EDUCATION, SCOTLAND (Hansard, 22 February 1956)

§ The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Henderson Stewart)
I readily respond to the request which has been made by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin). This Estimate for Scottish education is a direct result of the eleven-eightieth rule. It is because there have been changes in England and the expansion of this service in certain directions that we in Scotland get a further payment into our Scottish fund. That really is the explanation and, therefore, the whole of our educational service is, in this Vote, open, as I understand it, for examination.

§ The Chairman
It is only the supplementary Estimate that we can discuss. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman said quite the reverse.

§ Mr. Stewart
It is certainly only the figure that is in the Estimate that we can discuss, but that figure covers, in a sense, the whole range of our service.

§ The Chairman
I agree with that, but the only matter which we can discuss now is why there is an excess. We cannot go back to the original Estimate.

§ Mr. John Rankin (Glasgow, Govan)
The position is, as I assume, that the debate is on very narrow lines.

§ Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)
On a point of order, Sir Charles. We are dealing with Class IV of the Education, Scotland, Supplementary Estimate and the amount required is £720,000 less a certain amount—about £537,000. Are we entitled to relate that £500,000 or so for the purpose for which it is required? Since there is no detailed list, such as was dealt with for England and Wales, are we entitled to relate that £537,000 to the purpose of public education in all its aspects?

§ Mr. Rankin
May we have your guidance, Sir Charles. We seem to be in a difficulty. The Minister in charge, if I understood him correctly, seemed to indicate that a fairly wide field could be covered and you, Sir Charles, seem to be taking a somewhat different view. Where do we stand?

§ The Chairman
We stand because I am the Chairman. I will read what Erskine May says, in page 716: …if the supplementary estimate is merely to provide additional funds of a relatively moderate amount required in the normal course of working of the services for which the original vote was demanded, only the reasons for the increase can be discussed and not the policy implied in the service which must be taken to have been settled by the original vote… It is perfectly clear.

§ Miss Margaret Herbison (Lanarkshire, North)
We have received quite definitely, on the English Estimates, the headings under which increases were necessary. In the supplementary Estimate asked for by the Scottish Minister there are no specific headings. Is it not the case that the Joint Under-Secretary was correct when he said that this sum which represents eleven-eightieths, for which the English Minister asked, will be used not under definite headings but for the general purpose of education in Scotland? Since that is the case, will it not be possible for my hon. Friends, and, I hope, for myself, later to deal with any aspect of education which might be covered by this extra eleven-eightieths which we are being asked to vote today?

§ The Chairman
I will give the exact words out of Erskine May: If the sum demanded by a supplementary estimate is of the same order of magnitude as the original estimate, the Chairman has allowed questions of policy to be raised upon 424 it which would have been in order if it had been an original estimate. Then comes the bit that I read out before about a supplementary Estimate merely providing additional funds.

§ Miss Herbison
Hon. Members on this side of the Committee and the Scottish Minister are in the same position. There are no details before us why we are asked for this supplementary Estimate and we are in a hopeless position. Any matters we may raise could be out of order under your present Ruling.

§ Mr. G. M. Thomson (Dundee, East)
May I put a practical point? On the English Supplementary Estimate we discussed educational policy fairly widely. If the present Ruling is rigidly applied, Scottish Members will be at a great disadvantage in comparison with their English colleagues.

§ Mr. Rankin
In page 68 of the volume of Supplementary Estimates, under "General Grant in Aid", we are told something about this expenditure. The note says: Consequent upon the additional provision required for grants to local education authorities and other persons in England and Wales, a sum equal to 11 /80ths of the amount of such provision (with certain adjustments) is payable to the Education (Scotland) Fund In accordance with the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, Section 69 (2, c). This' payment is, therefore, consequent upon amounts already sanctioned in England and caused, according to the note on page 58, mainly by (a) increases in teachers' salaries due to the introduction of Stage I of a scheme for giving equal pay to women and of special allowances for teachers undertaking advanced work, (b) increases in salaries and wages of other staff, and (c) a rise generally in the cost of goods and services. Is it not reasonable to assume that the increased grant in aid for Scotland is dependent upon the English supplementary estimate, which covers those provisions? It would follow that we could discuss our estimate on that basis.

§ The Chairman
Certainly, and it was done on the English Supplementary Estimate. When I was in the Chair we were only allowed to talk about the reasons for the increases additional to the original Estimate.

§ Mr. Rankin
If that is the case the Minister in charge ought to give us a 425 statement, just as we had a statement earlier from the English Minister of Education. If his statement was in order, explaining the English Supplementary Estimate, it ought to be equally in order for the Joint Under-Secretary to follow that course, which would be convenient to Scottish Members.

§ Mr. Ross
Further to the point of order. Would we not very quickly get out of this difficulty if the Joint Under-Secretary of State would apply himself with courtesy to the needs of the Committee and the rules of procedure by giving the reason and the purpose for which this grant is required? I assume that the original Estimate related to education in Scotland; we shall see what the purposes were when we get next year's Estimates and debate them in the Scottish Standing Committee.
In page 67, under C.1, relating to the general grant in aid, we see the amount of the original Estimate, the revised estimate and the additional sum required. The Joint Under-Secretary ought to tell us why the additional sum was payable and to address his mind and his explanations to the word "required." For what purposes has this additional sum of money been required? The Supplementary Estimate only comes before us when the money has been applied to expenditure and it is only reasonable that we should be told for what purposes the money has been used. If we could get that information from the Joint Under-Secretary of State we should be able adequately to debate the matter.

§ Mr. Rankin
The Committee has been treated with the gravest discourtesy by the Joint Under-Secretary of State in this connection. I imagine that we shall not hear many observations from the Government benches so the Minister will have placed this side of the Committee in a very great difficulty. If he outlined the details it would be of great help to us in the conduct of the debate. Is the Joint Under-Secretary prepared to make a statement?

§ Mr. Stewart
There is no question of discourtesy. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) had no need to use language like that. I was asked to describe the position as I saw it, and I 426 did so immediately in response to the invitation. There is no need to import hot temper into this discussion.

§ Mr. Ross
The Joint Under-Secretary has mentioned me and what I have said about him. Is he suggesting that he explained the purposes for which this £720,000 was spent?

§ Mr. Stewart
That is a matter of opinion. I thought I had dealt with it adequately. In my opening remarks I thought I dealt adequately with the position as I understood it. The Chairman has taken a view, which the Committee must accept. The position, therefore, is as follows. As the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) pointed out, we have in page 68 the explanation of the fact that £720,000 comes in to the Education (Scotland) Fund.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) asked, "How do you explain the words in the third column in page 67—additional sum required?" I can only think that that is the formal way which we have of setting out our figures in these Estimates, and that, strictly speaking, this is not extra money that we have asked for so much as extra money that comes to us because of the arrangements we have for the financing of our educational services.
As I understand it, your Ruling, Sir Charles—and I think it is the wish of the Committee—is that it would be proper to say that that £720,000 will be required in Scotland for increased pay, for equal pay, and for general services of education. That, with respect, is my understanding of what we are talking about now.

§ Mr. Ross
On a point of order. I have spent many years in this House, up to the stage of being Vice-Chairman of the Select Committee on Estimates. I think that, in fairness to every hon. Member of the Estimates Committee, I should say that we have never accepted, and could not accept, such an explanation from anyone coming before us for a requirement of £720,000. I must ask the Joint Under-Secretary more reasonably to go into that, and to break up the amount into the purposes for which it was spent.

§ Mr. Rankin
The Joint Under-Secretary is really not being helpful. Surely it is fair to the Committee that he should 427 have said a word about the milk-in-schools scheme. I realise, of course, that that comes under savings. Nevertheless, it is a point of tremendous importance to all of us as to why this sum has not been spent on the milk scheme.

§ Mr. Stewart
The hon. Member wishes me to explain everything that appears in page 67. These are small points and I thought it was unnecessary to go into them, but I shall gladly do so.
The Committee will see, in page 67 the items:

"C.2.—Superannuation of Teachers (Grant in Aid) £163,000

C.3.—Milk in Schools (Grant) £20,000."

The total of those two figures has to be deducted from the £720,000—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I am in the hands of the Committee. I have been invited by the hon. Member opposite to explain something and his hon. Friends now suggest that I am out of order. If I am not in order, I will sit down.

§ Mr. Ross
On a point of order, Sir Charles. Are we allowed to discuss C.2 and C.3?

§ The Chairman
No, we cannot discuss savings.

§ Mr. Stewart
I really would like to be able to explain—and not to discuss—what these words mean. Item C.2 deals with a grant in aid of £163,000 in respect of teachers' superannuation. I will explain what it means. Section 70 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, which lays down how the Education (Scotland) Fund is to be made up, provides that so far as superannuation is concerned, first, there should be paid out of the Fund to the Exchequer eleven-eightieths of the amount of contributions collected in England and Wales and, second, that there should be paid into the Fund eleven-eightieths of the benefits paid in England and Wales.
In addition, of course, the Fund gets all that is collected in contributions in Scotland and bears all that is paid out in Scottish benefits. The £163,000 appears because less is being paid out in benefits in England and Wales this year and so there is a fall in C.2. This arrangement is part of the general situation in relation to the eleven-eightieths rule, which I have always thought—and I fancied that hon. 428 Members opposite agreed—works, on the whole to the advantage of Scotland. That explains the first item.
The explanation of

"C.3.—Milk in Schools (Grant) £20,000 "

is as follows. The saving is £20,000, and the point is that this is the first year in which education authorities have contracted, and paid, for milk in schools. As the Committee knows, that job was formerly undertaken by the Ministry of Food. The authorities simply guessed in their preliminary estimates that they were going to spend more than is now, after closer estimating, found necessary. The saving does not at all mean that fewer children are drinking milk; it is merely the difference between the estimated and the actual expenditure. That, again, is based upon the English experience. I do not think that there is anything left for me to explain, because the item of £14,000—

§ Mr. Ross
On a point of order. We have here an "Additional sum required" of £720,000. That item is followed by two subheads indicating savings. We have now got to the strange position in which we have been told nothing about the Estimate—which is the only thing we can talk about—and have had explained to us the savings about which we are not allowed to speak.

§ The Chairman
I did not know how it was to be linked up, but it is quite clear that all we can discuss is the reason for the excess over the Estimate.

§ Mr. Stewart
Perhaps, Sir Charles, you will allow me to explain the remaining saving that I have not covered. In page 68 there is the item: Z.—…Expected Surplus…Annual payments by Education Authorities in respect of temporary school accommodation. That item—£14,000—arises from the fact that these are the Horsa buildings and in the last year we have received more from education authorities in respect of those places than we had anticipated. There is, therefore, £14,000 more in the kitty.
Having said all that, I am still unable, in view of your Ruling, Sir Charles, to say anything more than that I would have thought that we should have been able here to discuss the matters that were mentioned in the English debate, namely, the general expenditure of the local 429 authorities on increased salaries, equal pay—the general increase in expenses. As that, in effect, covers the broad work of the Scottish educational service, I cannot really help the Committee further.

§ Miss Herbison
On a point of order. We have now had an explanation of that part which, I understand, could not be discussed in this Committee, and we have had not one single word of explanation of the £720,000 which the Minister is tonight asking us to vote for his Department. The Joint Under-Secretary has said that he expects that we can discuss what the English Members discussed on their Estimates, but the one big thing that applies to England and Wales is the extra money being paid to a specialist teacher. That has not happened in this country and none of that money will be spent until 1st April. As I understand, the £720,000 covers the period only until 31st March, so that the major payment that was made under the English Estimates does not come in at all to our Scottish Estimates.
We have not had the £720,000 broken up for the benefit of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, in the way that the English Minister broke up the relevant amount. We have not been told in any way how much more is going on books, on the education of the Poles and so on. Before we can have any reasonable and sensible discussion, the Joint Under-Secretary of State must break up that £720,000 or tell us why he cannot do it.
If we are going to be reasonable and safeguard the public purse, it is not possible for us to vote this amount of £720,000 if we do not know what it is for. The people in Scotland would rightly say that we were extravagant and that we were not doing our duty. I beg the Joint Under-Secretary of State to break up that £720,000 and justify his reasons for asking us to vote that amount.

§ The Chairman
That will be all right if the hon. Gentleman is able to do so.

§ Mr. Stewart
The reason for the £720,000 was explained to the Committee by the hon. Member for Govan, who read from item C, in page 68. That is where it comes from. It is an income to our Fund. I tell the hon. Lady quite frankly that it is not possible for me, any more than it was for her in similar circumstances, to say what we propose to do with that money which has come 430 to us automatically on account of our arrangement with United Kingdom. I am simply unable to say in what way that will be spent, except that it will be spent by this Government wisely in the interests of Scottish Education.

§ Mr. Frederick Willey (Sunderland, North)
Further to the original point of order, Sir Charles. We have an interest in the matter which is to be debated after this debate. The quicker that this matter is cleared up, the better it will be for all. The Joint Under-Secretary says that he wants this money for grants in aid of expenses in connection with the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh, the education of Poles and other educational services. Surely he could shortly and explicitly explain to the Committee the purpose for which he requires the money and then we could proceed to discuss agriculture.

§ Mr. Ross
On a point of order, Sir Charles. In view of the statement by the Joint Under-Secretary that he wants this money, but that he does not know what he wants it for, does that mean that the scope of the debate is widened to the extent that that amount of money is there and we can make suggestions on how it can be spent? Is that now the position?

§ The Chairman
As I understand it, this money comes automatically to Scotland, being a proportion of the amount for England and Wales. So far as I can make out, there is no particular claim for any of it up to now, but we have it and we ought, I imagine, to be thankful.

§ Mr. John Rankin (Glasgow, Govan)
We now know exactly where we are. I have one or two suggestions to make to the Joint Under-Secretary of State. He has told us that he has £720,000 in his possession, looking for a home. He does not know what to do with it, so we have been informed, and I want to make one or two suggestions as to what he can do with either the whole of that amount or part of it.
A person looking at the Estimate casually would imagine that the sum that is being set aside for educational purposes in Scotland was being increased. That is the first fallacy which underlies this Supplementary Estimate. There is no actual increase involved. There may be 431 a money increase, but in terms of bricks and mortar there is no increase; there is an actual decrease in the amount that is being devoted to educational purposes in Scotland, and a very serious decrease indeed.
I am sure it is a matter for regret that while the English Minister was able to tell us that equal pay was implemented in England without any English teachers suffering as a consequence, in Scotland it could only be implemented by certain teachers in Scottish schools having their maximum salaries reduced.
I want to show that there is room for all this money, and more, in safeguarding properly the educational structure in Scotland. I propose to use my own local authority as proof. Just over a year ago the Secretary of State for Scotland issued Circular 296, in which he drew the attention of education departments to the Government decision to make additional resources available for investment in educational building. As a result of that intimation from the Government asking that individual resources should be made available, local authorities all over Scotland went ahead and made arrangements for more schools and various other educational requirements.
These arrangements had hardly been completed when local authorities were told to reverse the policy which they were pursuing. As a result of that reversal, the local education authority in Glasgow had to reduce its figure for schools to £1,478,000. Let me try to explain exactly what that figure means. In 1950, when the Labour Government were in power, Glasgow was allowed to spend on school building alone up to £200,000 a month, a rate of £2,400,000 per year. Her Majesty's present Government, who are now seeking to give the impression that more money is now being expended on education, or set aside for educational purposes to be expended later, have reduced for Glasgow the amount of £2,400,000 to £1,478,000. That was the expenditure for 1954–55.
Worse than that, last October the Government issued a circular asking local authorities in Scotland to make their educational expenditure for 1956–57 not more than the amount which they spent in 1954–55. In other words, a reduction has been imposed.

§ The Chairman
I find it very difficult to relate this argument to the £720,000.

§ Mr. Ross
We have been told nothing about the £720,000.

§ Mr. Rankin
When I started, Sir Charles, I said that we had had from the Joint Under-Secretary an assurance that he had £720,000 in his care and that he did not know what to do with it.

§ Mr. Stewart
I know what to do with it.

§ Mr. Rankin
Does the hon. Gentleman? Surely we have some right to tell him what to do with. We are entitled to advise him. He is not a dictator. He has come here tonight for advice. We are entitled to help him to spend the £720,000. The trouble is that I have already spent nearly £1 million of it in Glasgow alone, which shows how poor is the attitude of the Tory Government towards education in Scotland.
I hope I am in order, Sir Charles, because when I began I indicated that we were entitled to guide the Joint Under-Secretary as to how he should utilise this sum. All I am saying—and I will do it briefly—is that Glasgow could do with the whole of it and that it is not necessary for him to run round Scotland looking for a home for it.
The amount of money which was spent in Glasgow in 1950–51 was £2,400,000, and that is now reduced to £1,478,000. Accompanying that reduction is a tremendous rise in prices. In addition, this Government have removed control from private housing and have allowed shops and offices to be built without restriction, with the result that local authorities trying to carry on their work in education have had to compete for labour and materials.
The amount of money devoted to private housing, industry, shops and offices in the City of Glasgow last year increased by 56 per cent., and some of it was unnecessary. The amount spent on educational purposes, relative to the previous year, increased by only 17 per cent. This sum does not come even within nodding acquaintance of the amount which was spent in 1950 by the Labour Government. That applies not only to Glasgow but to Scotland.
I do not want to take too long. I could talk for quite a long time on this subject, but I know that many of my 433 hon. Friends are anxious to speak. They will have a word to say about educational needs in their areas, and I hope that hon. Members opposite will also have something to say about educational needs. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mt. Willey) will not grudge us this time. Agriculture can wait until another time. Having directed the Joint Under-Secretary of State's attention to one place where that money could be spent—the City of Glasgow—I had better finish.

§ Mr. G. M. Thomson (Dundee, East)
The Joint Under-Secretary has not treated Scotland with very much respect.

§ Mr. Ross
Or the Committee.

§ Mr. Thomson
Scotland is a country where the educational needs are crying out. Everybody will agree that the problem is not finding things to do but how to get some of the money for just some of the things crying out to be done. Yet we have this modest Supplementary Estimate of £720,000 and the Joint Under-Secretary is not in a position to tell us what he wants to do with it. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), who has great experience in these matters, tells me that this money must be spent during the current financial year, which ends within a few weeks. Presumably, therefore, most of it has been spent, and it seems strange that the Minister cannot tell us on what he has been spending it.
Since he cannot give us any information, I want to ask him about one of the principal points mentioned in the Estimates. We are told that this is a Supplementary Estimate for a number of things, including "the education of Poles." I am rather puzzled by that. I thought the period during which we educated those Polish citizens who stayed in this country after the war had probably passed, since the war has been over for ten years. As a matter of information, I should be interested to know exactly how much money is being spent on educating Poles in Scotland and how long we are likely to go on spending it.
We are in a fantastic situation tonight. Not only do we have a Supplementary Estimate for £720,000, on which the Minister is very vague, but, also, the 434 Estimate comes before us at a time when we know perfectly well that the real situation in education is not that of the Government asking for more money, but that of the Government taking steps to cut down the amount of money being spent on education. The Minister shakes his head, but that is exactly what is happening under the economies announced during the last few days by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
It may be that the Joint Under-Secretary of State, like the Chancellor, does not like these ugly words "cut" and "slash" but prefers the nice, polite words "re-phasing" and "re-timing." It would be interesting to see whether the Minister regarded his salary as having been cut or merely re-timed if it were to be paid to him over two years instead of over one year.
We are entitled to ask the Minister for some defence of this attack which the Government have made on Scottish education. As I understand the position which the Government are adopting, they are saying, "The country is in difficulties and, therefore, we must make cuts all round." There is a great deal of talk about equality of sacrifice. It seems to me that the Government's position is very similar to that of a mother of a family who said, "The money is getting tight. I will cut down the baby's milk by one-third and father's beer by one-third." That is the kind of equality of sacrifice which the Government have suggested in the educational sphere.
It is as if the mother of a family, faced with these difficulties, said, "I am going to cut down equally on the number of nights the children go to the cinema and the number of nights on which Bob goes to evening classes." The attitude of the Government is that a thing like education can be cut equally with all the luxuries and fripperies of national expenditure.
Scotland needs, not a modest Supplementary Estimate of £720,000, but very much greater sums spent on its education. We need a quite different set of priorities than that which the Government are putting before us. In my constituency they are busily building a luxury cinema at the same time as we are desperately in need of more schools. We are waiting anxiously for a start to be made on our trades college, in which I know the Minister is interested. If the 435 nation is facing economic difficulties it is important that we should cut down on things we can do without—

§ Mr. Henderson Stewart
The hon. Member knows that the reason why the new trades college in Dundee has not started is that Dundee is not ready to start it.

§ Mr. Thomson
The Minister misunderstands me. I apologise if I was guilty of misleading him.

§ Captain J. A. L. Duncan (South Angus)
Is not the hon. Member also aware of the continued extension of the art college?

§ Mr. Thomson
We are getting into a very strange position. On Friday, we had a statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which, among other things, he said there was going to be what he called "re-timing" of educational building by local authorities and what we call a cut in the education provided by local authorities. I am anxious that in Dundee there should be no delay in getting ahead with the trades college and other equally necessary school building. It is a matter of very great concern to me that as a result of the announcement of the Chancellor about educational economies there should not be delay in this urgent matter of education in Dundee. I am asking for an assurance from the Minister tonight that there will be no delay.
There is another way in which I think the £720,000 could be very usefully spent. The more money we can spend in cutting out wastage in the educational system the better. The more we can spend the better in making sure that children equipped to continue at school for an extra year, two years, or three years, shall do so. A year or so ago there was published in England, through the Ministry of Education, a very useful Report by the Advisory Council. It dealt with the question of early leaving. At that time I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he would consider initiating a similar investigation of the Scottish educational system and getting our very excellent Advisory Committee on Education to go ahead with, that, but the Secretary of State shrugged the matter off—

§ Mr. Stewart
That is not fair. The reason we did not do what the hon. Member has suggested in that way is that 436 we had done it equally efficiently in Scotland in another way. I claim that the Report we got on the matter was as good as the Report in England.

§ Mr. Thomson
I do not wish to complain about something which is unjustified. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what Report he is talking about. I will gladly give way to the Minister if he can do so.

§ Mr. Stewart
The hon. Member knows quite well that this has already been announced in the House. If I remember rightly it was spoken about in our last debate. We circularised headmasters and headmistresses of all the principal schools and undertook a large survey. We got a very full reply, the gist of which I announced to the House, although I cannot remember if I announced the details. If the hon. Member wants to have the details I should be glad to let him have them.

§ Mr. Thomson
That is exactly the answer I expected from the Minister, but I did not want him to be under a misapprehension. There was really no comparison between the results obtained in the replies to which the hon. Gentleman has referred and the results obtained by the English Advisory Council. That Report contains a great deal of information which is really vital to the future planning of educational policy. For instance, it discusses early leaving in relation to the social class of children and also to the kind of homes from which they come. It points out a matter of very great interest, when it says that the schools considered that a quarter of the children of unskilled workers were capable of some kind of sixth form work compared with 6.7 per cent. who were getting it. That is the kind of gap in educational equality we still have in our educational system. It is not dealt with in the Report to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

§ Mr. Stewart
How can the hon. Member make the statement that he does not know about this Report and that I am telling him about it for the first time? I can assure him that we have the same kind of figures in the Scottish Report as in the English Report. Had we not been satisfied about that matter we would have made another inquiry.

§ Mr. Thomson
I shall be only too glad to be proved wrong. If the hon. Gentleman has a Report such as he suggests, I 437 shall be glad if he will make it available. But the kind of research which has gone into the document from which I have quoted would not be the kind of thing which I should expect to be available from answers given by headmasters and headmistresses. We need something like this in dealing with our different Scottish educational traditions.
One of the things mentioned in the English Report is the question of fee-paying in schools. This is a case where the English educational system is much more progressive than ours. In the State system in England it is no longer possible to pay fees. It is not generally realised that in Scotland there are still fee-paying State secondary schools. The English Advisory Council investigated a suggestion made by certain middle-class parents that they should be allowed to buy secondary school places and grammar school places and the Advisory Council came down wholly against that suggestion. I should have thought that one way in which the £720,000 could be spent would be in the abolition of fees in Scottish secondary schools. That would be a notable step towards educational equality.
We ought to do a great deal more about the problem of early leaving and the problem of wastage. I would commend to the hon. Gentleman what I think is the background of the conclusion of the English Report. It is that the question of children leaving school cannot be considered merely as a matter of educational policy but, of course, has the widest social implications. The general economies which are being made by the Government in relation to our present national difficulties will have all sorts of very evil indirect effects on the educational system. When the Government begin to cut subsidies on council houses and to put up the rents of houses they make it more and more difficult for children to get a proper education, because the more overcrowded the harder it is for children of talent—

§ The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris)
The hon. Member is now extending the debate beyond the terms of the Supplementary Estimate.

§ Mr. Thomson
I bow to your guidance, Sir Rhys, but I was suggesting that it would be worth spending some of this money on a really comprehensive social investigation, to be conducted by the 438 Scottish Education Department. It is capable of that because it has done it in the past. The investigation could be into the general home circumstances and educational possibilities of children. If we want real educational equality of opportunity and to give all the children in Scotland education according to their capabilities it is not merely a matter of providing new schools—urgent as that is—and not merely a question of the salaries and conditions of teachers—urgent as those things are—but a question of getting a sense of values and of social priorities in times of difficulty which puts first things that are urgently needed, instead of making an all-round cut equally of luxury and social expenditure.

§ Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)
The attitude of the Joint Under-Secretary in presenting this Supplementary Estimate can be described only by one of two epithets—either incompetence or discourtesy. Knowing full well the efficiency of the civil servants who deal with these matters in the Scottish Home Department, I am perfectly sure that the choice of Parliamentary tactics was taken by the Joint Under-Secretary; and so I can only conclude that his attitude was discourteous.
We are dealing with a Supplementary Estimate for the amount which is required in the year ending 31st March, 1956, and today is 22nd February. In other words, there is only another five weeks to go, so that the £720,000 which is stated to be required either has been spent or the manner in which it is to be spent is already known. Yet we have not had from the Under-Secretary in justification of this requirement of finance, one single figure explaining the purpose for which the money is required, although he knows how it has been spent. If it had not been spent, it would be shown under subheads as a further saving.
The hon. Gentleman merely tells us that we can rest assured that this amount will be spent wisely and well. What does that mean? The money has been spent, and the House of Commons has the right to know from the Minister who asks for the money how it is spent and the purpose for which it is required. It is for the Minister to justify it and to let the House judge before it votes Supply.
439 While the Under-Secretary does not know what is to be done with the £720,000, he recollects a speech earlier this week in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that we could not spare a single £ on either capital expenditure or expenditure for consumption. We were told that everything had to be saved. I say that not only has the Under-Secretary been discourteous, but that he has made an extremely foolish speech. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Public Accounts Committee were doing their duty, they should immediately call upon the Scottish Education Department and ask why it insists upon having this money when it does not know the purpose for which it is required.
If the hon. Gentleman now tells us that he knows how the money is to be spent, he will prove my claim that he has been discourteous to the Committee. Until he explains the purpose for which the money is required, I do not propose to argue in the dark about whether it is desirable.

§ Mr. Cyril Bence (Dunbartonshire, East)
I was surprised when I saw the figure of £720,000. I am sure that the Joint Under-Secretary is aware of a report from the Department's Inspectorate in Edinburgh on conditions in Clydebank High School. That school is seriously overcrowded and understaffed. The conditions there—they are described in the report and I am sure that the Under-Secretary has seen it—are such that it is almost essential that we should have started to build another senior secondary school in the Clydebank area.
There have been requests for this new senior secondary school for a long time, and I should have thought that with this tremendous grant of £720,000 that we are getting from the Treasury, instead of providing temporary huts on the recreational space around the existing Clydebank High School, we could have got another secondary school.
I admit that a small group of people in the Clydebank area pressed for temporary buildings to be attached to the existing High School, and I understand that these temporary buildings are to be erected at very small cost on the recreational area of the school. Obviously, this is being done to avoid building a new school. 440 Most of us have seen secondary schools lose their recreational space to temporary buildings. I remember that temporary buildings which were put up in 1916 were still in existence in 1935, and I have no doubt that these temporary buildings which are now to be put up will still be there in another twenty years' time.
I am shocked that the Under-Secretary cannot give any clear idea of how the £720,000 is to be distributed or spent on education in Scotland, and in what direction it will be spent, even in a general way. I have mentioned the need of a senior secondary school in Clydebank and I hope that the Department of Education in Edinburgh will further consider the submission of plans for such a school, which is badly needed, as is shown by the report. The Department knows that a new school is essential and necessary and should not fob us off with temporary buildings.
I do not want to raise the question of the education of Poles, but I conclude my remarks by stressing the need for a greater contribution to the youth advisory councils, which are doing invaluable work in our counties for young people from the time they leave school at the age of 15 until the age of 21 or 22. In Dunbartonshire, we have a grand youth advisory committee and as good a youth organiser as anyone could wish to meet. This body of people is doing a wonderful job with the young people when they leave school, bringing them into community centres and engaging them in physical training and in arts and crafts of all kinds.
Those people are doing a really fine job, but, in my view and in the view of many others, including teachers, with whom I am acquainted, the Education Department in Scotland is not giving to the youth advisory councils the assistance, and to the youth leaders and workers the status, to which they are entitled. A great deal is spoken about young people being at loose ends between the ages of 15 and, say, 21, or until they serve their National Service. When child delinquency is discussed, there is much talk about young people being thrown on to the streets, especially in over-crowded urban areas. What grander job is there to be done in fitting young people for society or completing a young person's education than the work that is performed by these youth advisory groups, set up 441 by the Department of Education in Scotland? Having set them up, however, the Department should not then starve them of resources and facilities.

§ Mr. Henderson Stewart
indicated dissent.

§ Mr. Bence
The Under-Secretary shakes his head. It may be that the desired standards have been attained, but, evidently, the standard sought by the Scottish Office is much lower than the standard desired by those who organise youth activities in the counties. The hon. Gentleman and his Department must know that the Dunbartonshire Youth Advisory Council is doing a good job of work, but it is continually complaining of the lack of facilities and the lack of encouragement in pursuing its activities.
I have made these two points because, although we are asked to agree to this tremendous amount of money, the hon. Gentleman tells us quite plainly that he is not sure of the purpose for which it is needed. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) assumes that it has either been spent or will be spent shortly, while my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin), on the assumption that the Under-Secretary has the money to spend, wants it for Glasgow. My assumption is that the Under-Secretary has the money to spend; I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock that the hon. Gentleman has spent it.
I am entitled to make this assumption, because we are not told one way or the other. If, therefore, the money is yet to be spent, I should like now to lay my claim for some of it to build a new senior secondary school in Clydebank and some of it to assist the work of the Dunbartonshire Youth Advisory Council.

§ Miss Margaret Herbison (Lanarkshire, North)
In my eleven years as a Member of the House of Commons I have not known such a situation as that in which the Committee is now, when, although we have given Ministers chance after chance to explain, we have not been told what the money we are asked to vote—£720,000 in this case—is to be spent on. Some of my hon. Friends suppose that the money has been spent; others suppose that the money is yet unspent, a nest-egg for spending in the very near future. 442 It is made almost impossible for us to decide whether we ought to vote this money for which the Government ask. I will assume that we in Scotland are in the most fortunate position of having £720,000, which we did not expect, but which we have, and can spend.
On that assumption, I say that the Secretary of State has a wonderful chance of doing something good for Scotland that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not want done. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made it quite clear on Friday that there was to be a cut in school building. He told us it was a matter of timing. We have had experience of the Government's timing. We know the damage that was done to Scottish education because of the go-slow policy of this Government when they came to power in 1951.
I was shocked by that statement on Friday, and I have looked up some figures, and I have found that, because of this very same policy of the Government when they came to power in 1951, the number of new places provided in Scottish schools through projects started in 1952 was only 17,437, compared with 33,094 in 1951. The Government are now trying to carry out a policy which did grave damage when they applied it when they came to power in 1951. At that time they said that it was not a policy of cuts, but a policy of re-phasing or of retiming. The consequence was a 47.5 per cent. reduction in the provision of school places in Scotland in 1952.
This £720,000 provides the Secretary of State and the other Scottish Ministers with a chance of making starts in the next few weeks on buildings that otherwise we should have had to postpone. That is one way of using the £750,000 we have. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson), in an admirable speech, brought out clearly the fact that the Government have made a decision to impose physical controls on educational building, but that they are allowing other types of building, luxury building, to go ahead.
A fortnight ago the Observer advised the Chancellor: Surely if the situation is, as everybody agrees, so desperate, this is the moment for Mr. Macmillan to put dogma behind him and impose controls on private building.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
This has nothing to do with the Supplementary Estimate.

§ Miss Herbison
As far as we know, we have £720,000 to spend, and I am suggesting to the Under-Secretary of State, Sir Rhys, how he may spend it. I am trying to adduce arguments to back up my suggestion for the spending of that money.
I thought the argument in that leader in that most responsible paper, the Observer, was some of the best backing I could have in suggesting that the Government should give much more to educational building even at the expense of luxury building. I urge the Under-Secretary to get the Secretary of State to agree to that, because the Secretary of State may have some influence with the Cabinet.
There are many other matters we should have liked to have raised but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said, it is impossible to do so because we do not know whether we can or not in these circumstances. I must, however, mention the matter of the education of the Poles. I should have thought that because of the action taken on this very matter by the Labour Government we no longer needed an Estimate for that now. I think that the Joint Under-Secretary should give us some explanation of that.
I hope that this will be the last time the Under-Secretary of State will come here so incompetent to deal with the matters before us, and that he will at least have a brief that he can read telling us why he wants money when he asks for it.

§ Mr. Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North)
I should like the Joint Under-Secretary of State to tell us why no provision is being made for discussion of Class VIII. A whole day allocated to Supply is being used for the discussion of education, no doubt a very important subject—

§ The Deputy-Chairman
That has nothing to do with this Vote.

§ Mr. Hughes
Class VIII is mentioned on the Order Paper, Sir Rhys.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
It may be, but we are not dealing with it.

§ Mr. Hughes
I ask the Under-Secretary of State what provision is being made for the discussion of the subjects included in Class VIII. Fisheries are being treated—

§ The Deputy-Chairman
We are not discussing fisheries now.

§ Mr. Henderson Stewart
I know that the Committee wants to proceed very quickly to another topic, so I shall be very brief. The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) asked me a number of questions about school building in Glasgow. I could give him all the facts if there were more time; I have all the figures here. It would be quite wrong for the Committee or for the public outside to be under any impression that since this Government came to power, in 1951, we have reduced Glasgow's building programme. Quite the contrary is the truth. I will give the Committee one figure. I have not time for more. The number of new school places provided in 1955—

§ Mr. Ross
On a point of order. May we be told whether this is covered by the £720,000 being asked for?

§ The Deputy-Chairman
That is not a point of order. I do not know yet what we are to be told.

§ Mr. Stewart
I am replying to a question put to me by the hon. Member's hon. Friend he Member for Govan. If the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) does not wish me to be allowed to reply to his hon. Friend he had better say so publicly, and I will stop.

§ Mr. Ross
On a point of order. I thought we were discussing the provision of £720,000, which is required for some mysterious purpose or another, and we are still waiting for an elucidation of the reasons why that amount is being asked for.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
That is not a point of order. We are dealing with this sum of £720,000. I have nothing to do with the Minister's speech.

§ Miss Herbison
rose—

§ Mr. Stewart
Is this a point of order?

§ Miss Herbison
No.

§ Mr. Stewart
I have less than 10 minutes left and I ask the Committee to be so kind as to allow me to answer the questions. The Opposition have used the last three-quarters of an hour in criticism of the Government. Hon. Members opposite have adduced so-called 445 facts which are not substantiated and have said things which are quite untrue. If I am not permitted to correct them, the Committee has fallen to a low level.

§ Miss Herbison
On a point of order. We are being asked to vote a sum of £720,000. I understand that that Vote must go through by 7 o'clock. Surely the Minister must give us the reasons for asking us to vote this sum.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
The hon. Lady is not raising a point of order at all.

§ Mr. Stewart
I want to give the hon. Member for Govan an answer to his question. The answer is that the number of school places provided by Glasgow in 1955 was the highest since the war, apart from the record year of 1954 when we had 34,410 places provided. All the figures go to prove that Glasgow has proceeded since 1951, under a Conservative Government, at a speed never before known. I hope that that will continue.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East cast doubts on whether we have generally improved things and increased our expenditure on educational provisions. I have given him the figures.

§ Mr. G. M. Thomson
I wanted to know about the future.

§ Mr. Stewart
The hon. Member also spoke about the past, and I must answer him. Since 1951 no fewer than 105,000 additional school places have been provided in Scotland as a whole.

§ Mr. Ross
On a point of order. I thought that we were dealing with a Supplementary Estimate relating to 1955–56. Surely the Minister is completely out of order in referring to something which happened in 1951.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
We are dealing with this Vote. That is perfectly clear, and I take it that the Minister is dealing with it.

§ Mr. Stewart
The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), not five minutes ago, was telling the Committee what the Labour Government had done in 1950 and, that having been said, if it is not right for me to say what has been done since 1951 it is not justice at all. I am entitled to follow up the hon. Lady's remarks and to give her the facts. I know that the 446 Opposition do not like the facts, but I am going to give them. Since 1951, when we on this side of the Committee have been in charge, there has been an unprecedented development in building—

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I have sought to keep hon. Members within the scope of this Estimate. I hope that they will do that.

§ Mr. Stewart
I am perfectly happy about that, Sir Rhys. I have just told the Committee what money has been spent in the past, and this is an indication of how we shall go on in the future. The Government have built 139 new schools. We have started 203, and over 150 schools are projected.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I really must ask that the debate be kept within the scope of the Estimate.

§ Mr. Stewart
I have dealt quite satisfactorily with that point which was raised by hon. Members.
I was asked about Poles. In this financial year, we shall be spending in Scotland about £1,000 in bursaries and fees for Poles—

§ Mr. Ross
How much of that is supplementary?

§ Mr. Stewart
I am not able to answer the hon. Member, for a reason which he knows quite well. These are accounting mysteries and it is impossible for me or anybody else to clear them up.

§ Mr. Ross
On a point of order. You will recall, Sir Rhys, that when we last debated this matter we were given a specific supplementary figure in respect of the education of Poles. Why cannot we get that from the Minister now?

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I hope that when hon. Members rise to a point of order it really will be a point of order.

§ Mr. Stewart
If the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was less anxious to interrupt me and more ready to listen to me—

§ Mr. Ross
I want the facts.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I hope that the Committee will conduct itself properly and give the Minister an opportunity to be heard.

§ Mr. Stewart
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock would have had the complete answer if he had been prepared to listen. The figure for expenditure on Poles was £1,000 and that, of course, is a supplementary estimate.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East raised a number of points on which I hope he does not think me unkind or discourteous in correcting him. As to Government building policy and its timing, upon which hon. Members have addressed questions to me, I presume the Committee wants an answer—

§ Mr. Ross
That is general policy.

§ Mr. Stewart
It is general policy, of course. I was asked what was meant by the circular which was issued recently to local authorities and by the Chancellor's recent statement. They mean that we have no intention of holding back any school building in Scotland that is essential. [Laughter.] Well, the judgment of whether the school is essential or not is never so difficult as hon. Members opposite would like to think. It is quite clear in the minds of local authorities, and we seldom disagree with them.
Certain projects are essential to meet increased school population or new town building. It may will be that the matter raised by the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) will come into that category. I assure the Committee that the Scottish Office and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not hold back one essential project. In saying that, I am merely repeating what I said to the House of Commons on 1st November last. The words which I used then stand.

§ Mr. Bence
The hon. Gentleman mentioned that he would look into the question of the senior secondary school in Clydebank. Will he promise to look into the matter and study the report of the inspectorate?

§ Mr. Stewart
I shall be delighted to do that and to write as quickly as possible to the hon. Member, who has been so courteous in his request.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East discussed the important question of early leaving and wastage. I agree that this is a most important matter. I would remind the Committee that the other day the Government, in association with 448 E.I.S., issued a new pamphlet which is the start of the really vigorous campaign that we are carrying out in Scotland to persuade clever children to remain at school. I shall do everything I can to help forward that scheme and I hope that I shall have the support of the hon. Member for Dundee, East.
I have gone as far into these matters as I can in the time at my disposal. I must express to the Committee my own regret that we have been slightly at cross-purposes because of the mysteries of our accounting methods. It is not my fault nor the fault of the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North. It is a system which we have built up. Within the bounds of the rules which you, Sir Rhys, were able to declare, we have done the best we can and I invite the Committee to let us have this Vote.

"C.2.—Superannuation of Teachers (Grant in Aid)	£163,000
C.3.—Milk in Schools (Grant)	£20,000."