HC Deb 20 March 1953 vol 513 cc447-56

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Wills.]

4.1 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey (Sunderland, North)

Now we leave the public schools and turn to what is often described as the working men's university, namely, adult education. I asked the right hon. Lady yesterday whether she was in a position to make a statement about the reduction of grants for adult education and she replied that she was not; that she was still considering the information and holding discussions with the bodies concerned. That was an unsatisfactory reply, or, as the Lord Mayor of London might have said, a thoroughly unsatisfactory reply.

Before we proceed further with this discussion, let me say that I am sure the House is grateful to the right hon. Lady for attending to reply to what I have to say about the action taken on adult education. I had expected the Parliamentary Secretary to reply, but I can well understand he has a good reason for not being here. In informed circles he is regarded as the instigator of this proposal. I read recently in the "Schoolmaster," the official journal of the National Union of Teachers, which is a non-political body: People connected with adult education have been looking dubiously towards the future for some months. They had regarded the appointment of Mr. Kenneth Pickthorn to the Parliamentary Secretaryship as an unfavourable omen, for in a time of economy his notorious opposition to adult education in general and to the W.E.A. in particular could hardly be reassuring …. Mr. Pickthorn has at last managed to break through a year and a half s undistinguished occupancy of the Parliamentary Secretaryship by striking a serious blow at the W.E.A. and the University tutorial classes. The position is that last year the bodies conducting adult education faced considerable difficulties through suffering a concealed cut. Last year no allowance was made to offset their rising costs. The right hon. Lady has now suggested that cuts of 10 per cent. might be made on 1st August in the Ministry grants to bodies such as the Workers' Educational Association and the Universities Council for Adult Education, which are responsible for carrying on adult education.

It is estimated that the amount so saved would be £30,000 or £40,000 a year. In the jubilee year of W.E.A., to achieve what everyone will agree is a trivial economy in the educational field, the right hon. Lady is prepared to consider making this savage blow at the adult education movement. 1 would appeal to the right hon. Lady not to share all the prejudices of the Parliamentary Secretary or to do irreparable harm to what the "Manchester Guardian" has referred to as one of the great fertilising agents in our culture. The "Manchester Guardian" reflects Liberal opinion in this country, and in the next few weeks the party opposite will be paying great regard to Liberal opinion in a constituency adjacent to mine.

It is no wonder, therefore, that the Trades Union Congress immediately denounced this threatened cut as "a most reactionary decision," and I do not think they were altogether consoled by the fine phraseology of the Prime Minister's reply. They would like a specific assurance that the right hon. Lady has been told not to continue with these threatened cuts, because as the "Manchester Guardian" said: No worse field for this derisory economy could have been found …. The damage done may be incalculable. I will be as charitable to the right hon. Lady as many of the critics. I do not think she appreciates the true value of the adult education movement. I agree with the "Manchester Guardian" when it says: In the circles within which the Minister [and the Parliamentary Secretary] move … all this may seem but a pale and needless echo of the real thing—of education as enjoyed by the elect. This is not a superfluous frill to our education system, but part of the essential structure. If there has been misjudgment, muddle and mismanagement, as is suggested in one of the technical education journals, at any rate let the right hon. Lady, now that she has had an opportunity of reviewing it, put the matter right and say specifically and without any dubiety that these organisations are not to be further prejudiced.

She should recognise, further, that in the complex society which is growing up nowadays it is of tremendous value to have voluntary organisations flourishing. She should take pride with us that, since the end of the war, the W.E.A. has trebled its membership. This is a thing we should welcome on both sides of the House; we should go out of our way to aid all the voluntary organisations we possibly can.

I know full well that the right hon. Lady is a very skilful debater. She has an ingenious dexterity for drawing us away from the real issues, and I suspect that she may be going to tell us something about the Education Estimates. That is entirely irrelevant. I am not in a position to debate, and I do not intend to debate, because I have not the time, the real meaning of the £12 million increase in the Estimates. I can only go by her Memorandum, which explains that it is due to growth of school population, increase of teachers' salaries, increased expenditure on technical education and the continuing rise in costs, which the Government have partly promoted. I am concerned about maintaining educational standards.

I am not satisfied, from a preliminary view, that we will maintain education standards this year. I should have thought it would be common ground that we simply must in this country, even at a cost to other services, maintain our education services as a top priority. If we are to do that, I plead with the right hon. Lady to think again about what is generally described as "this trivial reduction" in the amount of the education grant of £30,000 to £40,000, against a background of £227 million. To achieve this economy, the right hon. Lady is threatening something which goes to the very roots of our democratic way of life, and it will be a cruel blow to the voluntary enthusiasm of many people who are deliberately and consciously trying to do their utmost to promote education in this country.

I myself have played a very humble part, because I have taught for little remuneration at great effort. What I have enjoyed above everything else in sharing in the enthusiasm of adult education work. In this jubilee year we pay tribute to and celebrate the enormous work done by Dr. Mansbridge, Archbishop Temple, Professor Tawney, and countless others —I emphasise "countless others"—who have sought no fame but have given hours and hours of patient toil evening after evening to promote the general interests of education.

In those circumstances, and recognising the advance that we have made since the war, it would be a rather shameful and squalid thing to impose this cut and to prejudice this voluntary work and so dishearten these people. The grants are the recognition by the State of the work that they have been doing, a recognition that they have earned as a reward. The voluntary bodies make their contribution, too. from their side.

Does the hon. Lady persist in this threat? Are the kind words of the Prime Minister no more than kind words? Really it is not a difficult matter to decide. This does not demand some painstaking inquiry into book-keeping. Indeed, it should be done year by year. The Minister should be fully informed about the way in which these bodies are run. Personally, I would tolerate a little inefficiency for work to be done voluntarily, so that the voluntary bodies might be left to carry on the work rather than have it taken over by the State.

I am afraid that from now on all matters of this kind will suffer from Her Majesty's Government by being looked upon as trivial frills. But what could be regarded as inessentials are essential to our democratic way of life as we believe in it. Therefore, I ask the right hon. Lady not to put off her decision any longer. She must now know the valuable work that is being done. She must know that it would be a great encouragement if she said at once that she recognises this work and that in this, the Jubilee year of the W.E.A., far from discouraging these bodies, she will give them this encouragement so that enheartened they can go on with their work.

4.12 p.m.

The Minister of Education (Miss Florence Horsbrugh)

Since the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) has referred to my hon. Friend not being here, may I say that one does not know when a Minister is required and my hon. Friend was in charge of the previous debate. I arranged to take this one because he has not been concerned in these discussions.

The hon. Gentleman said he was sorry that in answer to a Question yesterday he was told that I was not ready to make a statement. He said that surely it cannot be difficult to decide. Whether the method of this organisation is right or wrong, a grant is paid separately to each of the 24 extra-mural or adult education departments of universities or university colleges and to each of the 17 districts of the W.E.A. As the hon. Gentleman and the House know, I have asked for certain information which has to come from those bodies. The last set of figures came in at the end of last week, and I have not yet had a full week in which to analyse those facts and figures, which has to be done before I can proceed with my discussions in the light of them.

The hon. Gentleman said that I have decided upon a 10 per cent. cut and he asked me to withdraw it. Has he considered, had I decided on a 10 per cent. cut, why I did not put it in the Estimates and why I asked people to discuss anything with me? If a decision had been taken there would have been no discussions. Today I cannot say a single word about the facts and figures that have been brought to my notice since the discussions took place. When I am in the middle of discussions it is not my way of doing business to tell other people the details of what is happening. Discussions are going on, and until we get these facts and figures and have discussions with those who are in charge, nothing can be said on that from my point of view.

Mr. Willey

How did it come about that the public protests were made and discussions followed those protests?

Miss Horsbrugh

The discussions took place long beforehand, beginning, I think, on 7th January. If the hon. Member wants to know further about how the publicity took place, all I can say is that his hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) has informed us in conversations in the corridors throughout the House; but that has nothing to do with me.

The discussions were going on, and at one stage in them certain publicity was given and it was said that there had been a 10 per cent. cut. I have made no reply to that. The discussions continued—

Mr. Frederick Peart (Workington)

When the right hon. Lady refers to an hon. Member in that way, she should be precise or keep to the tradition of the House by not revealing conversations outside the Chamber.

Miss Horsbrugh

I will continue—

Mr. Peart

What does it mean?

Miss Horsbrugh

I made that suggestion in case hon. Members wanted to know anything further, because I will give no information at all about discussions. What I can tell the House today —and I am glad of the opportunity—is the situation before the discussions began and the facts and figures as far as we have them.

When discussing education for adults, we ought to look at the wider view. No one is keener than I on a good service of education for adults. I want to get a better service, and I believe that we can get it. I certainly agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland, North on the value of voluntary work. As the hon. Gentleman knows, adult education is provided by the local education authorities in their further education courses, and I am pleased to say that the volume of the work in what is called the liberal, as apart from the vocational, subjects has increased enormously, as have the numbers attending for instruction. The average fee is about 15s.

The grant-aided expenditure for this went up last year to £20 million, and it will be seen that in the Estimates this year it is up to above £21 million. In addition, to put the matter in proper perspective, there are grants to various national organisations for liberal adult education, including the National Federation of Women's Institutes, the National Union of Townswomen's Guilds, the Rural Music Schools Association, the British Drama League and others.

Then there are the grants to the rive residential colleges which provide one-year and two-year courses in liberal subjects to which the Ministry make direct grant; namely, Ruskin, Hillcroft, Fircroft, Coleg Harlech and the Catholic Working Men's College. We are increasing this work, at least one college —I think, Fircroft—with the encouragement and assistance of the Ministry, having recently opened a new wing.

The hon. Member referred to two particular bodies: the extra-mural university work and the W.E.A. As we all know, these are closely connected. In many cases the W.E.A. organise the class and collect the students and the extramural departments supply the lecturer. In some cases the extra-mural staff work entirely by themselves in extension lectures. Some are run by a joint committee with the W.E.A. and others are run by the W.E.A. alone. I make that point, because disentangling the figures is by no means easy.

I will not take up time in analysing the grants paid out to these responsible bodies each year, because I have given this information in Parliamentary answers; the total has gone up from £140,000 to £340,000. The peak attendance by students was between 1948 and 1950. I quite agree that costs, including salaries and other expenses, have risen, and I am looking into this; but in spite of that the highest grant ever given was given this year, when the grant was increased. At the time that the highest direct grant from the Ministry was given, it was also explained that we wanted to have the whole matter looked into before the coming year.

I believe that even the word "drastic" was mentioned. I was not satisfied, and I think many have not been satisfied. I can tell hon. Members quite honestly that we have had a great deal of complaint throughout the country and all the complaints have not come from without the W.E.A. It is difficult to give the people of this country a clear understanding until we get the facts and figures more clear than they are at present.

Mr. James Johnson (Rugby) rose—

Miss Horsbrugh

I have not long in which to make my speech, and I want to get some of the facts out if I can.

It will be seen that the proportion of four-fifths of the grant goes to extra-mural departments and one-fifth to the W.E.A. The reason is that our grant is attached to the cost of teaching, the remuneration of full-time staff and part-time teachers. Therefore, although the four-fifths goes to the extra-mural departments, working together in many ways, the W.E.A. get the fees. As hon. Members will see, this is a rather tangled story. I have not at my disposal precise figures for the gross expenditure of responsible bodies including teaching and administrative costs. I have not got those figures, and I am speaking of the time before any discussion took place. I think hon. Members will see my reason for wanting more information, which I am trying to gather.

I think I can give further particulars of the income. As I said, there is the direct grant from the Ministry which, this year, was £340,000—bigger than it has ever been before. It is estimated that the university bodies, taken as a whole, at present derive income at the rate of somewhat over £200,000 a year from university funds, indirectly from the University Grants Committee.

Both the extra-mural departments and the W.E.A. districts also obtain contributions from local education authorities which, for the country as a whole, amount to a considerable proportion of the income, estimated approximately at £75,000. Some £45,000 goes to the extra-mural departments and the rest to the W.E.A. districts. The Ministry pay grant on that portion which goes to the W.E.A. Therefore, from public funds as a whole I estimate that the responsible bodies derive well over £600,000. That is the public money side of the question.

I am coming in a moment to what we are informed by the W.E.A. is the amount of money coming from various ways in which they act, but from public funds the amount is over £600,000. Then there is the income from fees. Fees normally take the form of enrolment fees for courses. When the course is jointly run the fee goes to the W.E.A. If universities run courses on their own without the W.E.A., the fees go to the universities. Therefore, the bulk of the fees in this work go to the W.E.A.

From the returns given me by responsible bodies—this again was before the discussions began in January—it is quite clear that there is a great difference between the fees which are charged. I am informed that in some areas the average fee for a sessional course of 20 to 24 lectures may be as high as 10s. to 15s. and in others as low as 3s. 6d. Our estimates for 1952–53 gave the estimate of fees to be expected during the year as about £15,000.

I feel that the figure of the estimate must be given with reserve, because we all know the difficulty about it. However, I have looked back to what the fees were in a past year—not merely the estimate but what the fee income was. I know that some of the fees have been put up since then, but in 1950–51 the fees amounted to £19,307, and the number of students was 162,800. I leave the arithmetic to hon. Members. This year there will be practically the same figure as last year, about 151,000, and we said that the estimate for fees would be £15,000.

I would ask hon. Gentlemen to consider that, and agree that it is well that we should look into the facts about what income we are getting by fees at the end of the year. We hear that fees in one place are more than they are in another. We have an income from public funds of over £600,000. We have an estimated income from fees of £15,000 this year. In 1950–51 the fees amounted to £19,000 and the number of students was 162,800, and the cost from public money was more than £600,000. Hon. Gentlemen will probably do their own arithmetic to decide what was the cost per student, and what the students were paying.

I assure hon. Gentlemen that I want to get good value for money. We want to see if there is any way of getting better value for money, and if we can get better value, to spend it on increasing adult education. The Prime Minister made it perfectly clear there is no cut. but in one case it may mean less and in another it may mean more. We want to find some way, if we can of getting better value for money, and I have asked for consideration of the subject of fees. There may be people who would be perfectly willing to pay more than a few pence a lecture.

I have given the facts and figures as I had them before I started the inquiry. I am now in the midst of an inquiry, and I have asked for the details. I think that hon. Members in all parts of the House will agree that we have not sufficient facts to see if we are getting value for money, or the best value for money, and that we need to see if there is a possibility of doing still better. I should like to discuss it with the heads of the responsible bodies. I hope that we shall have good discussions when they come to see me next, when I have been able to go through the details.

The last discussions were most pleasant, and the spokesman began by apologising that there had been publicity while the discussions were going on. I want to have these discussions, and I hope that as a result we may find a way of getting better ideas for the best quality adult education. We want to give the assurance to the people of this country that the money that comes from the taxpayers, the ratepayers, the universities, and those who under the scheme of the W.E.A. assist with their gifts for particular courses is being well spent. About £60,000 or £70,000 has been subscribed. Let us see that the money is well spent and not wasted. I want to be sure of that, as the trustee for this particular money.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

it is obvious that there are only a few seconds left. I should like to say that we welcome the statement that the Parliamenary Secretary has had no part in these negotiations. This gives us one ground for hope and confidence. Apart from that, this has been a most unsatisfactory debate.

The Question having been proposed at Four o'Clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half-past Four o'Clock.