HC Deb 13 February 1891 vol 350 cc647-8

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [10th February], That Mr. Bartley be a Member of the Select Committee on the School Board for London (Superannuation) Bill.

Question again proposed.

Debate resumed.

(7.28.) MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

I am placed in a position of some difficulty with regard to this Bill, because my hon. Friend proposes to refer it to a Committee on which my name is suggested, and upon which, if the Committee be appointed, I shall have pleasure in serving; but seeing that my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford has obtained, on a Resolution of this House, a reference of the whole question. respecting both London and the provinces, both School Board teachers and teachers in Voluntary Schools, to a Select Committee, I presume my hon. Friend (Sir Richard Temple) will consent to allow the Bill to stand over until that Select Committee has reported. I, therefore, trust that he will not press his Motion to-night, but will confer with the Government, with a view of carrying out, hi its most effective manner, the Resolution already passed by the House. The question is one of great importance, affecting as its does not only the School Boards of London, but the whole of the School Boards throughout the country.


I shall be glad to listen to any suggestion from the Government as to the best way in which the scheme proposed by this Bill can be carried out; but if the Motion is to be proceeded with now, as I trust it may, I should like to obtain the assent of the House to a proposal for appointing a Committee at once. The proposal as to the School Board for London is that the Superannuation Fund should be provided entirely by the contributions of the teachers, with the possibility that at starting it may need some grant from the School Board. This proposal, which has been sprung upon us within the last few days, with regard to the superannuation of teachers throughout the country——


The hon. Gentleman is travelling beyond the limits of the question.


Perhaps I am going a little too far, but I merely wish to point out that the Committee proposed by the hon. Baronet with regard to London is on the principle of guarantee by rates; whereas the principle of the other Committee, which is for the rest of England, is that of guarantee by taxes. I see, therefore, no reason why the two questions should be so amalgamated that——

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present,; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,—

House was adjourned at half after Seven o'clock till Monday next.