SENIOR PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (LIVERPOOL) BILL. (Hansard, 1 August 1939)

§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (EARL DE LA WARR)

My Lords, this Bill is of great importance to education in Liverpool, but I can present it to your Lordships in quite a few words. It comes to your Lordships with the complete agreement of all the interested parties. I think any one who knows the position in Liverpool knows that the state of their denominational schools, particularly in the dockside area, is extremely serious. He knows also that certain factors in Liverpool have made it always extremely difficult to arrive at any compromise hitherto between the parties concerned. The result is that the state of the schools has for many years been quite lamentable. In considering this question the factor that has influenced me has been that whatever the merits on one side or the other it has been the children who have had to pay the price. There is no point whatsoever in looking back or attempting to allot the blame as between the Corporation, the denominations, and the Board of Education itself, but the quite obvious and outstanding fact is that there has been, and is in fact still at the present moment, no solution of this problem on the accepted lines—that is to say, on the lines generally accepted throughout the country. The object of this Bill therefore is to end the deadlock by facilitating the provision of voluntary schools in Liverpool on the basis laid down in the Bill.

The plan, put quite briefly, is this, that the local education authority, instead of making grants of money towards the provision 735 of school premises by voluntary bodies, as they might have done under the Education Act of 1936, should themselves provide the premises and lease them to those bodies, but only in relation to proposals which have already been submitted under the Act of 1936 and within the time prescribed by that Act. The amount of school accommodation to be provided by the authority under this plan is estimated to be about 15,000 school places. This will approximately cost £900,000, which will be met by loan. Your Lordships may ask why the authority, having declined to operate the 1936 Act, have now put forward the scheme which is embodied in the present Bill. I think that the answer is a twofold one. In the first place, their unwillingness to operate the 1936 Act was, in large measure, due to the fact that they were not prepared to subsidise the property of denominational bodies—property which might in time appreciate considerably as a result of the Council's housing operations. They avoid doing so under the terms of the present Bill since the reversion of the freehold remains with the authority. The second, and much more important reason, is that Liverpool has finally recognised the urgent need for remedying the conditions of the denominational schools, particularly those in the dockside area, and has placed the interests of the children before sectarian and political differences. In this connection, I am able to inform your Lord-ships that the present Bill comes to us with the support of every political Party and every religious creed in the City.

It will be seen that the Bill involves no permanent or continuing alteration of the law since its provisions apply only to the building of schools in respect of which the denominational authorities have already submitted proposals under the 1936 Act within the time limits prescribed by that Act. Moreover, the proviso to Clause I makes it clear that the measure of assistance to be given to denominational bodies under the Bill can be no greater and no less than they could have received under the 1936 Act. The only other provision of the Bill to which I need make specific reference is that referred to in the latter part of subsection (3) of Clause 1. The effect of this is that the terms of appointment of teachers in schools to be built under the Bill will be precisely the same 736 as in the case of schools to which a building grant has been made under the 1936 Act.

Those of your Lordships who have occupied my post at the Board of Education, and indeed anyone who knows the condition of many of the voluntary schools in Liverpool, will appreciate the weight of responsibility involved in allowing the continuance of schools that are bad not only in terms of education, but of the simplest amenities of life including even the most primitive sanitation. Such a state of affairs cannot be allowed for a day longer than is necessary, and that responsibility would be greatly increased were a scheme for its solution, which commands unanimous local assent, to be rejected. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will show a like unanimity in supporting this measure. I hope, also, that your Lordships will agree with me in feeling that all concerned are to be congratulated on having found a solution to a problem that has been little short of a scandal for a generation. It is a triumph for tolerance for which future generations in Liverpool should be profoundly thankful. I beg to move.