HC Deb 23 July 1879 vol 248 cc1146-56

Order for Second Reading read.

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

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

expressed surprise, saying that he had understood from the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Hanbury) that the Bill would not come on. That was at 10 minutes past 2 o'clock.

MR. PELL

said, the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Hanbury) asked him, subsequently to that time, to move the second reading of the Bill.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

, in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day three months, said, its promoters should have given some reasons why it should be read a second time, for it was of a most important character, involving, as it did, the efficiency of the provision made for educational purposes in every borough throughout the country. It was scarcely courteous to the House to have the Bill flung amongst them without a single word in its favour. The House was taken a little by surprise, and it was difficult to know how to deal with it; but he wished to point out to the House that the provision of school accommodation was not at all a voluntary matter. The various authorities were compelled by Statute to provide sufficient accommodation for all children of school age within their districts. It could not, therefore, be pretended that the Bill was directed to economy, for the school accommodation must be provided. The Bill proposed that loans raised for those purposes should extend over periods of 30 years instead of 50 years, as heretofore; and the effect of that must be that a very much larger sinking fund would have to be created. He had not calculated the difference exactly; but he believed it would not be less than an increase of from 1½ to 1¾ per cent per annum on the whole capital expenditure upon building. Hon. Members opposite had posed as advocates of economy in School Board management, and they had complained of the school rate of London reaching 5d in the pound; but if the proposals in the Bill had governed the action of the London School Board, the rate would be at least 1d. or 1½d. more than it was at present. The Board would have had no alternative. They must have made the same provision, and incurred the same expenditure; but the charge on the present generation of ratepayers would have been increased to the extent he had stated. Of course, it was difficult to answer arguments in the dark, and he did not know what might be advanced in support of the Bill; but he could not see that the future generation of ratepayers were in any way damnified by the extension of the loan over 50 years. The buildings erected for the purpose of schools, both in the Metropolis and throughout the country, were substantial buildings—much better than the average of similar buildings. Certainly, they would have a much longer life than premises usually erected on 99 years' lease. The life of an ordinary house in the Metropolis was supposed to be about the term of the lease; but all these school buildings would last at least considerably more than a century. At the same time, he did not wish to suggest that loans should extend over such a long term as that; but, certainly, no reason had been shown why the term should be shortened in the manner proposed by the hon. Gentleman. The proposition was certainly a most shortsighted one, and it was a policy instigated by a feeling of opposition which had always existed in the minds of some to school boards and their work. They thought that the more expensive they made the work to the ratepayers the more unpopular the school boards would become with the ratepayers; and in that way they hoped to aid the denominational system, which had always had their consistent support. He did not apply this remark to the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), who was nothing, if not an economist. But in this case the economy was a very short-sighted one, for the certain result would be to increase the charge which he (Mr. Pell) and others thought was already too heavy. Under the circumstances, he (Mr. Chamberlain) hoped the Bill would not be allowed hastily to pass the second reading, for it was a measure that must seriously hamper educational work, and add seriously to the already heavy burdens of the ratepayers. He moved the rejection of the Bill.

MR. RYLANDS

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and. at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

MR. J. R. YORKE

supported the Bill, and said, he thought the facts which had come to the knowledge of the House would, to some extent, justify some jealousy of school board expenditure. The Metropolis was a fair specimen; and, so far from the large expenditure becoming reduced, it seemed to tend to indefinite increase. He was not specially actuated by regard for denominational schools; but he wanted the cheapest system, and he did not see why he should pay a much larger sum for the luxury of compulsion than it was necessary to pay for a voluntary school. The Bill would probably not increase the rates, and the scheme proposed in it had nothing of novelty to recommend it; it existed in Scotland, and the Scotch people, who had many admirable qualities, had one quality in particular—namely, that of looking narrowly after the way in which their money was spent. They preferred repayment in 30 years, and he was bound to believe that they had good reason for that preference. Further, he believed the Bill would prevent the repetition of cases like that of the Shaftesbury, for luxurious furniture would have to be renewed in less than 30 years. He did not, however, pretend that the Bill by itself would go very far; but it would do something to bring home to the present generation of ratepayers that if they would indulge in these educational luxuries they must pay the piper. It was not an isolated attack on the school board system, for the Bill was on all fours with the Bill of the Government for limiting to 30 years the loans of the local authorities from the Public Works Loan Commissioners.

MR. RAMSAY

said, the Scotch Education Act had enabled school boards to borrow for 30 or 50 years, and, perhaps, the majority of loans were for a period not exceeding 30 years. He, himself, was in favour of that term as the maximum; because, apart from other reasons, he thought that the generation for which a school was provided was the generation on which the burden of erecting the school should fall. On looking at the Bill, he did not see that it was one which should meet with opposition from the House. No doubt, in some instances, money had been borrowed in Scotland for longer periods; but, in the general run of cases, it had been thought expedient that the term should not exceed 30 years. In a great many instances, school boards themselves proposed this. In favouring the proposal of the Bill, he must not be understood to be in any way opposing the operations of school boards. If hon. Gentlemen complained of school board expenditure, they should remember that it was the ratepayers who bore the burden, and appointed the school boards, and it rested, therefore, with them to correct any extravagance in the expenditure.

MR. ROWLEY HILL

, in opposing the Bill, said, its effect on the school district with which he was connected would be to make the school board rate 7d. in the pound instead of 5d.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, the change proposed was an important one, and the House was entitled to hear the views of the Government from a Member connected, with either the Education Department or the Treasury, before it signified its assent to the principle of the Bill. In fact, the proposal hardly ought to have been made without the Education Department being represented in that House. He could not conceive for a moment that the Vice President, if he had been aware that a Bill was coming on affecting the position of school boards throughout the country, would have been absent from the discussion. The schools were not built so badly that they would last only for a generation; they would last for two or three generations at least, and it was, therefore, equitable that succeeding generations should contribute to the cost of the buildings while they lasted. It was really only the buildings that were in question, for the amount spent on the furniture was a ridiculously small part of the expenditure of school boards, as the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. R. Yorke) would see, if he were to move for a Return. The House would remember that, 10 years ago, when the Act was passed, it was at first proposed that the loans should be for 30 years; but the matter was fully considered by Parliament in connection with the year of grace, during which building grants were allowed to be made to the managers of voluntary schools; and that year of grace was agreed to in consideration of the extension of the term of the loans from 30 to 50 years, so that if the shorter term were now imposed there would be a distinct breach of Parliamentary agreement. The inevitable effect of the Bill would be to increase the school board rates by throwing the cost of the buildings on the rates of 30 years instead of 60 years, and, by putting an unjust burden on one generation in respect of the buildings, to restrict either in that respect, or some other, the educational supply. The hon. Member for East Gloucestershire was candid. He avowed that he wished to stop school board expenditure, which he thought was too great. But if the House was asked to legislate on the supposition that school board expenditure was extravagant, it ought to have far more evidence before it than had been yet adduced. More facts ought to be brought forward. Even assuming that the London School Board had made one mistake in respect of a ship, that did not prove anything as to the school buildings on land; and it was not disputed that both in London and the country more schools were wanted and must be supplied, and it would not do to make it more difficult than before to provide those schools. That being so, was it prudent to make the rates heavier for 30 years, in order that for 20 years afterwards the ratepayers might escape contributing to the cost of the schools already built? The ratepaying population was not now in such a state of prosperity that it should be asked to repay faster than it had been accustomed to do, neither was the country in such a condition that it would cheerfully accept a present increase of rates for the benefit of posterity. He should have imagined that the Government, if it had been represented by any other Members than the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Postmaster General, would have been anxious to oppose the Bill on that ground, if on no other. He trusted the House would not think of accepting the principle of such a Bill, on which, if the responsible Minister was present, he should ask the Government to give an opinion.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council, in common with, in all probability, nearly every other hon. Member, had no idea the Bill would come on, or, no doubt, he would have been present. The order of Business had taken a somewhat unexpected turn, which fully accounted for his absence. Speaking for himself, and not on behalf of the Government, after hearing the arguments for and against the Bill, he thought there were strong reasons for supporting it. If it would add 1d. or 2d. in the pound to the school board rate, that would not in itself be a disadvantage, because it would call attention to the expenditure of the school boards, which was a subject which deserved, in his opinion, a very careful consideration on the part of the public. The excessive expenditure of the London School Board had recently been very ably brought under the notice of the House by his hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. E. Yorke), who had rendered valuable service by the exposure of the system which prevailed. He (Mr. J. Lowther) was not surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) deprecate this suggested improvement, nor was the right hon. Gentleman at all inconsistent in endeavouring to keep the ratepayers in blissful ignorance of the large additions being continually made to their already almost intolerable burdens; because he (Mr. J. Lowther) well remembered that when the Education Act was passing through Committee, in 1870, it was proposed that the school board rate in the Provinces should be levied and collected separately, and kept distinct from other rates, as was the case now in London, whereby the ratepayers were enabled to see how much of their money was being spent by the School Board; but that was resisted by the right hon. Gentleman, and the proposal negatived. It was now said that in the country there was no complaint of the expenditure of the school boards; but that was because London was the only place in which the ratepayers knew how much the school board rate was. ["Oh, oh!"] He declined to enter into the general question of school board work, further than to say he could not endorse the wholesale eulogy of some hon. Members opposite. This generation was expending money, and ought to pay it; another generation might not approve school board expenditure. The Bill was an improvement upon the present system, and as he had said, speaking for himself solely, he hoped it would soon pass into law.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

, in opposing the Bill, felt sure the Government could not have considered how the operation of the Bill would increase the burdens of ratepayers in connection with school boards, seeing that it would add £80,000 a-year, or 1 per cent, to those burdens. There had been about 1,200 loans of a sum total of £8,000,000, of which the greater part was borrowed by small places, and an inconsiderable proportion by London; and he did not see why districts which should borrow in future ought to be called upon to pay more than other districts which had already borrowed. He did not believe there had been, as a general rule, extravagance in the building of schools throughout the country. They had been substantially built, but real economy was shown in this. That object would not be obtained by the operation of the Bill, for it would be defeated by the erection of less substantial buildings, which would, in the long run, be far more costly in repairs and renewals than those which were now erected under the 50 years' loans. The case of the ship was a very exceptional case; and there was no allegation of extravagance in the school buildings of London, which were substantial, but no more so than was consistent with the truest economy, having regard to the continuous interests of the London ratepayers, whose property they were. To say the least, their cost compared favourably with the expenses of erecting the voluntary schools, which were assisted by Government grants. He hoped the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) would not press his Bill further, in the absence of the responsible Ministers of the Government.

MR. PELL

, in supporting the second reading of the Bill, said, that by allow- ing his name to be put on its back, his only object was to promote economy, and not to discourage education. He contended that if local authorities had power to borrow money for a very lengthened time they were more likely to be led into extravagance than if the loans had to be repaid in a shorter period. Experience had proved that to be the fact; and it was, therefore, necessary to place some check on the large outlays incurred by school boards at the expense of a future generation. The old proverb, "Come lightly, go lightly," was true in that as in so many other cases. By assenting to the second reading of this Bill, they might make school boards more careful in incurring those obligations. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) had talked of their procuring peace with honour on "tick." It was to be feared that the House had too readily accepted the idea of promoting education on "tick," a very protracted "tick," too, which future generations would have to pay. They had no right to be generous with other people's money, especially with the money of a generation still unborn; and, therefore, he approved the reasonable provisions of the measure.

MR. M'LAREN

considered that 30 years, and not 50, was a sufficiently long period for these loans to extend over. He thought that bodies, whether public or private, who were obliged to contract debts, should see their way to the payment of these debts within a reasonable period. No person in private life could get the loan of money for 30 years. Even in the case of Government drainage loans made on land, the terms of which had been carefully considered, it had been determined that they should be paid back in 22½ years. Yet they had allowed school boards to borrow for more than double that period. It was said that at the end of 30 years the generation then existing would get the benefit of the schools free of debt. But that generation would have a great deal to do for itself. The population would have increased 50 per cent, and would require to build additional schools. Besides, the schools now being built would by that time cost nearly as much in repairs as would almost be equivalent to the expense of erecting new buildings. It was said that the additional interest of these loans would come to 1 per cent annually; but even allowing that to be the case, 1 per cent upon the loan would not be 1 per cent upon the rate, for the loan would not be one-half of the other expenditure for school purposes. Under the whole circumstances, he thought that if hon. Members would look at the enormous sums that the large towns in particular were borrowing, they would see the necessity of discouraging them and every other community, whether great or small, from undertaking heavy burdens for these long periods. If they wanted to borrow money, they ought to make reasonable provision for paying off their debts in 30 years.

MR. CHILDERS

said, this appeared to him not to be a very small question. But whether a small question or not, they ought not to read the Bill a second time without the opinion of the Government upon it. Considering the two Departments interested were the Education Department and the Treasury Department, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman connected with the Irish Government (Mr. J. Lowther) ought not to be deemed sufficient. It was improper that the debate should close before either the Secretary to the Treasury, or the Vice President of the Council, stated the Government's views upon it. The question of building grants to schools had been discussed thoroughly in Parliament when the Education Act was passed, and the decision of Parliament on the 11th July, 1870, was a compromise between the claims of the old and the new schools. The denominational schools were allowed a certain time within which they could obtain building grants, not originally contemplated by the Bill; and the new Board schools, which the localities were to be compelled to erect when school accommodation was deficient, were to be built with money borrowed from Government on easy terms for 50 years. If, before the Board schools, certified as necessary for the country, had got the loans sanctioned and been built, the House passed this Bill at the instance of the patrons of denominational schools, who had got all they wanted, and who desired to prevent the Board schools from obtaining what they needed, it would be a distinct breach of the agreement and compromise come to in 1870; and would cause great irritation on the part of those who had been parties to that compromise. He appealed to the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council to say whether the Government were prepared to support the Bill, and on what grounds.

MR. A. M'ARTHUR

, as a member of the first School Board of London, testified that that body had taken the greatest care and pains to select sites and build schools in the cheapest and best manner; and he believed that it had succeeded, on the whole, in executing that work, especially considering the unavoidably expensive character of many of the sites, as economically as it had been done in the country districts. He thought the passage of the Bill would be most unfair to the school boards throughout the country, and would be most damaging to the cause of education.

MR. DILLWYN

said, he did not think the House should come to a decision without the Government stating their opinion upon the Bill. He would, therefore, move the adjournment of the debate.

MR. BARRAN

seconded the Motion, remarking that the Bill had been unexpectedly sprung upon the House that afternoon. It would, undoubtedly, whatever the motives of its authors, retard the cause of education.

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

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

said, he was sorry he had not been present during the debate; but he had never expected the Bill would be reached. He had, however, come down to the House directly he heard it was under notice. From what he had heard, the debate seemed much ado about nothing. ["Oh, oh!"] The Bill simply proposed to substitute "30" in place of "50." In many cases, school board loans had been already contracted for 30 years only; and the Bill would make no difference whatever, as regarded the terms upon which loans had been already raised. The school accommodation throughout England was almost sufficient, with the exception of that of a few large towns. It was only in London, and some other large towns, with a constantly-increasing population, that the school boards would have to borrow money. If that was all that was proposed in the Bill now, how could hon. Members connect the proposal with any injury to the quantity or quality of the education given? The Bill proposed that in future any sums which were borrowed with the consent of the Education Department, in order to provide necessary school accommodation, should be repaid within 30 years, instead of 50. His hon. Friend, in fact, merely proposed to assimilate the borrowing power of school boards to that of other local authorities, for those bodies were the only public institutions which were not compelled to pay back loans in 30 years. No doubt, it would hit the present generation rather harder than the existing Act, but it was not a material difference; and as, in his judgment, the Bill would do no harm, he should, be prepared to vote in favour of the second reading.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council was under considerable misapprehension, when he said that other local authorities were compelled to pay back loans in 30 years. By far the larger amount of the loans made by the Public Works Loan Commission, under various Acts of Parliament, had been made for much longer periods than 30 years, the periods being 50, 60, and even 75 years in some cases. The noble Lord also was under a misapprehension when he said the Bill would not seriously affect the education in many parts of the Kingdom— And it being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.