Exhibit JC42 - The Leveson Inquiry

For Distribution to CPsThe Inb:oduction of Government Education Grants for Students on Further and HigherEducation Coursesentitled ’The Re-Settlement of Officers. Army and R.A.F.’ and ’Officers’Guide to Civil Careers’, both published in 1919. Departmental rivalrysurfaced when one press report, in the Daily Chronicle, gave all the kudosto the Ministry of Labour and ignored the Board of Education. ThePresident at that time, H.A.L. Fisher (1865-1940), wrote to his oppositenumber at the Ministry of Labour, the Rt. Hon. George H. Roberts, onDecember 19 t" deploring the leaking of the estimated costs of the schemeand the claim that the Ministry would have ’a very large measure of controlover the selection of the beneficiaries, selection of the educationalinstitutions and administration of the scheme.’ All of these, Fisher remindedRoberts were the province of the Board of Education and Roberts replied incontrite manner. He revealed that one of his staff quoted in the Chronicle,Mr Home McCall, had held ’a private conversation with a well-knownnovelist, whom he did not know to be in any way connected with Press. ’4There were other strands to the scheme including short three monthscourses of training in anything from hairdressing to commercial subjectsand, although no figure was mentioned in the early stages, another £3million was estimated for this training, as well as the £6 million for highereducation, plus another £300,000 for agriculture training. 5Receiving institutions were graded A to E, beginning with Oxford andCambridge Colleges, Group B was provincial universities, Group C hadmember Colleges of London University down to Group E for Art Collegesand Technical Colleges. These included Polytechnics, like Northampton,now the City University, for engineers, Regent Street, now the University ofWestminster, for photographers, and the six on the sanitary inspectorscourse at Battersea.One of the safeguards built into the system of devising courses was that’they should be devised by experts’ and that ’more or less expert advicemust be provided for each candidate in the selection of courses of trainingbest adapted to the circumstances. ’~ Once selected the Board of Educationexpected institutions to make quarterly returns of students’ ’progress,attendance and conduct’ as well as providing a ’discriminating personal,7record of the educational career of each student. Form 0.65 also had tobe completed annually and was not to be regarded as a substitute for thequarterly returns. Students realised that ’continuance of awards.., wasconditional on satisfactory progress ’8 and should they fall ill during thecourse then other procedures had to be followed.By 7 t" January, 1921, the ’weeding out of students’ had resulted in’dimunition of expenditure by £100,000 even though there was ’between500 and 600 (possible) cases.., for recovery of overpayment. ’s Indeed, by31 st December, 1919, total commitments had risen to £6,032,141 andestimates for the financial year 1919 to 1920 meant that a supplementaryvote was needed of £1,425,500.1° In October, 1920, the estimate for27,311 students had risen to £81/2 million. 11 Attempts were made tosimplify and streamline the payment of maintenance grants because ofcomplaints that it was taking up to 30 days before students received theirgrants, although ten to fourteen days was considered normal. 12Maintenance was not to exceed £175 per man, according to the earlyestimates, with a child allowance of £24 per annum up to a maximum of66MOD100051237