§ Mr. KINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the letter and spirit of the Education Act, 1891, which in establishing freedom from school fees only allowed school pence to be charged, increased, or imposed in return for an educational benefit gained thereby; and whether the Treasury, in examining or accepting the estimates of the Board of Education, has regard to the clear intention of the Act of 1891, that where fees have been imposed since the passing of that Act in elementary schools there should be a reduction by a corresponding amount of the fee Grant?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI have consulted my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education, and I find that he does not agree in the interpretation of the Act suggested by my hon. Friend. The point raised in the later part of the question therefore does not arise.
§ Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education (1) at what date the Board sanctioned fees being charged at the Garston, Grassendale, Victoria Higher Grade Church of England School, Liverpool; whether it was made a condition of approval that the amount received from fees should be taken in reduction of the fee Grant; whether he will state what educational benefit, if any, was alleged by the local authority at the time that the fees were sanctioned; whether the sanction of the Board has been reconsidered from time to time as provided by the Statute; whether he will again consider the sanction of fees in this school and discontinue such sanction unless now satisfied that the imposition of a fee is required according to the Statute; and, if he is satisfied that the fee is for the educational benefit of the district, whether he will state fully what that educational benefit-is to-day; (2) at what date the Board sanctioned fees being charged at the Garston, Sudley Road, Temporary Council School, Liverpool; whether it was made a condition, etc., as in Question No. 1 above; (3) at what date the Board sanctioned fees being charged at the Toxteth Park, Sefton Park, Council School, 1615W Liverpool; whether it was made a condition etc., as in Question No. 1 above; (4) at what date the Board sanctioned fees being charged at the Toxteth Park, Sefton Park, Church of England School, Liverpool; whether it was made a condition, etc., as in Question No. 1 above; (5) at what date the Board sanctioned fees being charged at the Walton, Longmore Lane, Council School, Liverpool; whether it was made a condition, etc., as in Question No. 1 above; (6) at what date the Board sanctioned fees being charged at the Waver-tree, Lawrence Road, Council School, Liverpool; whether it was made a condition, etc., as in Question No. 1 above; (7) at what date the Board sanctioned fees being charged at the Wavertree, Dove-dale Road, Temporary Council School, Liverpool; whether it was made a condition, etc., as in Question No. 1 above; and (8) at what date the Board sanctioned fees being charged at the Wavertree, Morrison, Council School, Liverpool; whether it was made a condition, etc., as in Question No. 1 above?
Mr. PEASEThe dates on which the Education Department or the Board of Education sanctioned the charge of fees in the schools in question were, respectively:—
Name of School. Date. 1. Garston, Grassendale, Victoria Higher tirade Church of England School, No. 70. 13th Jan., 1898 2. Garston, Sudley Road, Temporary Council School, No. 72 12th Feb., 1904 3. Toxteth Park, Sefton Park, Council School, No. 108. 14th Aug., 1896 4. Toxteth Park, Sefton Park, Church of England School. No. 109. 15th Jan., 1901 5. Walton, Longmore Lane, Council School, No. 120. 15th Sept., 1896 6. Wavertree, Lawrence Road, Council School, No. 129. 23rd June, 1902 7. Wavertree, Dovedale Road, Temporary Council School, No. 127a. 10th Jan., 1908 8. Wavertree, Morrison Council School, No. 129a. 25th March, 1908 In no case was it made a condition of approval that the amount received should be taken in reduction of fee Grant. In the case of the Garston, Grassendale, Victoria Church of England School, the educational benefit alleged was that the school provided instruction of a higher kind than that ordinarily given in ele- 1616W mentary schools for children living in Grassendale, who would otherwise have been obliged to travel daily to Liverpool. In the remaining cases fees were sanctioned owing to a change of population in the district, except in the case of the Toxteth Park, Sefton Park, Church of England School, where fee Grant was not accepted. In the ease of the Garston, Grassendale, Victoria Church of England School, the fees were reduced in 1910, at the instance of the managers. The Statute does not appear to require a periodical reconsideration of the fees; it only enables such reconsideration to be made. It does not appear that in these schools any occasion has arisen for reconsideration. In a number of other schools a charge of fees previously sanctioned has been abandoned by the local education authority, in consequence of a change in the population of the district. Speaking generally, in the fee-charging schools the staff possess exceptionally good qualifications, and the standard of work is noticeably high. In two cases His Majesty's inspector reports the following special features:—
Walton, Longmore Lane, Council School.—Rooms for practical work and a bath are provided, and the curriculum contains special features.
Wavertree, Lawrence Road, Council School.—Rooms for practical instruction, an art room, cookery room, bath, and gymnasium are provided. In addition, special instruction is given in preparation for commercial life.