taking place.

I want to stress, finally, what I said at the beginning, the importance of associating educationists, education, and school with everyday working life. This can happen in the case of nursery schools, to which women will be only too glad to have the chance of sending their children so that they can have leisure time for themselves. It will happen in all other spheres, the adult sphere, the further educational sphere, some of the colleges which are beginning to be opened for adult education, and further education generally. We shall get Lilliputian links between school, further education, and life. The success of the Act depends upon how closely these links with life become. If education remains remote academic exercises, it will go down. If it becomes a practical inspiration in our national life, then educationists will lead the country. It is the only great activity in which these words can be used, It scattereth, yet increases, and that is the thought we ought to have in our minds.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. Dryden Brook (Halifax)

I want to confine myself to a rather limited field in this Debate. The Minister touched briefly on what must be looked upon as the coping stone of our educational system—boys and girls who have passed through primary and secondary schools, and are capable of going forward to university education—and I want to refer to the provision which is made, and which should be made, for that group of children. As a background to what I have to say I can refer to what both the Minister and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) have said about the importance, in the present economic crisis, of having at our disposal, in research departments of industry, and in industry generally, the greatest amount of scientific knowledge we can possibly bring to bear. But I would be the last person to think that all our university education should be devoted to the acquisition of scientific knowledge. I would agree that in the present enormous amount of concentration on technical and scientific education generally, we are tending to lose sight of the importance of the arts in relation to the whole problem of education. I want to try to link together the relationship between university education and the complete life of our people. If we are asked: Is there a wider field of choice for entry into our universities than has hitherto been looked upon as being the case, we have only to refer to the report of the Barlow Committee, which says: There is only one in five of the ablest boys and girls actually reaching the universities. There is, clearly, an ample reserve of intelligence in the country to allow double the university numbers and, at the same time, raise the standard. If other argument is necessary as to the means of the provision in this sphere, I think we can look at the 1944 Act.

If we are to complete the broad highway of educational opportunities which that Act envisages, the logical conclusion is that university education must be free to all who are capable of profiting from it. If we look at the position as it exists today and the latest statement of the Minister, we see provision for 750 State scholarships which provide for full maintenance on a means-test basis. Accompanying that, we have provision for 100 technical scholarships and 20 matured scholarships. We have approximately, 1,200 university awards, supplemented in many cases by the State. We have 1,500 to 2,000 major scholarships provided by local education authorities, and we have approximately 2,000 teacher training grants made by the Minister. On top of that, there is the temporary wartime provision under the Further Education and Training scheme under which, I believe, there are this year some 14,000 grants, which also make provision for full maintenance and for wives and children; and there are 1,000 State bursaries. Under the decision of the Minister the last two categories will finish this year, and it is incumbent upon this Committee and upon the Ministry to formulate a permanent policy to take the place of what is disappearing this year.

The first thing one notices about the provisions I have mentioned is a lack of co-ordination, differing standards, and different provisions by the local education authorities, by the fact that the local education authorities do not all take full consideration of the ministerial exhortation. I happen to be still a member of a local education authority in a town with some 90,000 inhabitants. We have at present under the scheme submitted by the Ministry, 47 students actually at the universities. I tried to do a simple sum, and I found that if that provision were made throughout the country on the same basis by the local education authorities they would be providing between two and three times the number of scholarships which they are providing at the present time.

That means that we are making provision for some 5,000 or 6,000 students, independent of the scheme for Further Education and Training and the State bursaries. Of an approximate entry into the universities of roughly 20,000, and that entry should be doubled in ten years time provided we take notice of the recommendation of the Barlow Committee. Of that 5,000 or 6,000, some 2,000 are in respect of teacher training grants. It is obvious that there must be a large increase, and that there must be co-ordination and elimination of the anomalies that exist.

To name one of these anomalies, under the means test for a major scholarship, either through the Minister or through the local education authority, the parents' responsibility does not begin until the income is £600 a year; whereas under the teachers' training scheme the responsibility begins at £300 a year. Therefore, we have the anomaly, from the beginning, that whereas a parent with an income of £600 a year and a major scholarship will pay nothing, the parents with an income of £600 a year will be called upon to pay £35 a year under the teachers' training scheme. Anomalies exist in respect of the cost of maintenance. The day student, man or woman, at the London University is assessed for maintenance at £100 a year. The day student at a London or any other training college is assessed for maintenance at £60 a year or a woman at £48 a year. There we have brought in sex distinction. For the first time, we have the amazing anomaly that the cost of maintenance of a day student at a training college is less than half the cost of maintenance at the London or provincial universities.

Professor Gruffydd (University of Wales)

Is it not the case that these are in training hostels and therefore the cost is less?

Mr. Dryden Brook

If a student at the university is in a hostel, the provision for maintenance is assessed at £185 a year for London and £160 a year for the provinces, so that the question put by the hon. Gentleman does not really arise. The boarding at training colleges is assessed by the Ministry at £100 a year. In putting forward his new scheme of scholarships, the Minister provides in paragraph 2 of Circular 137 that in order to provide a more even distribution of State scholars arrangements will be made for allocating to each university or university college a quota of State scholars. There is the possibility of escaping that provision because the student will be able to switch from being a State scholar to being a London education authority scholar without suffering financial embarrassment. At the present time, the local education scholarship is exactly on the same basis as the State scholarship from the point of view of maintenance, if the local education authority is implementing to the full the scheme put forward by the Minister. If this happens there is a switch of financial responsibility from the Minister to the local education authority.

As to the future, my own opinion is that no one entitled to enter a university on merit should be debarred on financial grounds from doing so, and if we estimate, as in all probability some people will estimate at the present time, that the means in the exchequer are limited, then my own feeling would be to offer assistance to a maximum number of students on a need basis rather than to abolish entirely university fees or to remove the income limit. The latter method would assist the wealthier student at the expense of the poorer student. In respect of entry through the education and training scheme, as the Minister's statement lays down, entry to a university will establish a qualification for grant. That must have some application in respect of the general entry into the university later on. If that is accepted, the system should, in my judgment, be based on meeting the fees, the cost of books and equipment and maintenance on 52 weeks a year basis and not on the number of weeks the student is at the university, and travelling expenses and assistance should be at the disposal of all students who reach a recognised standard. That is not the case at the present time.

The Barlow Report states that on the basis of measured intelligence, 80 per cent. of the university population should be ex-elementary school and 20 per cent. from other sources. At the present time, the disposition is under 50 per cent. from the elementary schools and 50 per cent from other sources. That shows we are wasting capacity in children coming from the elementary schools. If I were asked what should be the pattern for the future, it seems to me that there are three main factors—first university scholarships which are at the disposal at the present time of university authorities because of invested funds; second, the local education authorities' scholarship, many of which are based on full maintenance and payment on a means test basis; third, the State award. The complexity in my mind is as to which of the second or third should be the residuary legatee in respect of the issue of scholarships in the future

The standards which we have at the present time vary in respect of local education authority scholarships. Many local education authorities base their awards on the higher school certificate in relation to which there are various tests as to what standard in that certificate a boy or girl reaches. In my own authority in Halifax the two "goods" standard is the basis and on that basis that education authority is prepared to grant a major scholarship, but other authorities have the pass standard, which is a lower standard. I think the two "goods" standard is high, and in justification for that I will give an example which happened in my own Committee. The Committee were deciding whether a youth who had gone from Halifax to a medical course and who had not reached the required standard should be awarded a major scholarship. He had not reached that standard, but in the first year he was top of the class in respect of the work done during the whole of the year.

There is the question of what is the standard to be fixed. The State scholarship is on a higher grade than the local authority, and we have been told that the Minister at the present time is carrying out an inquiry about the whole business of external examination, and into that inquiry will come that higher school certificate. My own suggestion would be to make one examination common to all which would suit the standard both for entering a university and for a scholarship whether State or local authority. We should do away with the distinction between the local education authority scholarship and the State scholarship, because the same financial value is attached to both and the student can go on a State scholarship or on a local authority scholarship to the same university and in the same way. Thus the Minister would have a common standard and a common measure for all local education authorities. He would be able to go to local education authorities and say that all those who have reached this standard were fit to go forward to a university and benefit by the education which is given there, and the community itself cannot afford that they should miss that opportunity, for if they miss that opportunity then we miss potential value in regard to our industrial and social problems and our problems of life as a whole. Therefore, we consider that the local education authority must face their responsibilities and accept them by providing the means whereby this boy or girl is enabled to go forward and complete an educational career.

If the Minister is going to accept that suggestion it does bring into very bold relief the problem I mentioned a moment or two ago about the finances behind local education authorities. It does relate to the financial position and it makes the problem of the revision of the grant formula more urgent than ever. Such a revision should make for more equitable division of the cost as between national and local education the responsibility of which is of first rate importance. The present rate burden, I am given to understand, is that which was previously fixed by the Minister as being probable in the seventh year of the new educational development, and yet we are only in the initial stages of that development. The capacity to pay is an increasing burden and varies from one local education authority to another. Therefore, if a new system is brought into operation it must be borne in mind that the danger in rising costs may determine the progressive education authorities' policy, which might embarrass those who are most anxious to go forward in their relationship with the other sections of the municipal life.

I speak of that problem advisedly, because I am connected with a local education authority and I realise the difficulty. Therefore, I hope the Minister, who has already made a promise that such a review is taking place, will be able to make an announcement of the results of his consideration of the problem before the next financial year comes round in April, 1948. If he does that, I think he will lay the foundations for building a framework of university education which will be a credit to his Ministry and will be of service to this country in both the economic and social field.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay (Combined English Universities)

I appreciate that there are a large number of Members who wish to speak in this Debate. Therefore, I do not propose to detain the Committee long. I think it is a complete disgrace that after two years of this Government this is the first time we have had a whole day allocated to a Debate on education. The last time it was considered on the Estimates, I think it was Palestine which interrupted us halfway through and we started half an hour late. I want to put it on record that it is quite unfair when so many Members want to participate in this Debate, particularly large numbers of the majority party, who are interested in education, not to be given further time to discuss these matters.

The hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Dryden Brook) has a keen appreciation of university education and has raised a first class question, namely, what is going to replace the further Education and Training scheme. My figures are that two-thirds of the students—I should like to get them officially contradicted—who go to universities after this scheme is finished will have to pay. There are 67,000 students at the universities, and if we add up the figures which the hon. Member for Halifax gave, it will give a total of about 6,000 a year. If we multiply the figure by three or four years it comes to something between 18,000 and 24,000, so that over two-thirds will have to dip into their fathers' pockets and the money will not be there. There will not be £200 forthcoming from the average family.

My friends at Oxford tell me that the colleges will not be filled, Barlow Report or no Barlow Report, because they will not be able to pay the £250 at that university. At the present moment it is not true that 90 per cent. are coming from the Services to the universities. At the universities I represent in this House the figure is more like fifty-fifty. It is only Oxford, Cambridge and London which have the 90 per cent. ex-Service men. In Manchester, Liverpool or some of the other universities the figure is as low as 30 or 40 per cent. according to Faculty. This question must be carefully examined by the Minister. We did have a few questions about it the other day and I am grateful personally for everything that is being done in this connection.

The other point I want to raise is the question of administration. It is too big a question to go into in detail but I am less nervous owing to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister has experience of local education authorities. If we look back over the history of English education we find that its progress is due to local leaders, Henry Morris at Cambridge, Sir Robert Martin and Sir H. Buckington in Leicestershire, Dr. Schofield at Loughborough, Wright Robinson in Manchester, Acland in Devonshire, and so on. It is such chairmen of education committees and distinguished directors who have developed education policy, and the county architects, as for instance, in Derbyshire——

Mr. Cove

And the local Labour leaders.

Mr. Lindsay

That depends entirely on the area. Some Liberals, some Quakers and others of different views have been associated with the development of education. At any rate, they are distinguished men.