CLASS IV. (Hansard, 13 July 1896)

§ *MR. F. A. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)
remarked that he had put down a Notice for the reduction of this Vote in order to obtain some explanation on two specific points as to which the Vice President of the Council was unable to give him a reply on Friday. The right hon. Gentleman then complained that he had not received notice of the fact that the subject would be raised, but a reference to the "Parliamentary Debates" of May 11th would show that, in consequence of answers which were given by the Vice President to questions addressed to him, 1404 he gave notice then that he should raise this matter in Committee of Supply. He wished to draw attention to the money voted to meet the claims of necessitous School Boards coming under Section 97. That sum—an increase of only £8,850—was being voted to meet the claims of two years, while it appeared from the return of the right hon. Member for Rotherham that the amount left unpaid was £13,622 for the last year. Therefore, over £27,000 would have to be provided out of the Consolidated Fund to meet these claims in the ensuing year. According to the Return, 446 Boards were entitled to claim; but of these 276 Boards had failed to claim. The amount due would not be £17,550 as in the Estimates last year, but £40,156. He pressed for a clear understanding that an adequate amount would be provided during the present financial year up to April next to cover the claims of the whole of these School Boards. The second point was originally raised in the question he put to the right hon. Gentleman on May 11th, when he asked whether the Education Department could see their way to making some reasonable allowance for the arrears—if not the full arrears—due to Schools Boards which had not previously claimed under Section 97. There was no time limit in the section, but there was a time limit in the circular letter from the Department of 16th December 1881, which stated that no demand would be recognised that went further back than September 29th in any preceding year. He wished to know whether that letter was a Minute in Council in pursuance of the Act of 1870, and therefore considered by the Department as having all the force of a Statute governing these grants. He also wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman for information as to the manner in which managers of schools could claim those grants. He would draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that there was no space in the printed form for the entry of those claims, though there was a space for such entries by the managers of Voluntary Schools. The words in the Act of 1870 were intended in the sense which he attached to them, and he should like to know whether the Law Officers of the Crown did not advise that 1405 the School Boards had an equitable claim to the arrears which they had foregone.

§ THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,) Cambridge University
said that there was very little doubt that a Supplementary Estimate would have to be presented, though it was impossible at present to state what the amount of it would be. As to the arrears, it was obviously a difficult legal question, and he did not think the Committee of the Council would like him to state what their views would be until the claims were made. But those claims would be considered in a fair spirit, and, if necessary, legal advice would be taken. If any School Board proved to be entitled to arrears, some provision would be made for their payment. No Circular issued by the Education Department could debar a legal claim. The hon. Member was mistaken in supposing that there was any impropriety on the part of the Department in not putting a notice in the form sent to managers. The money under Section 97 of the Act of 1870 was not claimed by managers or by individual schools, but by School Boards. No claim for arrears had yet been received.

§ *MR. HERBERT LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)
said that the right hon. Gentleman had made a most important statement. Wales was particularly interested, because the claims of Welsh School Boards were out of proportion to those of School Boards in England. The county of Carmarthen claimed £890, the county of Glamorgan claimed £1,216, and the county of Monmouth claimed £1,493. Practically claims to two years' arrears had to be considered. It was not fair that School Boards who had sharp clerks should receive the amount due to them, and that a large number of other Boards should, through ignorance of their title, be precluded from receiving anything. There was no reason why a Circular should not be sent by the Education Department to the clerks of every School Board entitled to the special grant advising them of their rights. This he asked on behalf of some of the poorest and most necessitous of the School Boards.