THIRD READING. (Hansard, 20 March 1891)

*LORD MONKSWELL
I have to propose an Amendment after the word "section," to add the words "unless and until the Council shall otherwise direct." The object of this Amendment is——

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I must point out to the noble Lord that he is not in Order, as he has not given notice of the Amendment.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
I understand that to be the Rule which we ordinarily adhere to, and I think it is rather a valuable Rule. It is not, of course, an absolute one, but it is very generally adhered to; and it is rather dangerous that the House should allow it to be broken, to avoid matters being sprung upon us at the last moment.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
Still, as the discussion upon this Bill was not pursued in the ordinary way in regard to opportunity being afforded of bringing forward Amendments at an earlier stage, and the Bill has been rather rushed through, it appears to me that, as it has not been quite proceeded with in the ordinary course, the Amendment might be allowed now to be brought forward.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
If that is the feeling of the House, I will not oppose its going forward, but I earnestly hope that a Rule will not be readily disregarded which is part of the usage of this House.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
I think the only reason that can be urged for it is that which has been pointed out by the noble Lord the Earl of Camperdown, that the Bill was allowed to pass through Committee without Amendments being put in, upon the understanding that they were to be allowed to be brought forward upon this occasion. But I entirely agree with the noble Marquess, and hope that it will not be regarded as a precedent.

*LORD MONKSWELL
Then by the courtesy of the House I shall ask your Lordships to agree to this Amendment 1523 which gives the County Councils a somewhat freer hand. The members of the London County Council, I may say, so far as I have been able to consult them, are desirous that these words should be inserted. The Amendment is after the word "section," at the end of line 3, to insert "and unless and until the Council otherwise direct." This Amendment will enable the County Councils, if they like when they appoint a Committee, or at any time afterwards, to say that the appointment of that Committee shall not be held under the section to be an appropriation of the fund. As I have said, it only proposes to give the County Councils a somewhat freer hand, and I hope the noble Lord will not refuse to accept it.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
I merely wish to suggest that the Committee act at the pleasure of the Council, and that it is entirely open to the Council to cancel the Committee altogether. If so, the words are certainly not required. I hold that the Council has full power over the Committee to deal with it they please. If I am wrong I daresay I shall be corrected by noble Lords who are well aware of the construction of the Act, but that is certainly my impression—that they may revoke the appointment of the Committee.

§ *LORD LINGEN
I beg to point out that the words can, at all events, do no harm. I think the Councils ought certainly to have a freer hand.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
The worst of it is that the Judges, when words are put in merely because they can do no harm, will imagine that they have been put in for some reason, and then they endeavour to find the reason, which is often very unfortunate.

§ *LORD LINGEN
The words would, I think, remove any ambiguity.

§ *LORD HOBHOUSE
I think I can point out how the words will do good. Suppose a case in which a Council have referred it to a Committee to advise whether part of the fund, or the whole of it, shall be applied for the purposes of technical education or not, and to inquire and report upon the question. That, I may say, is in point of fact an actual case; a reference of that kind having been made by the London County Council to a Committee. 1524 As this clause stands, as I ventured to point out yesterday, such a reference as that would make the first part of Section 2 attach upon the fund, and the reference to a Committee in those terms will be taken as an appropriation until the Committee shall have made their Report, and the Council shall have arrived at a decision, or the Committee shall have been superseded. That puts the Council to make a fresh order, perhaps to supersede altogether the Committee, whom they want to be advised by, in order to prevent that operating as an appropriation which they never intended should operate as an appropriation. But if the words proposed by Lord Monks-well were put in, then the Councils will have it in their power to say—"We desire to make this general reference to a Committee, but we do not desire that that general reference shall act as an appropriation, but the question of appropriation shall be reserved," as I humbly think it ought to be, until the Committee have reported and the Council have considered that Report. That would be the effect of it.

§ LORD HENNIKER
If the Amendment which is proposed by my noble Friend opposite to-day is passed with regard to rescinding the appointment of a Committee, it appears to me this Amendment is almost surplusage, and personally I think it is rather a mistake to make Acts of Parliament, one may say, almost too explanatory in some ways. But if noble Lords opposite wish that this Amendment should be inserted, I have no objection to offer on the part of the Government.

§ LORD HERSCHELL
As I understand the matter, it acts in this way. Practically all that my noble Friend desires could be done under the Bill as it now stands; but it would involve this: that if the Council wanted this money not to be hung up for this purpose, and at the same time desired that there should be a reference to a Committee notwithstanding that, for the purpose of considering the question of the application of the money to technical education, it could be carried out under the Bill only in this way: that they could rescind the appointment of the Committee, which would set free the money, and then I apprehend they might re-appoint the Committee upon terms which would prevent the 1525 money being in that way held in suspense. This proposal of the noble Lord would—and I understand that to be the object of it—do away with the necessity of rescinding the appointment of the Committee, because it would enable them to expedite the appointment, and to say, "We do not want in these particular cases that the fund shall be tied up." It would give the necessary power to the Council, though it might be worked out in another way.

THE EARL OF MORLEY
But is it not rather absurd to refer the question of appropriating the whole or any part of the money to a Committee, and yet not to take care to tie the money up while the Committee is deliberating?

§ LORD HENNIKER
As I said before, I can only say that I think the words are surplusage, but, if your Lordships wish, I do not object to their being put in. The other point would be this: that if you rescind the appointment of the Committee by the Council which has had these funds left in their hands, the money which is given to them would fall into the general fund.

§ LORD HERSCHELL
I am not quite sure that I have not made a mistake, if the House will indulge me for a moment. I am not quite sure that if they did rescind the appointment of the Committee, they could re-appoint the Committee without hanging up the funds. Therefore, I think that the words are necessary, if you want to enable the Council to appoint a Committee to consider the appropriation without unnecessarily hanging up the funds.

§ *LORD BASING
I apprehend this provision may be necessary as far as London is concerned, which, of course, is a peculiar case, involving special circumstances, though, as far as the rest of the country is concerned, it might be rather inconvenient. But what I apprehend is this: supposing the Committee to have made its Report, the whole thing will be done; whereas, as I understand, the question referred to the Committee regarding technical education will be the subject of a series of Reports, and until they have furnished such Reports, and the County Council has determined the matter, it is not intended that the money should be merged; but I apprehend the object is to make the Council responsible for merging the 1526 money whenever they think the time has arrived for so doing.

§ *LORD LINGEN
I hope your Lordships will excuse me, at this late stage of the proceedings upon this Bill, for saying a few words more in regard to a clause of it which I cannot help thinking is of great importance. On the Second Reading it so happened that no opportunity was taken of discussing this Bill on its general merits as a public measure, and this is, indeed, the only occasion upon which I shall be able to make some few statements that seem to me to be deserving of your Lordships' attention. I have had, I may say, considerable experience in dealing with matters of this kind, and therefore I hope your Lordships will bear with me upon this occasion. In reference to the 2nd sub-section of Section 1, I scarcely think that urgency can be pleaded. That sub-section raises questions of very great general importance, which require, I think, for their full elucidation more time than we have had at present afforded us for the consideration of the subject. The Amendment which has been made to that clause provides that the words which occur in the Technical Education Act, 1889, shall be modified in their application under the provisions of the present Bill. The words in the Act of 1889 are to the effect that the Councils shall be bound in distributing the amount of provision to be made, to do so exclusively in proportion to the nature and amount of efficient technical or manual instruction supplied by the schools or institutions. The Amendment that is proposed to that clause, in the present Bill, is that they shall not be so bound; and how very effective an Amendment the insertion of that monosyllable will constitute, your Lordships will readily be convinced. I would point out to the House that, in the first place, the Act of 1889 is a rating Act. Under that Act the ratepayers, if they determined to promote technical education, must rate themselves. If, therefore, any precau- 1527 tion under that Act was needed to be taken, surely some precaution is not less needed under an Act which is not one of rating, but of making public grants. Now, I have been familiar with the system of making public grants for considerably more than 40 years; and I can state to your Lordships from my own knowledge that the principle adopted by successive Governments in making such grants as these has been that a certain modicum of efficiency should be secured before grants are made at all. Such grants have been emphatically grants made for improvement. I do not think that, under this Bill, which so far conforms to the policy of past times, that it is a Bill of grants and not a Bill of rates, the conditions should be made more easy than the Rating Act of 1889. That, I think, is a point to which attention should have been directed; and though I am aware that my observations can bear no practical fruit at this time, yet I have thought it desirable to make them to your Lordships.