§ 6. Mr. Skeffingtonasked the Minister of Education what would be the cost to both central and local government if the means test on maintenance grants of students at universities, technical colleges, and teacher training colleges were abolished.
§ Sir E. BoyleAbout £7 million a year.
§ Mr. SkeffingtonIn view of this trifling amount involved as against total national expenditure, and the fact that our future depends so much upon having the maximum number of students at university colleges and similar institutions, will the Minister consider recommending much more generous scales than now apply, because many students and 1563 their parents suffer from considerable financial worry? This cannot be a good thing for university education.
§ Sir E. BoyleThe Question specifically relates to the means test. In my Answer to a Question asked last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall), I mentioned that the terms of reference of the Anderson Committee were fairly wide and generous.
§ 25. Dr. Kingasked the Minister of Education how many local education authorities are implementing his latest proposed increases in the maintenance allowances for children remaining at school over the age of 15 years; how many have partially adopted his suggestions; and how many have made no increases in the allowances paid.
§ Sir E. BoyleOne hundred and thirty-three local education authorities have adopted the proposals and five more have partially adopted them. The other eight authorities have not notified my right hon. Friend of any changes in their arrangements.
§ Dr. KingIs the Minister aware that this is a most gratifying and excellent Answer revealing progress on the part of local authorities? As the scales which the Minister introduced are a really valuable contribution to the education of poor but able children, in his next circular to authorities which have not adopted the scale will he convey the need for adopting it?
§ Sir E. BoyleMy right hon. Friend wholly agrees with the hon. Member that the figures I have given represent an extremely good response from local education authorities. He does not think that any further action is at present called for, but he will, of course, bear in mind the last point made by the hon. Member.
§ 36. Mr. M. Stewartasked the Minister of Education whether he will revise his method of assessing grants for self-supporting students attending one-year courses at departments of education so as to enable them, if they are under 25 years of age, to receive grants in respect of a wife, children, or wholly dependent relative.
§ Sir E. BoyleNo, Sir.
§ Mr. StewartWill the hon. Gentleman explain why not?
§ Sir E. BoyleThe whole purpose of dependants' grants is to help really good older people who will bring valuable outside experience into the schools. It is the view of the Department that this can hardly happen if people are under the age of 25 when they start training.
§ Mr. StewartCan the Parliamentary Secretary explain this? It would appear from his regulations that a young man proposing to take up a course of training of this kind and who has a widowed mother dependent upon him will get a grant if he is over 25 years of age, but not if he is 23 or 24. On what basis is this justifiable?
§ Sir E. BoyleThe hon. Member has written to me about the case of Mr. Hoon, and I shall shortly be sending him a full reply. Perhaps he will await my answer, which will contain full details.