HC Deb 18 March 1897 vol 47 cc993-1002

No teacher employed in Schools which receive aid grant under this Act shall be required to perform any extraneous duties, that is to say, any duties other than those of teaching in the school and instructing pupil teachers therein.

He said he could give very numerous instances of advertisements by managers of Voluntary Schools for teachers who were not only able to teach the children but also to play the organ, train a choir, or perform other extraneous duties. In his opinion, teachers should not be required to do anything but teach the children. The question whether or not a teacher was a communicant in the Church of England had nothing to do with his appointment as a teacher. ["Hear, hear!"] The advertisements showed that only a very small remuneration was offered for the performance of those extraneous duties, and it came to this, that, in many instances, the money of the nation was being used to pay a church organist. But there was a more important question than that involved, and that was, that teachers for Voluntary Schools were not chosen, as they ought to be, because they were people best qualified to teach the children, but because they were good organists or good Churchmen and promised to be communicants. ["Hear, hear!"] He knew it would be useless to appeal at that stage to the First Lord for any attention to this demand, but he felt it his duty, in the interest of the education of the country, to move the new clause.

Clause read the First time.

On the Motion, "That the clause be read a Second time,"

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

said that this clause, whatever might be its merits, would put a most unmerited disability on teachers in Voluntary Schools as compared with those in Board Schools. The teacher in a Board School might teach in a Sunday school, or perform other duties of the kind mentioned by the hon. Gentleman; but, if a teacher in a Voluntary School undertook to do the same things, the hon. Gentleman proposed that the school in which he was a teacher should be deprived of the whole amount of the aid grant. Moreover, if he was to interpret the views of the hon. Gentleman, it seemed that the hon. Gentleman would go further, and make it impossible for the unfortunate teacher in a Church school to communicate in the Church to which he belonged. [Laughter.] That, he thought, was a degree of tyranny which the hon. Gentleman in his more careful moments would hardly venture to further. ["Hear, hear!"] He trusted the hon. Gentleman would not put the Committee to the trouble of a division. ["Hear, hear!"]

MR. ACLAND

thought the right hon. Gentleman had not quite realised the actual meaning of the clause. The words of the clause had been most carefully drafted—[Ministerial laughter]—by a very skilful draftsman, who knew exactly what was intended, and he was perfectly certain that the words absolutely fulfilled the intention. The whole point was that no teacher "should be required" to perform these extraneous duties—["hear, hear!"]—that in engaging a teacher the managers should not require or demand from him extraneous duties of the sort mentioned. The desire of the vast majority of the teachers of this country had been to see something of this sort on the Statute-book, and he believed that the clause was a perfectly sound one. ["Hear, hear!"] The question was whether a teacher when he was engaged ought to be required to perform any other duties than that of a teacher. There was no objection to teachers entering voluntarily into arrangements to do other work. What they did object to—and they were right to do so—was that in their engagements as teachers other matters should be included. Many hon. Members opposite had assented in the past to the view embodied in this clause. It was a reasonable demand to make that teachers should not be asked to undertake, in connection with churches, chapels, etc., duties which lay outside the limits of their profession. It would be a great relief to a large number of persons who were entering the teaching profession, and to a large number who were already in it, if it were quite understood that managers could not impose any extraneous duties upon them, and that the performance of such duties should be purely voluntary. It should also be understood that their salaries were salaries for teaching only, and that if any additional remuneration was to be given to them it must be kept quite separate from the sums they received as teachers. The members of the profession naturally valued the idea that they were appointed primarily as teachers and not for other duties, and held that they ought not to be dismissed except for faults committed in their teaching capacity. Everybody must desire that the teaching profession in elementary schools should be dissociated from extraneous duties, as it was in public schools, secondary schools, and the universities. If a teacher was invited to undertake work on Sundays, or other duties, that work ought to be treated as something quite separate from his work as a teacher. That was the feeling of tens of thousands of teachers. The Amendment before the Committee was a most reasonable one, and the principle which it embodied ought to be put in the Statute Book.

MR. GRAY

felt bound to say a word or two on behalf of the principle of the Amendment before the Committee. He believed that the First Lord of the Treasury had not noticed the particular form in which the Amendment was proposed to the Committee, for the right hon. Gentleman's argument was based upon the wording of the earlier Amendment, to which no one, he felt sure, would have assented, because it would have fettered the hands of the teachers and prevented them from accepting appointments outside their teaching work, even when they desired to accept such appointments. That Amendment, however, was not before the Committee. There was a very great deal to be said on behalf of the Amendment that was before it, and he should not have hesitated to place a similar Amendment on the Paper himself, if he had realised that it would be in order. There was no doubt that teachers were often appointed subject to their consenting, at a time when they were naturally anxious to obtain employment, to undertake all sorts of parochial duties not connected with the work of teaching. It was a common thing for managers to advertise for persons who would undertake, not only the duties of a teacher, but some half-dozen other occupations as well. By such action a school was frequently deprived of the services of the best teacher, an inferior teacher being engaged, because he was more competent to perform extraneous duties. There was yet a further obstacle in the way of progress. When a teacher had won the affections of the children, the appreciation of the inspectors, and the regard of every inhabitant in the district, some little friction would be caused in connection with the performance of some extraneous duty, and as a result the teacher would be dismissed. This compulsory performance of extraneous duties was one of the greatest blots in our educational system. The practice was not limited to the Voluntary Schools; there were many School Boards in the country that were equal sinners on this respect. [Opposition cries of "How!"] In Church schools the extraneous task was often that of playing the organ in church, in Board Schools it was not un-frequently the task of presiding at the harmonium in the parish chapel. [Laughter.] The right hon. Member for Rotherham had said that he would desire to see this proposed clause applied to the case of teachers in all schools. What could be the object of that suggestion, unless the right hon. Member knew that the change was as necessary in some of the smaller Board Schools of the country as it was in the Voluntary Schools? If hon. Members opposite wanted instances to show that the clause ought to be applied to School Boards as well as to voluntary organisations, no doubt the right hon. Member for Rotherham would be able to supply them with such instances. The exigencies of the moment necessitated that if this clause were pressed to a division a vote should be recorded against it. He understood that; but he affirmed, without hesitation, that there were many hon. Members on his side of the House who in other circumstances would have assented willingly to the principle of the proposal before the Committee. They were as anxious as he was that the best teachers should be secured for schools, whether Voluntary or Board Schools, and that as long as a teacher's character, professional and moral, was beyond reproach—as long as he discharged satisfactorily his duties to the managers, the Department and the parents in the district—he should not be subject to capricious dismissal in connection with the performance of some task quite unconnected with the work of the school. Extraneous services willingly given would be of far greater value, both to the Church, the teachers, and the schools, than services unwillingly wrung out of teachers who feared that unless they were performed they must be turned adrift in the world, not merely at an age when it was difficult to obtain employment, but often with such resentful feelings left behind on the part of managers of schools that it was frequently impossible for them to obtain recommendations for appointments in other schools. There was much to be said in favour of the Amendment, but he hoped it would not be pressed to a division. [Cries of "Why?"] Because he believed it would be injurious to the object they had in view to have an adverse vote recorded upon it. He took exactly the same line as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, who withdrew his Amendment because he believed it would be injurious to have an adverse vote recorded upon it, and because he recognised the necessity of having the Bill passed through its closing lines without Amendment. [Cries of "Why?"] Those who were interrupting him had been longer in the House than he, and they ought to know what the result would be if an Amendment were accepted at this stage. Everybody recognised that position, though, perhaps, hon. Members opposite would rejoice in having a free hand to repeat the stupid Amendments that were placed on the Paper in the earlier stages of these proceedings. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed to a Division.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

remarked that the hon. Member for West Ham, who had described some of the Amendments proposed from the Opposition side of the House as stupid, seemed to have forgotten that he had supported several of them. The hon. Member now desired that this Amendment should be withdrawn lest he should be obliged to go once more against the Government to support whom he had been returned to Parliament.

MR. GRAY

hoped the hon. Member would not further misrepresent what he had said, or at any rate had intended to say. What he tried to represent to the Committee was that if the time expended on unreasonable proposals had been devoted to reasonable Amendments, there would have been opportunities of discussing them and of actually getting them inserted in the Bill. The fact that there had been such a large number of other Amendments, which he ventured to criticise as stupid, had prevented some of the Amendments which he had supported being embodied in the Bill.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

replied that he had not seen any disposition on the part of the Government at any time to accept Amendments, however reasonable, and the hon. Member had not indicated a single Amendment which ever had a chance of acceptance from the Government. The present Amendment, he submitted, was one upon which every Member was entitled to have his vote recorded, and if pressed to a division he should not be surprised if the hon. Member himself would not be driven to vote for the new clause. He had never before heard the argument used that they ought not to amend a Government Bill because they thereby escaped one stage. Again, what an argument it was to advance to the Committee that the Amendment could be introduced in another place! The Amendment might be good, but they apparently in the Commons were not wise enough to carry it through. Were they to relegate that very important part of their work to the unrepresentative Members of another place? If the Amendment was a good one there was no reason whatever why the Government should not adopt it. The teachers of this country, and of Voluntary Schools more especially, had been for some time agitating for some kind of guarantee of fixity of tenure, and the hon. Member would agree with him when he said that the support given the Bill by the Voluntary School teachers was in a great measure given because they themselves hoped that some provision of this kind would be introduced into the Bill They knew that this money was to be given to the schools, and the hon. Member himself voted in favour of an Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Huddersfield in favour of the teachers having some share of it. This proposal was in precisely the same direction. Those who knew the circumstances of the case knew there was very solid ground for this Amendment. [Mr. GRAY: "Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member who represented in that House a large body of the teachers admitted that this Amendment was a good one, and yet he asked them not to press it to a division. The reason why the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton withdrew his Amendment was because a pledge was practically given by the First Lord of the Treasury that there should be every year a full statement of the proceedings under this Act and of the application of the money made to the House. No such pledge had been given in the present instance, nor had there been any promise that the Amendment should be introduced in the other House. The hon. Member for West Ham would admit the authority of Mr. Macnamara to speak for the teachers in this matter, and he would quote two or three extracts from Mr. Macnamara to show the importance of this Amendment. He had a case before him where a schoolmaster with less than £100 a year and 70 children on the rolls had to be organist, choir master, parish clerk, Sunday school superintendent and teacher, bell ringer, clerk to the County Council, i.e., a Conservative County Council. [Laughter.] Another master, with £77 a year, had these extraneous duties: organist, playing on Sunday, choir practice 40 times a year; "when the Vicar's wife is absent, I play once on Sunday." [Laughter.] Another master with £76 a year, which had been reduced because the voluntary subscriptions had not been kept up, had these extraneous duties (there were 57 children in his school): to arrange for the school cleaning; Sunday school, morning and evening, organist, paid a little extra (quite an exceptional case); act as choir master, attend to the savings bank (these were great people for money, they collected it whenever they could get it), and assist with Band of Hope meetings. The conclusion of the matter was (a serious matter) a schoolmaster or teacher ought to be selected on the ground that he was a good teacher, and knew how to instil learning into the children. If so selected he should be allowed to devote the whole of his energies to his work and not be required to undertake any extraneous duties. If a school-master or teacher did his work properly he had not much time for these extra duties. He ought not to be liable to dismissal, not because he was a bad or unpopular master, but because he did not fulfil these duties.

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

said there was a comic side to this, no doubt, but there was also a serious and pathetic side. It was perfectly reasonable that a teacher employed in a denominational school should belong to the denomination of the school in which, he taught, and render the ordinary service to the denomination which other members of same denomination gave. If this extraneous work were not compulsory, no doubt teachers would render voluntary unpaid service as many members of a denomination other than teachers did. But teachers specially trained and examined, quasi State servants, and paid mainly out of State money, should be required before taking employment to undertake only the work in schools for which they were trained. With their daily teaching and their instruction to pupil teachers there was quite enough work, and he most strongly objected to these compulsory tasks of an extraneous character being imposed. This might not be the best part of the Bill to introduce the prohibition, but he should support the protest. It would be outvoted, no doubt, but he was not without hope that the Education Department would secure the object of this clause by regulations.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 96; Noes, 237.—(Division List, No. 133.)

Bill reported, without Amendment, amid loud Ministerial cheers.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY,

whose rising was greeted with Ministerial cheers, said: I propose to put this Bill down for Third Reading on Monday. But the right hon. Gentleman opposite made an appeal to me, which, especially as there is no Report stage, I feel bound to agree to, that Monday is too soon. Therefore, though putting it down for Monday, I shall, on Monday, defer it until Thursday in next week if there is no Vote of Censure moved on that day. [Loud Ministerial cheers.] If, on the other hand, Thursday is required by the Opposition for a Vote of Censure, I shall feel bound, however reluctantly, to take Tuesday for the Third Reading.

MR. J. MORLEY

I have to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the courtesy and consideration with which he has responded to the appeal I made to him. I think the appeal was thoroughly well founded, for, as the right hon. Gentleman has told us, there is to be no Report stage to this Bill, which is in itself a very remarkable circumstance—[cheers and counter cheers]—a circumstance so remarkable that no doubt we shall have to call attention to it here and elsewhere. [Ministerial laughter and Opposition cheers.] To-night we had dispatched Clauses 2 and 3—clauses which were practically not largely controversial—in a spirit which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman opposite will be the first to acknowledge. [The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY: "Hear, hear!"] But it might be inferred front the conciliatory and business-like way in which those two comparatively non-controversial clauses have been conducted that the Debate, on the first clause, which is really the contentious clause of the Bill, and is, in fact, the substance and body of the Bill, has been, though I will not admit that, unduly prolonged. [Ministerial cheers.]

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,) Birmingham, W.

Speech!

MR. J. MORLEY

With all respect to my right hon. Friend, I am speaking strictly to the question as to the date for which the Third Reading of this Bill is appointed. However, I have no intention of prolonging these remarks, except to notice that the right hon. Gentleman said, as I understand, that he would put the Bill down nominally for Monday, but with the intention of taking it really on Thursday, unless my right hon. Friend the header of the Opposition should ask Thursday for what the right hon. Gentleman calls a Vote of Censure. Upon that point I would say that the question of whether we shall ask for Thursday, or what day we shall ask for, will undoubtedly depend upon whether the Government's policy has been so developed—[Ministerial cries of "Oh!" and "Norwich!" and Opposition cheers]—and has taken such practical and operative form as to compel us to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us Thursday for the examination of that policy. That is our position. Meantime, and subject to those contingencies which may arise—and whether they arise or not will depend on the Government—we, of course, are perfectly willing to acquiesce in the arrangement which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned to the House.

VISOUNT CRANBORNE

hoped that Tuesday would not be diverted from private Members, for there was a very im- portant Motion, in which. Churchmen were largely interested, down for that day. The House of Commons did not exist mainly for the convenience of the two Front Benches—[laughter] and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose and his colleagues would make up their minds at once whether there was to be a Vote of Censure or not on Tuesday, in order that the fate of the Motion to which he had alluded would be known as soon as possible.

MR. LOUGH

(who was received with Ministerial cries of disapproval) said he only rose to support the appeal of the noble Lord, as he had got the second place on Tuesday for a Motion, and he therefore hoped the Government would leave the day to private Members.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

Ask your own Bench. [Ministerial cheers.]

MR. LOUGH

Unfortunately, our own Bench has not control of the affairs of the House. [opposition and Ministerial cheers.]

Third Reading put down for Monday next.