HC Deb 29 June 1896 vol 42 cc344-7

(1.) Where the spending authority are a School Board for a school district which is a parish, or the surveyors of highways, the amount which otherwise would he payable under this Act to the spending authority may he paid to the guardians of the poor-law union in which the parish is situate, and, if so paid, shall he paid or credited by them to the spending authority.

(2.) Every sum paid under this Act out of the Local Taxation Account to any spending authority in respect of any rate, shall, for the purpose of its application, of account, and of audit, be deemed to have been raised by the said rate.

(3.) For the purposes of section 97 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, any amount paid or credited under this Act out of the Local Taxation Account to a School Board shall he deemed to have been actually paid by the rating authority, and the amount which would have been raised or been produced by a rate of three-pence in the pound on the rateable value shall be calculated in like manner as if this Act had not passed.

MR. LEWIS moved to omit subsection (1). [Opposition cheers.] He said his object was to obtain from the Government an explanation of the subsection. The words, the amount which otherwise would be payable under this Act to the spending authority may be paid to the guardians of the poor-law union in which the parish is situate, showed that it was not obligatory on the part of anyone to pay the amount due to the guardians of the poor law union. Who was to decide whether the amount was to be paid to the guardians or not? Was it the Local Government Board, because, if so, they would confer on that Board an additional discretion of a very far-reaching character. And, furthermore, why should the amount be paid to the guardians at all?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said that, if the Local Government Board had to deal separately with the spending authorities in small districts where there were a number of authorities, it would involve the drawing of a number of small cheques. The sub-section, which was not compulsory but permissive, enabled the Local Government Board to make a payment of a lump sum to the guardians, who would pay over and credit to each of the spending authorities the amount of relief to which they were entitled.

MR. J. H. YOXALL (Nottingham, W.)

asked what safeguard was embodied in the Bill to prevent the guardians from placing the whole of the amount received from the Local Government Board to the relief of the poor-rate, and crediting none of it, for instance, to the school board rate?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said the School Board would get the money through the guardians just as well as if it came to them direct from the Local Government Board, and their rate would be so much less according to the amount they received in relief of the rate.

MR. CHANNING

said the sub-section was objectionable on all the grounds that had been urged against a similar provision in the Education Bill. It set up the board of guardians over and above the school board, and it started again that friction between local authorities and that confusion in local administration which had been so successfully denounced in connection with the Education Bill. The fact was the Solicitor General had not stated one administrative grievance why this proposal should not be introduced. This policy of running tilt against the school boards was not one which had been found very profitable for the Government. ["Hear, hear!"]

MR. CHAPLIN

said, as this was merely a matter of convenience, he hoped the House would not be asked to go to a division.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

thought that there was danger of a great deal of inconvenience and conflict. There was a great deal of antagonism between certain boards of guardians and school boards, especially in small municipal boroughs, and he was sure the proposal would not work smoothly. The only argument used by the Solicitor General was that it would save writing out a number of small cheques. He thought that was a trifling affair. The answer of the Solicitor General was a very inadequate one, and quite unworthy of him. There was no administrative connection between boards of guardians and the school boards The boards of guardians had nothing to do even with the making of the poor-rate.

Question put, "That the words of the sub-section to the word 'the,' in line 24, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided:—Ayes, 234; Noes, 92.—(Division List, No. 297.)

MR. CHAPLIN moved, in Subsection (1), after the word "or" to insert the words "consists of two or more parishes or are." The Amendment, he explained, was one designed to meet the views expressed in Committee by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, and he hoped it would be accepted.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

thought this was a very objectionable Amendment. There might be some reason for it in the case of exceedingly small parishes, in order to prevent the multiplication of cheques, though he did not see that there was any advantage in that; but the case was very different where there were a number of large parishes united in a school board district.

*SIR C. DILKE

said the Amendment was not worth pressing. The reason why he suggested it was that there were a number of cases in which parishes of 200 or 300 people joined one another. If there was any objection to the Amendment it was not worth while to press it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. YOXALL

rose to move a further Amendment, whereupon

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

claimed, "That the Question, 'That the remaining words of Clause 7 stand part of the Bill,' be now put."

Question put, "That the Question, 'That the remaining words of Clause 7 stand part of the Bill,' be now put."

DR. TANNER

Gag, gag!

*MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! I heard the hon. Member for Cork call out "gag." Did the hon. Member use that word?

DR. TANNER

I used a simple word, which has been used on frequent occasions by hon. Members opposite.

*MR. SPEAKER

If the hon. Member used such a word after the question was put from the Chair, his action was extremely disrespectful to the Chair, and I must call upon him to withdraw it. [Ministerial cheers.]

DR. TANNER

I did not mean any disrespect to the Chair. [Cries of "Withdraw, withdraw!"] I will do anything the Speaker tells me to do—I did not use the word out of any disrespect to the Chair. I merely copied the attacks which were frequently made by hon. Gentlemen opposite [Cries of "Order"and"Withdraw!"]

*MR. SPEAKER

Does the hon. Member withdraw the expression?

DR. TANNER

Certainly, Sir. [Ironical Ministerial cheers."]

The House divided:—Ayes, 234; Noes, 89.—(Division List, No. 298.)

Question put accordingly, "That the remaining words of Clause 7 stand part of the Bill."

The House divided:—Ayes, 234; Noes, 90.—(Division List, No. 299.)

Clause 8,—