TNAG-0251-FCO40-287-Education-policy-of-government-of-Hong-Kong-1970 — Page 123

329

Primary Education

[4 MARCH 1970]

in Hong Kong

330

problem was that the mothers and the fathers would not send their children to school for two reasons: first, they can- not afford the fees; and, secondly, they send them out to work to implement the family income? In the booming economy of Hong Kong and Kowloon, would it not be right to make education compulsory?

said that the figures she referred to came | Kong, the difficulty about this whole from the Memorandum of the Civic Association. I recognise that that is a responsible body. But it is difficult to say what is the true figure, because the last census was taken some seven years ago and there have been major changes in the population since then. The best assumption I have indicates that the figure the noble Baroness refers to is very much exaggerated. In regard to the Answer I have given, I am trying to indicate that the Hong Kong Government are seeking to provide, and are in fact succeeding in providing, a primary school education for the children of Hong Kong.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, my noble friend must forgive me if I press him, because although my facts are absolutely correct-he does not deny them and agrees that the Civic Associa- tion are a responsible organisation-he does not say precisely why my proposal is not implemented and why the con- ditions for the children in Hong Kong now are more or less the same as con- ditions were for children in this country over a hundred years ago. Does this situation help the picture of Britain in the eyes of the people of Hong Kong?

LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the conditions in Hong Kong are not what they were in Britain a hundred years ago. The Hong Kong authorities have made major advances in the field of education. May I merely add that expenditure in this field in 1963-64 was some 181 million Hong Kong dollars, which represented 14 per cent. of Government expenditure; this year, 1969-70, the estimate is some 416 million Hong Kong dollars, repre- senting some 19 per cent, of Government expenditure.

We have made major efforts in the field of Hong Kong. To bring in com- pulsory education at the present moment I think would merely be an act on paper. The great problem is that there is a con- tinual movement of families in Hong Kong moving to the new resettlement areas, and legislation of this kind would not be effective. Therefore, at this moment I would not advise the Hong Kong Government to bring such legisla- tion forward.

LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that as recently as last September, when I was in Hong

H.L. 15 D 7

LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have seen these statements made, and perhaps on occasions in earlier days I also made them. But the fact is that in Hong Kong now there are over one million children at school. The number of children who do not go to school is questionable. although I recognise that some parents, take the steps that my noble friend has suggested. I say that it is the intention of the Government of Hong Kong to ensure that primary education is avail- able for all children when they have the places available, which is a situation they are very quickly reaching; and I should have thought that then would be the time when one could take action against parents who wilfully deprived their children of education.

LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend this question? While it is true that these amounts in fees seem small in this country, is he aware that they are a terrible cost to those who are on low wages in Hong Kong, and that the provision for those who are poor fails in Hong Kong, as it nearly always does, under the means' test process? Furthermore, in view of the fact that in most British colonies when the State has become responsible for education that education has been free, and has been one of the benefits of our colonial administration, and in view of the rich revenue of Hong Kong, why can- not this benefit be established in that territory?

LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we had a debate relting to this subject in 1967, and I should be quite happy to have another full debate on this particular subject. It is not easy to deal with it by Question and Answer. I think my noble friend must recognise that in 1945, at the end of the war, we had only some 4,000 children in school-this was because school buildings had been des- troyed. Now there are over one million children at school. I know of no other

"