HC Deb 23 March 1886 vol 303 cc1721-6

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. LLEWELLYN (Somerset, N.)

In asking the House to read this Bill a second time, I do not think it necessary to go into its provisions at any length. As to its object, it will speak for itself. I may say that it is not intended to supplant or in any way amend the Act of 1876, but to remove, if possible, a grievance not altogether a sentimental or an imaginary one, but one keenly felt by the class with which the measure deals. The grievance is, I may say, that those who are called upon to provide education for their children belonging to the class known as "non-paupers," who cannot afford to pay the fees, have to apply to be relieved of them either to the Boards of Guardians or to the officers of the Boards of Guardians. Such application is felt to be degrading, and I think the law should be altered in the manner I suggest in this short Bill. I should not have ventured to introduce this Bill were it not that I have had some considerable experience in this matter. Since the formation of School Attendance Committees I have had the honour to be Chairman of the Committee in my Union for the last 11 years, and I have had in my capacity there, and also as magistrate, several opportunities of seeing that the Act presses rather hardly upon a certain class. The custom as to granting relief from the payment of school fees is objectionable. As a rule, or with few exceptions, or, at any rate, a large proportion of the inquiry officers appointed under the Act, are also relieving officers, and it is that custom which causes the great objection to the Act. Those who are applicants for this form of relief have very often to apply to the inquiry officers at the same time that outdoor relief is being given to the poor, and in the majority of cases those who apply for this relief see no difference between their application and becoming outdoor paupers. The same officer stands at the same table, and although he does not use the same book—one book being yellow and the other red—those who get this freedom from the payment of school fees, from the manner in which it is obtained, go away with the idea that they are outdoor paupers. I should not have attempted to suggest to the House that an alteration should be made in this Act were it not that the occasion of the affirming of that measure affords an opportunity for so doing. The charge for payment of school fees is made not on the general fund of the Union, but on the parish in which the people live. I propose in this Bill that those in a parish who should be elected on a School Fees Committee should have the opportunity of granting this relief, and that, as the existing law already provides, the payment should be made through the ordinary precept by the parish alone. It may occur to some hon. Gentlemen who have studied the question and have been brought face to face with the difficulties of it, that an increase in the rates may be brought about through giving authority or power to irresponsible parties to grant relief out of a fund which they are not responsible for providing. But if that is the case—and I am inclined to believe it will not be—I maintain that the effect of dissociating this class which my Bill affects from the actual pauper class will in itself bring about a relief to the rates for the reason I have attempted to give. If the House passes the Bill, those who seek to obtain relief from the payment of school fees will no longer be brought into contact, as they are at present, with the Boards of Guardians themselves or the officers of the Boards of Guardians. The class chiefly affected by my Bill are those who, above all others, should receive attention at this moment. They are the class who are striving to keep themselves above the rank of paupers—the class who, at this moment, are suffering from want of employment; and it is for that reason that I am particularly anxious to press upon the House the desirability of granting this relief as soon as possible. The inquiry officer is, in many cases, one whose efficiency is shown by the amount of money he can save to the rates; and in order to bring these school-fee cases before the Guardians he has to make all sorts of inquiries, he has to drag up all the circumstances of people's lives, and it is possible for the information he gives the Guardians to be published in the newspapers. A point of importance is that I propose that the Guardians may be required to appoint a paid officer to assist the Committee in its inquiries in this matter of payment of school fees, and that he shall in no case be the relieving officer for the parish. I do not know that I need add anything to that, unless it is requested that I should do so. I ought, perhaps, to apologize for not having prefaced my remarks, in moving the second reading, with the stereotyped phrase about, as a new Member, asking the indulgence of the House; but if I have been at fault in that respect, I beg to correct it by thanking the House for the indulgence it has shown.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Llewellyn.)

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN) (Birmingham, W.)

I am sorry that the hon. Member thought it necessary to move the second reading so late to-night, especially as I understand the Bill has only just been printed. I only got a copy of it this morning, and have not been able to give it the consideration it deserves. [Mr. LLEWELLYN: It was circulated yesterday morning.] I am told, after the slight investigation I have been able to make, that the Bill has been so drawn that it will require a great number of alterations to carry out the object of the promoters. We should have time to examine it; and, besides, I doubt if it is wise to deal in this piecemeal way with a matter affecting education at a time when, actually, a Committee has been appointed to consider the question of education. I should say it would be much better to put this matter before the Committee, in addition to the other matters they will have to consider, than to pass the Bill. I do not wish to prejudice the question, and, with the view of giving an opportunity for its careful consideration, I move the adjournment of the debate.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Joseph Chamberlain.)

MR. H. SPICER (Islington, S.)

Those of us who are members of the London School Board find ourselves in somewhat of a difficulty as to what course to adopt. For my own part, I would rather see the second reading carried on the understanding that full time will be given for the consideration of the measure before the Committee stage. So far as the London Guardians are concerned, they have refused to avail themselves of the option contained in the Act which enables them to pay school fees—

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is not in Order in discussing the general question on the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.

SIR RICHARD PAGET (Somerset, Wells)

After the remarks of the hon. Member opposite, I hope the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) will see his way to withdraw his Motion and allow the Bill to be read a second time. The right hon. Gentleman has given as a reason for the adjournment that the Bill was only circulated this morning; but, as a matter of fact, it was in the hands of Members one or two days earlier. The measure is one of a very simple character, and I cannot conceive it necessary that any length of time is required for the consideration of its principle. I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he sees nothing in the Bill that is objectionable. He sees some small difficulties of detail that require alteration; but his chief objection, and the reason of his moving the adjournment, is that there is a Select Committee at present engaged in investigating the Education Acts. How-ever undesirable it may be to legislate in a piecemeal manner, I venture to say that the right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned sufficient grounds for adjourning the debate. There are many points that require alteration in the Education Law, and this Bill proposes to deal with only one, and that in a manner that is unobjectionable. I hope, after the appeal that has been made to him, that the right hon. Gentleman will see fit to permit the Bill to pass the second reading, on the clear understanding that it will not be proceeded with on any future stage until he has had ample time to consider it.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND (Hampstead)

I would venture to ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his decision. This Bill, as my hon. Friend has just stated, has been before us for two days; and though I quite admit the force of the argument that there is a Royal Commission sitting on Education, yet the measure deals with a distinct grievance. It may be that the details will require alteration in Committee; but the Bill is a very simple one dealing with this grievance I speak of. I may add that I do not think the question is one that is likely to come before the Commission.

MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN

If I may be allowed, by the permission of the House, to answer the hon. Baronet, I would say that I do not wish to express an opinion as to the Bill, and I see no objection to its being now read a second time, if the hon. Member in charge of it will agree not to put down the further stage for a fortnight.

MR. LLEWELLYN

I agree to that.

MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN

Then I withdraw my Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put.